LCPS Gets the NYT Treatment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Facts:

1) They had a relationship and a history of consensual sex. This is why administrators and law enforcement were initially skeptical of the claim.

And this was a false view. People whose jobs include investigating sexual assault should know it can definitely occur in the context of a relationship.

especially teens! this view makes me sick, particularly if espoused by people who were advocating Me Too/Believe Women last week.

the most abusive boyfriend I ever had was at 14 - he got me suspended from school, physically held me down and spit on me, then dumped me for another girl (who he abused even worse) and then went on to murder a kid in HS. and I was a “good” kid, smart and very independent. could easily have been me raped in that bathroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The absolutely most disturbing part of the entire thing was the the boy was enrolled at another school and allowed to roam freely. I’m not sure what the principal of school 2 was told, so maybe it’s not his fault, but someone knew, and sent him to the other school anyway. That’s horrifying.

+1 It’s not at all rare for school districts to move problem students (see also: Virginia Beach). The admins at School 2 definitely knew this kid’s history.

As people have said many, many times: title IX changes under DeVos mean that a student who is *accused* of and charged with sexual assault but not yet convicted has the right to attend school. LCPS had their hands tied by Title IX and it created a scenario where another student was groped. But it was Title IX that allowed him to stay in school as a matter of rights while an investigation was ongoing.

No, Title IX absolutely does not mean that you can’t take any interim measures to supervise a student accused of assault. They have the right to attend school - just like all kids; even convicted murders - but they can still be subject to discipline.

[Anonymous]

Back in the good old days (that is to say, the 80’s), the worst thing that ever happened in our high school restrooms was someone took a crap right in the middle of the floor. I’m pretty sure they formed a committee to investigate and everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

I did. The sections where Scott Smith and the Ian Prior types knew the perp wasn’t transgender or even gender fluid but persisted in promoting that lie were illuminating.

As was the irony that Smith’s behavior at the school actually impeded the investigation into his daughter’s assault. That is a salient detail.

The article basically says that it is important that this girl was raped by a remote-diagnosed pansexual person and not by a remote-diagnosed "gender fluid" or transsexual person, and that makes Ziegler's and the democratic administration's conduct in this case somehow ok. This reminds me a bit of the 1990's when Clinton liberals explained to us that receiving oral sex doesn't count as adultery, and therefore Clinton didn't lie, and we just don't get the "salient" difference.

You’re right — you don’t get anything that doesn’t fit into your twisted, narrow agenda.

Facts:

1) They had a relationship and a history of consensual sex. This is why administrators and law enforcement were initially skeptical of the claim.
2) The claim couldn’t be fully investigated by law enforcement because Smith showed up at the school and made a scene. He literally impeded the investigation of his daughter’s assault.
3) Ian Prior is a vile and disgusting opportunist who will burn in Hell, hopefully sooner rather than later. May he have a heart attack or something.

So, a woman can’t be raped if she has previously had consensual sex with the perpetrator? And a woman can’t be in a relationship with a trans woman?

I already said of course she can. I can tell you are a little dim, so maybe you should sit the rest of this one out — adults are discussing this. It’s obvious the article and its contents are either above your comprehension or you are agitated that it doesn’t validate your fantasy about what you think happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

I did. The sections where Scott Smith and the Ian Prior types knew the perp wasn’t transgender or even gender fluid but persisted in promoting that lie were illuminating.

As was the irony that Smith’s behavior at the school actually impeded the investigation into his daughter’s assault. That is a salient detail.

The article basically says that it is important that this girl was raped by a remote-diagnosed pansexual person and not by a remote-diagnosed "gender fluid" or transsexual person, and that makes Ziegler's and the democratic administration's conduct in this case somehow ok. This reminds me a bit of the 1990's when Clinton liberals explained to us that receiving oral sex doesn't count as adultery, and therefore Clinton didn't lie, and we just don't get the "salient" difference.

You’re right — you don’t get anything that doesn’t fit into your twisted, narrow agenda.

