Mother facing prison for allegedly lying about her address on a school application

[SomeGuy]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179968/Mother-facing-year-jail-trying-son-better-school.html

Basically she put her mother's address down.

She claims she left her husband for 3 weeks to move in with mother then changed her mind and decided to move back in. Dangerous claim if you ask me, could be compounding things with perjury.

But, it's bloody ridiculous that people have to do this. I'm sure she'd be a credit to the school, obviously a motivated parent, and 99% of a 'good' school is having good kids/supportive parents.

I would be v cross if her illegal action denied my child a place and it does need clamping down on. At the same time we have govt ministers/MPs who exempt themselves from the system by going private (Diane Abbott) or they play the system to their own advantage (Blairs).

I read this - and leaving aside the daily mail bias on it -. I can understand why she did it but doesnt mean to say I think she shouldnt go unpunished (as heated said it does need clamping down on). I presume the jail option is if she can't pay a fine. Also I do sympathise as its been said a million times before that this sort of thing shouldn't be happening , better schools all round etc etc

I can't understand why she did it. It is hardly as if her catchment school was a failing one. No sympathy for her whatsoever.

Do you have any particular reason for believing that the parents of the child who would have been denied a place at the school by her scheme would be less of a credit to the school? Other than being law-abiding, of course, which is clearly a mark against them (but if a school is going to actively go after the criminal element at all then bank robbers or suchlike would prove more profitable for the PTA).

Not sure if a demonstrably dishonest parent would be such a credit to the school .

What else would she stoop to when things weren't going her way?

Stupid thing to do but I think it would be utterly ridiculous to impose a prison sentence on her. It's enough to say "Oi matey we're on to you and your son won't be getting a place." Note that it's the mother who is being prosecuted and not the father, as well. Bet he knew all about it and was in tacit agreement at the very least.

Stupid headline. In fact she is facing prosecution with a maximum sentence of a year or a £5k fine. I suspect she will get a smaller fine, which since she is obviously fairly wealthy (paying for private school rather than a school which is "only" outstanding in five categories) is hardly going to be a big deal. If she had been in a position of having to send her child to a school in special measures or something then perhaps it would be understandable (although still attempting to take a [lace from another family) but as it stands?

Silly thing to do. Does deserve some consequences if allegation is correct e.g. community service. Not prison time though!!

How can they prove though that she hadn't moved in with her mother for 3 weeks and was there when she filled the form out?

Do you have any particular reason for believing that the parents of the child who would have been denied a place at the school by her scheme would be less of a credit to the school?

Pinner is very posh and expensive property wise. The reality is that there is no such thing as a 'good' school, good schools have good pupils, and Pinner, the leafiest part of Middlesex has a lot of motivated middle class parents which translates into a good school. And with one as oversubscribed as this one apparently is you'll get a greater than usual wealth filter.

I don't necessarily see that whatever children might be denied a place as a result of this kind of behaviour are any more deserving than hers are - it just means they have to go somewhere else.

The other school has more deprivation, more children that don't speak English, I can see why you'd prefer the one in Pinner.

I'm not sure anyone is saying that the children denied a place as a result of her behaviour are automatically more deserving.

But I also don't think that a parent who feels (and teaches her children by example) that rules apply only to other people and that it's preferable to resort to fraud rather than inconvenience yourself (after all, if the mother wanted a place at the school for her child badly enough she could genuinely move closer, either by renting out her existing house and renting somewhere closer or by genuinely moving in with her mother for a year) is automatically one destined to be a credit to the school.

I am guessing that if she's convicted of fraud she'll lose her job, too -- I can't imagine that a bank will be inclined to keep on an employee with a fraud conviction.

They should throw away the key. IMO.

In that case, if she goes to prison & the child ends up living with the grandmother, won't he be in catchment? These middle classes are cunning like that.

Just posted and computer lost internet connection. Grr.

I think it is a good thing that these cases are publicised. I massively doubt that she'll end up in prison. But I would be incandescent if I discovered that dd had missed out on her first/second choice schools as a result of dishonest and fraudulent applications.

