Affair With Student Lands Him In The Clink

Gay Sex Teacher Sentenced

lebrocq.jpg
Children’s advocates are fuming over in Britain, where 30-year old drama teacher David Le Brocq’s been sentenced to one year for an affair with a student.

Karl Donaldson was only 15 when the six-month affair started. The men did not, however, have anal sex until Donaldson reached the age of consent. The Times elaborates:

After drinking one evening Le Brocq phoned the boy and declared his love for him. From February 2004 the two began meeting regularly at weekends and during school holidays at the teacher’s flat in Christchurch, Dorset, where they had sexual relations. Full sex took place only after the boy turned 16.

The relationship ended in August 2004 when the teacher told Mr Donaldson that he was going to have a child with a colleague at the school.

Donaldson’s mother also knew – and approved of – the relationship. Perhaps Mrs. Donaldson’s approval swayed the judge to hand down what’s been called a “lenient” decision.

Child rights advocate Michele Elliot blasted the sentencing, saying,

It does not matter if it was consensual: the point is that when you are a teacher you are in a position of authority over a pupil and you do not have sexual relationships with them. Given that he could be out in six months it seems to me that he has got off very lightly.

Le Brocq’s lawyers insisted the teacher and his pupil had a “mutual affection” and that Le Brocq practiced “restraint” by holding off on sex until Donaldson turned 16.

Handing down his verdict, Judge Anthony King said Le Brocq,

It is perfectly apparent that the boy was already a person who was attracted to you. Indeed, much that occurred was at his instigation. Sadly, though, this case is a classic example of a substantial and serious breach of trust.

Certainly a head scratcher. Age of consent laws are based in a Victorian-era fear of sex. That fear’s amplified when it’s gay sex. In this over-sexed day and age, it’s hard to say when an individual’s ready for sex. Donaldson definitely knew what he was doing and, it seems, Le Brocq knew he could bed the boy. If they did, in fact, care for one another, does the state have a right to interfere? Did Le Brocq manipulate Donaldson for cheap thrills? Did the judge go easy on Le Brocq? And, most importantly, what does Le Brocq’s baby mama have to say about all this??