Facts:

1) They had a relationship and a history of consensual sex. This is why administrators and law enforcement were initially skeptical of the claim.
2) The claim couldn’t be fully investigated by law enforcement because Smith showed up at the school and made a scene. He literally impeded the investigation of his daughter’s assault.
3) Ian Prior is a vile and disgusting opportunist who will burn in Hell, hopefully sooner rather than later. May he have a heart attack or something.

If you get that agitated every time, you'll get that heart attack before him.

When you consider that Scott Ziegler is now, according to the NYT, appearing in public with hoop earrings and fingernails painted black, it stands to reason that absent Prior’s activism Ziegler might still be superintendent today and trying to encourage every future Lia Thomas in LCPS to use the bathrooms “of their choice” and try out for girls sports teams. Not sure that’s what Loudoun parents really want.

I don’t follow. So he dresses a little punk now. What do his fashion choices have to do with his role in carrying out state law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

I did. The sections where Scott Smith and the Ian Prior types knew the perp wasn’t transgender or even gender fluid but persisted in promoting that lie were illuminating.

As was the irony that Smith’s behavior at the school actually impeded the investigation into his daughter’s assault. That is a salient detail.

The article basically says that it is important that this girl was raped by a remote-diagnosed pansexual person and not by a remote-diagnosed "gender fluid" or transsexual person, and that makes Ziegler's and the democratic administration's conduct in this case somehow ok. This reminds me a bit of the 1990's when Clinton liberals explained to us that receiving oral sex doesn't count as adultery, and therefore Clinton didn't lie, and we just don't get the "salient" difference.

But it does matter. A lot. The rapist wasn’t in the bathroom because he was trans, he was in there because he was hooking up with a girl. He then took it too far and raped her.

The Times gets the story right. The conservative movement was stymied because they couldn’t actually point to trans access to bathrooms as a problem because there were no good assault cases to use in the arguments. They jumped on this one immediately because the story about the skirt got out. By the time the truth came out (not trans, students in a prior relationship) it was too late.

I thought the implication was also that LCPS covered up the crime initially because they thought the boy was trans and wanted to avoid criticism for the bathroom policy? Also how is the prior relationship relevant?? The boy was convicted of rape.

I feel like the NYTimes story missed the mark - the question is how did the boy not get intervention earlier and why was he allowed to attend a mainstreamed program after the first rape?

Because the incompetent sheriff’s office initially said there was no assault and didn’t file any charges.

And Mike Chapman wants to be re-elected. What a joke.

The right-wing morons running the Loudoun county sheriff’s office are the missed story in all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

I did. The sections where Scott Smith and the Ian Prior types knew the perp wasn’t transgender or even gender fluid but persisted in promoting that lie were illuminating.

As was the irony that Smith’s behavior at the school actually impeded the investigation into his daughter’s assault. That is a salient detail.

The article basically says that it is important that this girl was raped by a remote-diagnosed pansexual person and not by a remote-diagnosed "gender fluid" or transsexual person, and that makes Ziegler's and the democratic administration's conduct in this case somehow ok. This reminds me a bit of the 1990's when Clinton liberals explained to us that receiving oral sex doesn't count as adultery, and therefore Clinton didn't lie, and we just don't get the "salient" difference.

But it does matter. A lot. The rapist wasn’t in the bathroom because he was trans, he was in there because he was hooking up with a girl. He then took it too far and raped her.

The Times gets the story right. The conservative movement was stymied because they couldn’t actually point to trans access to bathrooms as a problem because there were no good assault cases to use in the arguments. They jumped on this one immediately because the story about the skirt got out. By the time the truth came out (not trans, students in a prior relationship) it was too late.

I thought the implication was also that LCPS covered up the crime initially because they thought the boy was trans and wanted to avoid criticism for the bathroom policy? Also how is the prior relationship relevant?? The boy was convicted of rape.

I feel like the NYTimes story missed the mark - the question is how did the boy not get intervention earlier and why was he allowed to attend a mainstreamed program after the first rape?

Because the incompetent sheriff’s office initially said there was no assault and didn’t file any charges.

And Mike Chapman wants to be re-elected. What a joke.

The right-wing morons running the Loudoun county sheriff’s office are the missed story in all of this.

