15 year old girl elopes with her teacher

[Jobbo]

Himself said:

But they haven't removed her name from previous reports. How strange.

They were published before the court order preventing her being named.

[Himself]

Jobbo said:

They were published before the court order preventing her being named.

On I realise that, but it would make sense for the media to be required to remove her name from all articles, it's a bit pointless having a court order that doesn't really protect her.

[JonnyFive]

Jobbo said:

stuttgartmetal said:

djstevec said:

Not sure if this has been commented on elsewhere, but seems a strange development in the story (if its true of course!) that both parents tried to overdose.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245336/Pa...

page pulled
? hoaxed

The story is quite hard to find since they're not allowed to publish the girl's name. But it's not just in one place and it hasn't been pulled from the Sun: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article4...

I heard it on the news yesterday, or the day before yesterday also.

[CAPP0]

It was reported on BBC SE News this evening, and they described the pair as the mother and stepfather.

What on earth they were thinking I have no idea. Could they have been complicit from the off? Surely they should be trying to support the daughter now, rather than "attempting" to leave her orphaned?

[thehawk]

Well it says attempted suicide, but could they just be a couple of junkies?

[WCZ]

this story has faded away big time but Jeremy is due in court this Friday

[stuttgartmetal]

The girl fell in love with a teacher.
He wanted to take her away from her chav family, and that life.
It'll all out in the end.

[limpsfield]

Good job you're here to keep the creepy undertone going.

[Somewhatfoolish]

I had a hamster called Jeremy. He died when I was at boarding school and I found out when my dad told me. I would have cried but my dad had a sexy french au pair with him and I wanted to appear cool.

[CooperD]

Looks like the trial has started.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-228617...

[Rollcage]

The reporting restrictions are faintly ridiculous, given the initial publicity surrounding the whole thing.

[airbrakes]

Rollcage said:

The reporting restrictions are faintly ridiculous, given the initial publicity surrounding the whole thing.

It does well and truly seem to be a case of stable doors and long-departed horses. Her name was all over the country at the time, yet if I was to post it now i'd be arrested and banged up.

Truly bonkers

[Jobbo]

While I understand the importance of protecting a minor, it seems half-hearted to be able to click the first link on page 1 of this thread (to The Telegraph) and still be able to see her name and a photo.

I should add that this is not a criticism of PH.

[Durzel]

She seems to be fighting his corner in court, saying that she thought the Police were manipulating her into saying things and that she was going to go to France anyway whether he went or not (i.e. running away from home) and that he had asked her to consider going home.

Wonder if any of this will actually have any weight at all to the substantive abduction charge? She's been apart from him long enough that you'd think the afterglow would've worn off, so if she's saying this stuff now then perhaps it'll carry more weight?

[onomatopoeia]

Durzel said:

She seems to be fighting his corner in court, saying that she thought the Police were manipulating her into saying things and that she was going to go to France anyway whether he went or not (i.e. running away from home) and that he had asked her to consider going home.

Her testimony was always going to be the interesting (as in "relevant to forming an opinion on the case") part of the trial, because we haven't heard her point of view until now. From the (apparently verbatim) reporting that seems to be "I was not abducted" and so we have the curious situation where the victim seems to be giving evidence for the defence.

So, what is needed to complete the offence of child abduction? Is it possible to "abduct" someone that is already going to the place they were "abducted" to, whether you go with them or not?

BBC link for people that want to read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-229397...

For those that prefer slightly more hysterical reporting, The Daily Soovy also has coverage with much the same quotes from her evidence.

[anonymous-user]

The statutory offence under section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 is as follows:-

Parliament said:

Offence of abduction of child by other persons.

(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person, other than one mentioned in subsection (2) below commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he takes or detains a child under the age of sixteen—

(a) so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child; or

(b) so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child.

The consent of the child is no defence. A child cannot lawfully consent to be abducted and cannot consent to sex with an adult. I can't see how this guy is going to succeed on a defence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse, but we shall see.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 17th June 19:39

[Durzel]

I guess the argument would be that she was going anyway, and he accompanied her for her safety. He enabled her travel to France though, whereas I would presume she wouldn't get past customs alone?

An interesting case for sure.

[anonymous-user]

The problem with that is that it would be a load of dishonest cobblers that even the most bereft of juries would be hard pressed to believe, as it is manifest from the girl's evidence that they ran away to have lots of sex, and the bloke knew that what he was doing was wrong.

The case is not remotely interesting, as far as I can see. It's a tawdry tale of a stupid and selfish man who allowed his lust for a teenager to get the better of sense and decency, grotesquely abusing a position of trust; and of a silly girl infatuated with a teacher. The bottom line is that this guy exploited an immature person for his sexual amusement. He deserves a moderate stay in the nonce wing. She should wake up and smell the coffee. I say this on the basis of the evidence presented thus far. I am all in favour of trial before verdict, but on this one it is all looking a bit one way. Maybe he will be acquitted, but I wouldn't bet more than half a new Drachma on that outcome.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 17th June 19:46

[VinceFox]

Ok, here's a question. Given what we've read today, what should he face?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Breadvan72 said:

It's a tawdry tale of a stupid and selfish man who allowed his lust for a teenager to get the better of sense and decency, grotesquely abusing a position of trust; and of a silly girl infatuated with a teacher. The bottom line is that this guy exploited an immature person for his sexual amusement. He deserves a moderate stay in the nonce wing.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Monday 17th June 19:46

I think that paragraph sums up the whole case far better than just about any newspaper report or news item since this story broke.