Here we go again. From the article:
Prosecutor Graeme Simpson said: ‘There is evidence that there was an occasion when all three were in bed together, but no evidence of any sexual activity on that occasion.’
Graeme Simpson is the prosecutor? What, precisely, would constitute ‘evidence’ of sexual activity between a woman and two teenage girls? A video recording? Does Mr Simpson imagine a 31-year-old teacher – who the taxpayer is paying him to prosecute – was in bed with 13-year-old and 16-year-old female pupils to give them feedback on their homework? Give me strength.
At least two other male geniuses were in the courtroom. The first:
Adjourning the case for a pre-sentence report to be prepared, Judge Andrew Lockhart QC said: ‘The court is dealing here with a teacher who has abused the position of trust she was given by the education authority by reason of the position she took between 2008 and 2011.
‘It involves a gross breach of trust. These are often matters of complex relationships which develop over a period of time and become confused. But it is a very serious matter, as she has no doubt been told.’
‘… complex relationships … become confused’. Yes, the judge would employ that argument in the case of a 31-year-old male teacher found in bed with 13-year-old and 16-year-old boys (or girls). Or perhaps not.
‘But it is a very serious matter, as she has no doubt been told’.
You couldn’t make it up, could you?
The second genius:
Lee Marklew, defending, said Brown was of ‘hitherto good character.’
Well, that’s all right, then.
A more accurate headline would have been, ‘Female PE teacher, 31, is facing jail after admitting sex acts with two female pupils (13, 16), but won’t be jailed, because vagina.’