This missed story is the fact that all public school students are now entitled to an equal education. It didn't used to be that way when I graduated in 2001 in Loudoun. We had an alternative high school. The problem kids got sent there. They didn't get unenrolled from one high school and sent to another to continue their terror in a new place. They got sent to the Douglas School which had strict rules, strict educators and admins, and several officers on campus to assist. The kids who weren't "bad" but had behavior issues were not mainstreamed like they are today. Small classrooms and self-contained rooms were used. AFAIK, that's no longer the case.

Not every kid is entitled to an equal education. You SA another student in the bathroom and you should be expelled from public school. The burden of schooling should fall on the parents. If your kid terrorizes their classroom multiple times a week with their meltdowns, the kid should be expelled. All this equality educational nonsense is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The absolutely most disturbing part of the entire thing was the the boy was enrolled at another school and allowed to roam freely. I’m not sure what the principal of school 2 was told, so maybe it’s not his fault, but someone knew, and sent him to the other school anyway. That’s horrifying.

+1 It’s not at all rare for school districts to move problem students (see also: Virginia Beach). The admins at School 2 definitely knew this kid’s history.

As people have said many, many times: title IX changes under DeVos mean that a student who is *accused* of and charged with sexual assault but not yet convicted has the right to attend school. LCPS had their hands tied by Title IX and it created a scenario where another student was groped. But it was Title IX that allowed him to stay in school as a matter of rights while an investigation was ongoing.

No, Title IX absolutely does not mean that you can’t take any interim measures to supervise a student accused of assault. They have the right to attend school - just like all kids; even convicted murders - but they can still be subject to discipline.

Schools do not have the staff to 1:1 monitor every student accused of doing something illegal. I understand you wish it were so, but it is not. He had not, under the law or Title IX, been found guilty of sexual assault at that time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can the school systems assign staff to periodically monitor all restrooms during class periods, like the “lunch ladies” police the cafeteria for bad behavior?

Or if that won’t work, close the restrooms and set up pot-a-potties outside until the students learn to behave themselves in the restrooms!

We have staff that sit outside of restrooms and have to waste their planning period monitoring students going into the bathroom, checking ehallpass, yelling for them to come out when it’s been a long time, etc. The kids fight us so much because it’ll have been 20 minutes and we’ll knock and say they need to come out but because they’re hiding in there doing whatever they will literally yell back “I’m taking a sh*t!” because they think that’s like a foolproof excuse.

It’s miserable. I don’t think most people have a single clue how absolutely chaotic and terrible most school environments are now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ian Prior does great work to expose the rot in Virginia. So grateful for him.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

I did. The sections where Scott Smith and the Ian Prior types knew the perp wasn’t transgender or even gender fluid but persisted in promoting that lie were illuminating.

As was the irony that Smith’s behavior at the school actually impeded the investigation into his daughter’s assault. That is a salient detail.

The article basically says that it is important that this girl was raped by a remote-diagnosed pansexual person and not by a remote-diagnosed "gender fluid" or transsexual person, and that makes Ziegler's and the democratic administration's conduct in this case somehow ok. This reminds me a bit of the 1990's when Clinton liberals explained to us that receiving oral sex doesn't count as adultery, and therefore Clinton didn't lie, and we just don't get the "salient" difference.

You’re right — you don’t get anything that doesn’t fit into your twisted, narrow agenda.

Facts:

1) They had a relationship and a history of consensual sex. This is why administrators and law enforcement were initially skeptical of the claim.
2) The claim couldn’t be fully investigated by law enforcement because Smith showed up at the school and made a scene. He literally impeded the investigation of his daughter’s assault.
3) Ian Prior is a vile and disgusting opportunist who will burn in Hell, hopefully sooner rather than later. May he have a heart attack or something.

So, a woman can’t be raped if she has previously had consensual sex with the perpetrator? And a woman can’t be in a relationship with a trans woman?

Your reading comprehension is laughably poor. Try again. DP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The absolutely most disturbing part of the entire thing was the the boy was enrolled at another school and allowed to roam freely. I’m not sure what the principal of school 2 was told, so maybe it’s not his fault, but someone knew, and sent him to the other school anyway. That’s horrifying.

+1 It’s not at all rare for school districts to move problem students (see also: Virginia Beach). The admins at School 2 definitely knew this kid’s history.

