Friday, September 28, 2012

Enfant? Terrible!

We have nothing to say about today's news that a teacher and one of his pupils who allegedly ran away to France together have been apprehended. The law will take its course as far as the man is concerned, and the girl will presumably be returned to her family as she has committed no offence.

Just one thing though:- if this teenager had appeared in our court this week as a victim or as a witness the chairman would have made an order under the Children and Young Persons' Act prohibiting publication of anything that might serve to identify her. Instead, her photographs are everywhere across the press and the internet. However matters turn out, this young woman, whom the law sees as a victim, will need to rebuild her life away from the glare of the media. We wish her well.

Later...........

It may not have been entirely by chance that one of us heard this haunting Beatles track on the car radio this morning:-

Wednesday morning at five o'clock
As the day begins
Silently closing her bedroom door
Leaving the note that she hoped would say more

She goes downstairs to the kitchen
Clutching her handkerchief
Quietly turning the backdoor key
Stepping outside, she is free

She...(we gave her most of our lives)
Is leaving (sacrified most of our lives)
Home (we gave her everything money could buy)
She's leaving home, after living alone, for so many years (bye bye)

Father snores as his wife gets into her dressing gown
Picks up the letter that's lying there
Standing alone at the top of the stairs
She breaks down and cries to her husband
"Daddy, our baby's gone.
"Why would she treat us so thoughtlessly?
How could she do this to me?"

She...(we never thought of ourselves)
Is leaving (never a thought for ourselves)
Home (we struggled hard all our lives to get by)
She's leaving home, after living alone, for so many years

Friday morning, at nine o'clock
She is far away
Waiting to keep the appointment she made
Meeting a man from the Motortrade

She (what did we do that was wrong)
Is Having (we didn't know it was wrong)
Fun (fun is the one thing that money can't buy)

Something inside, that was always denied, for so many years...
She's leaving home...bye, bye.

(Copyright acknowledged)

53 comments:

  1. It is a pathetic and morally difficult set of circumstances.
    Put to one side the chance of a relationship succeeding long-term where 15 years difference between the couple exists (especially when one is a teenager) and you still have the issue of one day either side of the age of sixteen making all the legal difference.
    What on earth was he thinking – a job, house and new life are magically going to appear in France?
    How can she be expected to think in an any less irrational manner? She is but a babe in reality regardless of how nice she is – she is fifteen, and even if she was sixteen and the events were legal she would be no more equipped to rationalise the situation.
    What will his brief spell in prison achieve? What will she learn from this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My relationship has a 15-year age difference, and it has lasted for 33 years and still going strong, thankyouverymuch. Admittedly I was 21, not 15 or 16, when it began.

      Delete
    2. I assume your partner at the outset was therefore 36, not 6 years old??

      Delete
  2. ...and I believe that from Monday any teacher accused of an offence by a pupil will also retain anonymity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have a look at my blog - this point is covered

      Delete
    2. Have a look at my blog - this point is covered

      Delete
  3. Ironically, as soon as the teacher appears in a British court to enter a plea, the girl's identity will be protected by order of the court and the media will not be able to refer to her by name.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Affairs between teenagers at school and teachers are something that seems to have gone on for a long, long time. A girl in my class at school (back in the sixties) ended up marrying our chemistry teacher (she was 16 at the time, he was in his mid to late 20's).

    I believe that the age of consent in France is 15 (in some EU states it's as low as 14, I believe) so the offences that the teacher is charged with may be interesting.

