Auschwitz Theft

[OurBlanche]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-35194290

Why? They were going to be fined for being stupid and thoughtless. Now they are going to try and make people believe that attending one of the 'best' prep schools in the UK neglects to educate its pupils on the long term cultural significance of Auschwitz, whilst arranging an edcaational trip to, erm, Auschwitz.

Why? They were 17, not 7. The guards, curators, legal system and the school had all acknowledged that the usual expediency of a fine, suspended sentence and sound telling off would be appropriate. End of story, silly boys.

Now what? Are they going to defend themselves by saying they couldn't be expected to know that anything inside Auschwitz might have been anything important? Oh yes! They are: The teenagers have withdrawn their admission of guilt, explaining that they were not aware that the items had special cultural significance.

What's that phrase? More money than sense...

[Molio]

Well said Draylon. These two kids have clearly learned nothing from the affair. The parents are idiots of the highest order. It's quite interesting, from an anthropological pov.

[JellyTotCat]

To avoid being googled they could change their names by deed poll i guess.

[ElinorRochdale]

It won't need a DBS check, though, will it? These boys' names are easily discoverable on the internet.

DH's take on it is 'What, pragmatically, do they have to lose?'. If they were tried and found not guilty- clean slate??

They might legally have no convictions. But I think their reputations will be tarnished. Their first response was the most decent and honourable. And, pragmatically, the quickest way to have it all done with and forgotten.

Are they doing A levels this year? Why would they want all this hanging over them in the run up to their exams?

[prh47bridge]

That will show on any DBS check, or others, if the employer has a condition of employment that includes it

Not necessarily. Convictions in other countries do not always show up on DBS checks. In this case the alleged offence took place in an EU country. It will therefore be added to DBS checks if there is an equivalent UK offence which is deemed to be recordable. Even if it is added to DBS checks this offence will be removed from checks after 5.5 years if this is regarded as a conviction, 2 years if it is regarded as a caution.

Note also that whether or not a potential employer can carry out a DBS check has nothing to do with their conditions of employment. Checks are only available for certain roles as laid down by law.

[redbinneo]

funnyperson:
Of course it is possible for you to have an opinion about somebody's guilt.
It's a free world, but I prefer to see the evidence first.

[Molio]

That should be weaseling.

[Molio]

Draylon they might well have taken a gap year. The school reference for this year's UCAS might have been a bit tricky for starters. In practical terms this trial will renew the case in the public's mind even if they 'win'. It's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. I have to say that will serve them and their parents right. There was a degree of honour in fessing up, but absolutely none in weasling out.

[JellyTotCat]

"I have children at their school. The grapevine is that they say they were picking the bits up to take to show the guards/museum staff but there was some sort of misunderstanding and they were arrested before they could. I'm not sure where the BBC got the bit about them saying they didn't know they were culturally significant, as that's not what I've heard and would seem a very poor defence confused"

That grapevine story doesn't match with what it says in the Jewish Chronicle about them putting the items in their bags either.

[Obs2016]

We'll see him next week, as Boris's secretary or Simon Danczuk's advisor!!

[OurBlanche]

I think so, Molio. It included a year's suspended sentence, so a definite conviction. That will show on any DBS check, or others, if the employer has a condition of employment that includes it. So they seem to be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, now.

Each Uni will have specific advice for each course offered but I would have thought that it is far too late to try changing anything now. By the time the new court case is heard they will both have applied for Uni or a job.

I really would have thought that, however this turns out, they have put themselves in a worse place. As I said before, they could easily have explained this as a stupid, youthful indiscretion that they deeply regret. Now I think they have robbed themselves of that, they are in danger of making themselves look so much 'lesser than', ifyswim!

[Molio]

Obs2016 didn't the original guilty plea and fine have the effect of a conviction? I don't know, I just assumed. Surely they wouldn't bother with this stunt otherwise - there really is no moral high ground they can take so it must be pragmatic and the obvious reason would be UCAS/ employment related. I think it very likely that their names plus school will be enough to damn them now, in any decent humanities department. The jury is out in this house as to whether those sorts of morals would actually be an advantage in banking.

[Molio]

A trip after A Levels is almost unheard of. Maybe the 18yr old is a year behind so was still in Y12, or maybe the papers simply got the ages wrong, or maybe the trip was, very unusually, after A Levels and the boys were going for a gap year anyway. I think a conviction like that would present a real problem with uni applications. Minor theft possibly not, though not great, but this situation would be bad. I wonder what subject the boys are, or possibly were, intending to read?

[Obs2016]

Name changed for 2016.
Agreed. Has he actually got a conviction then? I too assumed it was the UCAS declaration that they were really hoping to avoid.

[FinestGrundyTurkey]

Reporting is confusing but it seems, from the Telegraph report linked upthread, as if the museum placement was before the Auschwitz trip (in which case his words about curating are just as weasely as the previous admission of guilt & expression of regret )

Certainly at the 6th form here work placements happen at the beginning of Y13, & one of the press reports gave the ages of the 2 boys last June as 17 & 18, which would suggest they were at the end of Y13 - but schools don't generally organise educational trips during/after A level exams, do they?

[derxa]

Ah yes the young man who killed four people in his car at 16 and has just been apprehended fleeing through Mexico with his mother. From probation, not prison, poor petal
Killing 4 people = horrific Picking up a button off the ground = not really horrific at all

[Molio]

We3King I can see that a Cambridge museum might think it could do a good service to humanity by attempting to educate this kid, where the parents have failed. I'm not sure a Magic Circle firm or Goldman Sachs would welcome someone with a background like that, but that employment issue is presumably what this attempt to duck out of culpability is. They also have to declare any convictions on their UCAS form so I wonder if they're both taking an unscheduled gap year until it's 'sorted'. This recent development really stinks - I couldn't have a lower opinion of the parents; what an example to set.

[We3KingyOfOblomovAre]

True Molio. But it didn't stop one of them getting the museum placement, did it?
Like we said, influential parents, money, contacts, he just continues on his path......

[EdithWeston]

Even though some people take selfies, and we can make all sorts of inferences from those about their level of respect for the site, that's still a league different to touching exhibits and stashing them in your bag.

[Molio]

Thanks Turkey - I missed that, I thought it was a reference to the photos I mentioned early on. Selfies are bang out of order too though, whatever the age. Why not just take a photo of the sign for example, or the blocks or even the gallows without having to put yourself or any other person in. I don't get it at all.

We3King the damage to their reputations is done. Names out, photos published, school cited. They could have earned a small amount of respect by saying they were just being immature and utterly thoughtless and regretted it from the moment they were caught (and no doubt wouldn't have regretted it had they not been caught) but now that the parents are concerned about the possible negative effect on vac schemes etc, the whole thing has catapulted into the news again. My view is that the engagement of a swanky lawyer is a very, very bad investment indeed. A decent lawyer would have said let matters lie. The parents seem incredibly bad at thinking things through - not such a surprise about the kids.

[We3KingyOfOblomovAre]

Goodness me what a saga.
I bet that these boys will stroll on, without too much damage being done to their 'reputations'. Because that's what paying for a swanky lawyer gets you!

[Caprinihahahaha]

It's also possible for 17 year olds to behave like tits without being neo nazis.

[funnyperson]

In a free world it is perfectly possible for me to have an opinion about another's guilt without you insinuating there is any reflection on any judiciary

[funnyperson]

redbinneo your insinuation is offensive.