As people have said many, many times: title IX changes under DeVos mean that a student who is *accused* of and charged with sexual assault but not yet convicted has the right to attend school. LCPS had their hands tied by Title IX and it created a scenario where another student was groped. But it was Title IX that allowed him to stay in school as a matter of rights while an investigation was ongoing.

No, Title IX absolutely does not mean that you can’t take any interim measures to supervise a student accused of assault. They have the right to attend school - just like all kids; even convicted murders - but they can still be subject to discipline.

Schools do not have the staff to 1:1 monitor every student accused of doing something illegal. I understand you wish it were so, but it is not. He had not, under the law or Title IX, been found guilty of sexual assault at that time.

One observation from the special grand jury report. It was the court that ordered the alleged perpetrator moved from SBHS to BRHS *after* the perpetrator had been arrested and charged with the first assault. Presumably, if the court (a real court, not a Title IX kangaroo court, btw) had wanted a different treatment and had wanted this person to not be in school, they would have said so?

Also, can we take predictions as to what will happen when this person is released in a couple years?. They're not required to register as a sex offender. When he/she/they reoffend in 2025, we'll discuss the judge's decision then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The absolutely most disturbing part of the entire thing was the the boy was enrolled at another school and allowed to roam freely. I’m not sure what the principal of school 2 was told, so maybe it’s not his fault, but someone knew, and sent him to the other school anyway. That’s horrifying.

+1 It’s not at all rare for school districts to move problem students (see also: Virginia Beach). The admins at School 2 definitely knew this kid’s history.

As people have said many, many times: title IX changes under DeVos mean that a student who is *accused* of and charged with sexual assault but not yet convicted has the right to attend school. LCPS had their hands tied by Title IX and it created a scenario where another student was groped. But it was Title IX that allowed him to stay in school as a matter of rights while an investigation was ongoing.

No, Title IX absolutely does not mean that you can’t take any interim measures to supervise a student accused of assault. They have the right to attend school - just like all kids; even convicted murders - but they can still be subject to discipline.

Schools do not have the staff to 1:1 monitor every student accused of doing something illegal. I understand you wish it were so, but it is not. He had not, under the law or Title IX, been found guilty of sexual assault at that time.

One observation from the special grand jury report. It was the court that ordered the alleged perpetrator moved from SBHS to BRHS *after* the perpetrator had been arrested and charged with the first assault. Presumably, if the court (a real court, not a Title IX kangaroo court, btw) had wanted a different treatment and had wanted this person to not be in school, they would have said so?

Also, can we take predictions as to what will happen when this person is released in a couple years?. They're not required to register as a sex offender. When he/she/they reoffend in 2025, we'll discuss the judge's decision then.

And I believe a court ordered that for this student because *based on the details of the first assault*, he had an relationship with the victim and the encounter had, even by her admission, begun as consensual. Of course you can experience rape if you withdraw consent and the partner doesn’t stop, but UNTIL an investigation had completed, it was murky what had actually happened.

Dishonest players love to pretend that when people say this we are excusing him or minimizing the victim’s assault. That’s not the case. But it is true these details DID cloud the picture of the assault to the degree I can see why a court went with this decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The absolutely most disturbing part of the entire thing was the the boy was enrolled at another school and allowed to roam freely. I’m not sure what the principal of school 2 was told, so maybe it’s not his fault, but someone knew, and sent him to the other school anyway. That’s horrifying.

+1 It’s not at all rare for school districts to move problem students (see also: Virginia Beach). The admins at School 2 definitely knew this kid’s history.

As people have said many, many times: title IX changes under DeVos mean that a student who is *accused* of and charged with sexual assault but not yet convicted has the right to attend school. LCPS had their hands tied by Title IX and it created a scenario where another student was groped. But it was Title IX that allowed him to stay in school as a matter of rights while an investigation was ongoing.

Doesn’t mean he has to be allowed in the halls unsupervised. We have students at our school that require a bathroom escort simply because they routinely skip class and roam the halls. No other reason. One of the counselors or grade level admins has to escort them anywhere during class time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ian Prior does great work to expose the rot in Virginia. So grateful for him.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. No.

He's a personal hero.