    From what has been reported there seems to have been no coercion on the part of the teacher, the girl seems to have been a willing participant. Although the girl is just 15, does that mean she bears no responsibility at all for her part in this? In many countries around the world (including some in Europe) she would be deemed to be responsible enough to decide for herself what to do, rather than be treated as a victim of a crime.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is one of those areas where the law is clear. Whether it is sensible or not is a different matter. She was under 16 - as kids say "end of". The law determines that under 16 she does not have the capacity to be a willing participant. One of the guideline factors though will be the relative age difference (high in this case) and the extent to which there may be an abuse of a position of trust or power - and it doesn't look good from my comfortable armchair. Deliberately fleeing the UK when he/they knew he was under investigation may cause an occasional alarm bell. As to the teachers' professional body, I can only surmise what they will make of this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The English are so immature .... Spanish age of consent is 13. The law is there to protect not girls or boys, that was invented by the nanny state.

    Gretna Green! The Scottish scourge of England.... to protect property .... Scoundrels took young girls who stood to inherit and married them.

    At Common law, the adoption of the Canon law was probably automatic? 12 for a girl and 14 for a boy. With girls of 10 and younger becoming pregnant, it might be wise to consider adjusting our legal realities? Or should we just sit back, roil our Cognac and say that the law must take its course? The law is there to protect the young?

    But we do need panem et circenses! Wonder if whoever slipped them the word had that in mind? Extend the silly season by a week?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Running off with her maths teacher? It just doesn't add up. . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And now they face a long division

      Delete
    2. I'm sure there are many factors to this case. and it hasn't surprised me that the press are appealing to the lowest common denominator.

      Delete
  8. It's a shame he couldn't differentiate right from wrong...

    ReplyDelete
  9. If I were this girl's parents and happened to be reading this post, I would be deeply offended. The Beatles' song - if you pause to read it 'with comprehension', Team BS - tells the story of a girl leaving home as a result of emotional neglect/abuse by the parents, not a hormone-flushed, besotted teenager rushing off with her knight in shining armour who makes her feel incredibly grown-up. Not even all the muck-raking in which the Mail is presently glorying in this case has raised even one iota of evidence to justify the slur on the parents implicit in your schmaltzy quote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure that many would make the connection between the meaning behind the lyrics of "She's leaving home" and the possibly different cause between this incident and the song. I hadn't, and I've probably played that Beatles song a hundred or more times over the years.

      We probably won't ever know for sure why this girl ran away with her lover, no matter what gets reported. That's quite right and proper, in my view, as it should remain something private.

      Notwithstanding the letter of the laws that might have been breached by the teacher in this case, like Doug's Dad in the first comment, I can't see that there is merit in this going to court. The law tends to be a blunt and imprecise instrument when dealing with sensitive relationship matters like this, and coupled with the inevitable added attention from the press and media it seems probable that the legal case could cause more emotional damage to the "victim" than the "crime" has.

      Delete
    2. In the case of a teacher and pupil at the same school, the child has to be 18. Quite rightly so in my opinion.

      Delete
  10. Thank you, payasoru. You have voiced perfectly my own immediate reaction to this most inappropriate addition to an otherwise sensible comment, but I struggled to find the words to express my indignation, and then decided to drop it. But you not only had the courage to stand up and be counted, but managed to give voice to your feelings, and I can but congratulate you. I hope Team BS will acknowledge that they got this wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's a haunting ballad, not a documentary!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know it's not a documentary. My point is that it IS a sloppy,, sentimental and wholly (apart from the words "She's leaving home") irrelevant adjunct to a perfectly sensible and acceptable comment on the case in the opening paragraphs. When actually read, it places the blame for the girl's departure fairly and squarely at the door of the parents.
      I repeat, were I one of the parents and read this in this context, I would be deeply hurt and offended. I might even seek legal advice as to whether it amounted (as a whole) to an actionable defamation. I hope the piece was contributed by a non-holder of judicial office on the team. As a piece of judicial thinking and pronouncement, it stinks.

      Delete
    2. Don't worry. It was contributed by someone unfit to hold judicial office.

      Delete
  12. It is indeed a haunting ballad, about a home where a girl had "lived alone", bereft of fun and indeed feelings of any sort ("something inside, that was always denied"), with parents who had no thought for anyone but themselves, even on discovering that she had gone. It pains me to think that this is what someone on Team BS associates with this other child's very different betrayal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's all part of Bystander's (sorry, the "team"'s) puckish controversiality.

