Why missing maths teacher would be Mr Anonymous (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
A week later and you wouldn't know name of missing teacher
9:05am Friday 28th September 2012 in Editor Ian Murray's Blog
Why miissing Maths teacher would be Mr Anonymous
The coverage over missing school girl Megan Stammers and her maths teacher Jeremy Forrest – believed to be somewhere in France – is interesting, if only for its timing.
Had the story of the couple who its believed left on a cross-Channel ferry over the weekend and have not been sighted since, broken next week it is debatable that you would know anything about
it.
On October 1 a new law comes into effect that makes it illegal for anyone – not just the media – to report or even discuss any matters pertaining to a teacher that might be seen as referring to a
possible illegal act with a child in their care.
The Act means that it will be unlawful to name or otherwise give details likely to identify a teacher who has been accused of an offence against a child at his or her school if that teacher
has not yet been charged with a criminal offence - even if the accusation is referred to in public.
The restriction relates to any criminal offence involving a child who is a pupil at the teacher’s school.
The anonymity ends only if the teacher is charged with a criminal offence, or a court agrees to an application that it is in the interests of justice that it should be lifted.
Perhaps, just perhaps, a court would have been asked in the case of Megan and Mr Forrest to allow for a general appeal to be made for knowledge of their whereabouts. But in the absence of such a ruling – or Mr Forrest contacting the media to give his permission to be named! – we would all have to remain in the dark.
I was one of those who raised eyebrows when the Act was forced pushed through. For while understanding how teachers suffer through false accusations and how difficult it must be to live under
such a cloud, especially if no charges are ever made and there is no day of acquittal in court, I had to ask why should only members of that profession get such anonymity?
Because it’s true. Teachers alone among all walks of life have been granted this precious gift.
If a police officer is suspended for, say, a probe into whether they acted improperly with a defendant in their custody, then that fact can be reported, whether charges follow or not.
The same applies to the nurse accused of ill-treating a patient, or the council officer suspended pending investigations into missing funds, or the bus driver put on gardening leave while a
passenger’s accusation is looked into by the company.
In short, the only people granted the right to remain out of the public eye during such investigations, are teachers.
Why? Heaven knows.
But if it all goes very quiet next week on the search for Megan, you might understand why.
• What a difference a year makes. In the UK 15-year-old Megan is a minor. In France, where she has skipped off to, 15 is the age of consent. For that reason neither the French police nor the French media seem that keen to track the pair down. Strange folk those Continentals.
Comments(6)
Paramjit Bahia
says...
1:15pm Fri 28 Sep 12
Yes how irresponsible parts of press creat hysteria could be the cause of this odd legislation providing special protection for teachers, but this has also created other problems as well, which Editor Ian Murray has rightly exposed.
Perhaps it yet again proves that Law is ****! It can never be perfect
Muddyme
says...
2:07pm Fri 28 Sep 12
Paramjit Bahia wrote:I don't see it as "special protection" for teachers... I see it as the sort of protection that *everyone* should have, and *that* is my point.
Every coin has two sides.
Yes how irresponsible parts of press creat hysteria could be the cause of this odd legislation providing special protection for teachers, but this has also created other problems as well, which Editor Ian Murray has rightly exposed.
Perhaps it yet again proves that Law is ****! It can never be perfect
My issue with the article is that it seems to imply that giving a group of people immunity from having their name splashed all over the news without supporting evidence is somehow a bad thing. I say it isn't.
The article, in my view, should have been saying, "Great, now let's apply some pressure for those rights to be granted to all". But of course, that doesn't make good headlines, and it would ultimately mean that journalists would actually have to write about factual events... and we can't have that now, can we ?
Muddyme
says...
2:10pm Fri 28 Sep 12
The only 'problem' I can see is that the press don't get to just print anything they like.
Paramjit Bahia
says...
4:34pm Fri 28 Sep 12
Yes I agree with you that everybody should be protected from abuses of so called 'free' but in fact highly biased press.
Mr. Murray probably wrote it with his profession's interests in mind. From that point of view he has made a good argument and exposed mischievous law, that treats one group differently than rest of us.
So the ball is in the court of us the people, if we really want everybody to be given same legal protection then collectively we should be kicking the back side of our MPs to amend this divisive law. In fact if I was a teacher, which I am not, I would be objecting to why I am given special protection when rest of the public is ignored. But I can't imagine many teachers having such high principles like Mahatama Gandhi, nor us the people raising any such demands. Why?.... Because it is typically British attitude
SotonLad
says...
6:26pm Fri 28 Sep 12
If convicted then fine, but seeing how many are not convicted "mud sticks" as they say and really should not be named.
Muddyme says...
12:04pm Fri 28 Sep 12
More to the point, you seem to be writing from the perspective of "Why should teachers get all the breaks ?"... Maybe the thrust of the article should be, "Great, we're protecting our teachers against a baseless media-led condemnation... now how do we ensure the rest of the people in this country".
The mass-media doesn't care about the effect that innuendo and even libel has on the lives of ordinary, innocent people, provided there's a good, salacious story there. Innocent until proven guilty.