As it is, she is thriving at the third choice (furthest away) school (which has a much less favourable ofsted than that the mother in this case avoided). So we are lucky in that respect.

But even if the system is unfair, and everyone agrees that all schools should be on a par, the system is still there and I fail to see how dishonest motivated parents are in any way more desirable as prospective parents than dishonest motivated parents.

So if this mother faces prison, loss of her job, a fine...

WHAT ABOUT THE HOME SECRETARY, JACQUI SMITH!!!! She seems to have lied about her address to claim expenses on her sister's home. Is she above the law then?

Well I was responding to the OP. Two wrongs don't make a right IMO. Obviously there will be some form of inquiry into MP's expenses.

But that is a whole different news item.

Rather than prosecuting people for lying, wouldnt it be better to raise standards in the other schools, so that there wasn't such a huge difference between the "best" and the "worst"?

I imagine that this woman is being made an example of.

Clamp down hard on one, then many might think twice...

Surely you have to do both. Make all schools more equal. While still punishing people who lie or submit fraudulent applications.

Making dishonest applications cannot be seen to be condoned; otherwise there would be a complete free-for-all which would lead to hideous uncertainty and bad-feeling for everyone.

And in this case, it seems that her nearest school could hardly be described as sub-standard or failing. Might not have been the school of her choice, but there will of course be finite legitimate places at over-subscribed schools.

Agree with BFG, it is a case of makign an example of her.

I deeply resent it when people do this. We pay a premium for living in an area with access to good schools. Properties here are marketed as X and Y catchment area and are about 30% more expensive to rent or buy.

We aren't wealthy, and it isn't easy to find the extra money. Yet my children still struggle to get places because people in the next town want to send their children here rather than use their local schools.

ROFL at people who can afford to buy houses in posh areas getting on their high horses about peasants lying to get a decent education for their kids.

(That may not be hte case with this woman, but really - you pay a premium to ensure your kid's education? Where does that leave equality of opportunity then? Are you having a larf to make the point brilliantly?)

I don't own my house, I rent, and pay a bloody fortune. We are not well off by any stretch of the imagination. Seriously, if you were paying £300 extra a month to live in a school catchment area, wouldn't you be annoyed if someone living 5 miles away and not paying that took your child's school place?

It's got nothign to do with 'peasants' out of the area. I didn't say that. They are often people with a higher income than us, bigger hosues, newer cars, more holidays, because where they do live is a cheaper area.

Good, I'm glad. I get what you're saying LittleBella but it's a pain in the arse when the place you were born and brought up in becomes highly desirable and prices shoot through the roof, all because of the schools. I would like councils to make places conditional on residency i.e. to stamp out those who rent for 6 months then bugger off back to cheapsville.

Have to say I was a bit when I saw her explanation that she just happened to be living in the catchment area for the three weeks before the deadline for sending back the forms and then totally forgot about it afterwards and didn't give it a thought". Yeah right - course you didn't love.

Sorry - am very cynical about this one BUT how ridiculous that parents feel they have to go to such lengths to get their children a decent education. Her case is being made an example of but I remember seeing a documentary a few years ago where one woman moved with her three kids from a spacious three bedroom house into a two bedroom flat because it was right opposite an "outstanding" school that everyone was trying to get their kids into. IMHO she was being no more honest and I would bet my next years salary that having safely secured her children's future there she has now moved back into a place with a bit more room.

The really nasty streak in me prayed that the head would leave to be replaced by an inexperienced one - preferably at the same time as an illegal travellers site with plenty of noisy and badly behaved kids (all needing schooling at the local school)set up home round the corner . Not nice thoughts but then am not always a very nice person.

I would like councils to make places conditional on residency i.e. to stamp out those who rent for 6 months then bugger off back to cheapsville"

Absolutely. Can't have those proles who rent getting their children into decent schools. Much better that they stay among their own kind .

The bad news is that, at the rate house prices are falling, soon people earning only a small multiple of the average salary might be aspiring to own properties suitable for families. The government really ought to take measures to keep prices high enough to prevent this from happening.