      Delete
  13. I know a couple who met when she was 17 and he was 40. They married about a dozen years ago and seem very happy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What must the teachers wife be thinking...she seems the forgotten 'victim' in all this

    ReplyDelete
  15. The ballad is apropos, as it explains that the parents were surprized by the act of her leaving in the care of another ....

    There was emotional loss. Incomprehension. That was what I found in those words. If there were other words, then they were not quoted; for a reason, perhaps? "(we didn't know it was wrong)" and they treated her like a baby. These do not show what payasoru said. This indicts Man on the Village Green also?

    payasoru does not reproduce his evidence. In a blog like this, it might be expected, whenever an accusation be made?

    ReplyDelete
  16. It was never going to work from the word go. His accounts would have been frozen and his name plastered all over Europe, hence his use of a false ID but you can't live (food, shelter, transport etc.) anywhere in the world without money. Working in bars for cash in hand was hardly a well thought out plan.

    If you think about 'disappearing' unless you already have a very good second identity with the necessary documentation must be very hard to do and that's on your own. Now imagine it with a fifteen year old girl in tow. Even if he spoke fluent French, what was she going to do all day?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bystander, please do not publish the lyrics to "Octopus's Garden" here as it may upset my octopus, and he (she?) won't ever change color again. Plus she (he?) may seek advice as to potential legal action. And, I should point out, his (her?) lawyer is a real shark.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Similarly, I would request you avoid all reference to Maxwell's Silver Hammer for the simple reason that I - ***@:doink!@@***

    ReplyDelete
  19. Old Geezer and Anonymous at 16.13 (please, please let's at least have some distinguishing pen-names, even if they're neither imaginative nor amusing) both do a good job of trying to take the sting out of this sad coda to what started off as a good piece of Bystander prose. Team BS and others are of course perfectly free to disagree with the perceptions expressed by payasoru and me, but it is disappointing that an intrinsically valid and reasonably evidenced counter-view should be treated with open contempt by some.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm a little concerned that only 'anon' briefly has chosen to discuss my first posting on the subject - what use will his term of imprisonment serve, the moral dillema and what will she learn from this and how irationally thinking must they both have been?

    I realise that this is a legal opinion based blog but are you all afraid of voicing moral views as opposed to legal ones?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's not even been charged yet, let alone convicted so it's premature to talk of his imprisonment, or any other possible sentence come to that.

      Delete
    2. Is he not currently imprisoned as we type?
      Do you doubt that he will be charged?
      What do you think the odds are against him being sentenced to a period of imprisonment?

      Delete
    3. I believe he can now only be charged with child abduction, as that is the charge that has been used to extradite him from France. I further believe that he has some form of protection from any other charge, as no other charge seems to have been used as part of the extradition process.

      The charge raises an interesting point, one that people better qualified than I may care to comment on (in general terms, of course). Given that the child in question might be regarded to have a degree of responsibility (and is, I believe, of an age where she might be expected to understand the legal implications of their action) how likely is it that the charge of abduction (which implies that she was taken without her consent) will be proved?

      Delete
  21. I should think that most of us are trying very hard to do anything that could compromise due process or be found in contempt of court. The last thing anyone should want to risk is that justice should not be done. This matter is now sub judice.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Open contempt"? Oh, dear, oh dear. Had I but pearls to clutch at, I would be clutching at them even now.

    To the charge of open contempt I plead not guilty, m'lud.

    You might have me, though, (so says my octopus's barrister) on "playful mockery in the face of a molehill seemingly being fashioned into a hillock." It's a fair cop.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Over-sensitive OG. Whereas I recognised explicitly your artful rejoinder, the comment about contempt was in response only to the urging of D's D that we engage in debate about a term of imprisonment he seems to have already decided on without hearing a shred of evidence. Your playful mockery was and is recognised and indeed - to some real extent - appreciated, 'though I would have hoped that you might suspend your jocularity long enough to recognise payasoru's point of view that the Beatles' song is certainly open to the interpretation he (and I) both place upon it, and acknowledge that in such a case, it could be hurtful to the girl's family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the reference to "open contempt" was specifically made in reference to views expressed by "others" (i.e. neither yourself nor Anonymous). Apologies for any misunderstanding. I truly did (and do) appreciate your neat attempt to draw the sting out of this exchange by a clever reference to another work from the Beatles' canon. It hasn't made me change my own view that the choice of song by Bystander was most inappropriate, but it has helped keep things civilised, and for that I am truly grateful!

      Delete
    2. MotVG, you are a gentleman, sir, and I raise a wee dram in your direction. As well, my octopus would like to shake your hand eight times. Cheers!

      Delete
  24. Well, the teacher will clearly never teach again - there's really not much doubt about what the Teaching Agency (as the GTC is no more) will do. His actions have revealed him to be an idiot of the first water - he clearly had no plan, or consideration of the likely consequences beyond the "let's run away and make love by moonlight" which would be understandable in a teenage boy, but quite absurd in a man twice that age.

    The girl will be fine - although she may need to finish her schooling at a different school under a different name if this episode is not to prove a distraction for her. Her actions, although more publicised than most, aren't really any more foolish than many girls her age.

    As an aside, I might note that I had the opportunity to do something similar in my only slightly less tender years. My teenage hormones were busy screaming "yes, yes, yes", and the only no vote came not from any rational consideration of the future, but from the knowledge that my parents would not approve (and a good thing too - voting with my hormones would have been a disaster.)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Plots similar to this have often occurred in literature and strictly on that understanding she would be recognised as a precocious teenage vamp and he a late developer under the influence of testosterone.

    ReplyDelete
  26. VP959 (was anon above on 30 sept)2 October 2012 at 16:15

    I've just read that under the terms of his extradition from France, to which he's agreed, he can now only be charged with child abduction, and no other offence, unless he agrees to waive the safeguard that provides this protection.

    I find it hard to believe that such a charge would be pursued, although am prepared to be surprised.

    I don't believe that such a broad discussion of possible charges is in any way prejudicial; if it were then the BBC et al would not be reporting it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Can we exercise responsibility from here, please- an arrest in the UK may soon happen, so no more so more speculation please, general principles only.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Surely as her teacher he would have been acting Loco parentis. Loco parentis refers to the authority delegated by parents to 'responsible others'. For example teachers and coaches are responsible for the health, safety and welfare of all children left within their care once their parents are not present. Literally, it means, "in the place of a parent".

    The legal position is clarified by the Children Act 1989, which states that a person who has care of a child may do what is reasonable under all circumstances for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the child's welfare. This does not include having an affair with an underage female and then doing a runner out of the country with her.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dai, I think your comment comes awkwardly close to expressing a specific view on the 'facts' of this particular case as you see them (on as limited a basis as the rest of us). I really do think we have to stand back from making anything more than general comments, such as one the concept of 'in loco parentis', which is an interesting and possibly relevant consideration, but - to make it clear - we just don't know what happened here, and none of those involved have had any opportunity to express their point of view. Self-restraint is required in the interests of justice; speculation is not helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  30. TheUrbaneGorilla5 October 2012 at 19:55

    Running off with a 15 year old to France and running off with a 5 year old in Wales. When do they become a "precocious vamp" jerym? Maybe we should be playing Tom Waits' "Georgia Lee" instead of "She's Leaving Home".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The unspeakable act of snatching off the street a child of five cannot be compared to this.

      Delete
  31. TheUrbaneGorilla5 October 2012 at 20:39


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtUCaUBwqCM

    Sorry - forgot link.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.