I'm not sure about this as Michelle's secret either. They could've made the guy maybe 18. Then Michelle would still have been seen as a cradle-snatcher and would still have had to leave her job at the school. But it wouldn't be anything shady beyond that. After all if they're trying to tap into her backstory with Den, she wasn't underage when she slept with him.
She's not a paedophile as some are wrongly claiming, and it's palatable to a degree with the age of consent being 16 here and the connection to her backstory, but already people are overreacting - so I'd have made the guy 18 to avoid this backlash as a recast of such a huge character is already up against it.
Even if Michelle's lover was 18, as his teacher she would legally be in a position of trust as his teacher and that has specific penalties and is a separate law.
Interesting. I'd rather that had been the only law broken by Michelle without the age of consent thing on top of it.
Michelle didn't mention being arrested so I assume the school and boy's mother didn't call the cops in return for her losing her job. But if it was all over social media god knows how they didn't become aware anyway.
I don't think they've really thought this through. It had to be something big for Michelle to return to Walford after all this time but I feel this is too much.
Teachers do go to jail for having sex with 16 year olds here, despite the age of consent being 16. Michelle said she was with Preston for a year, so how old was he when they started their affair? Maybe she can't return to the US for fear of prosecution.
Teachers do go to jail for having sex with 16 year olds here, despite the age of consent being 16. Michelle said she was with Preston for a year, so how old was he when they started their affair? Maybe she can't return to the US for fear of prosecution.
A year could mean about a year though, rounded up. People do that all the time. It might've started just after he turned 17 - not that that changes anything regarding the law.
I don’t think the police know as Michelle didn’t mention being arrested and she was able to fly to London. I know (at least I assume, I'm not au fait with Floridian laws) she would still go to prison for abusing her position as his teacher but when I say I'd rather that was the only law she'd broken I'm talking in terms of audience reaction. It's the age of consent causing most of the recoiling there.
As the police somehow seemingly don't know, it's just about what we can get our heads round as an audience. And I could've got my head around her just breaking that law more than I can her shagging someone underage on top of it.
I wonder if the writers actually intended for Michelle to have only broken the abuse of position law. They might be under the impression that the age of consent in Florida is 16 or 17 as it is in many states. It's unlikely I know but the script contained one or two other mistakes. I just can't see why they'd put this in for Michelle knowing it would cause such a backlash when viewers are already in some cases having a hard time getting used to the recast.
I'm not sure about this as Michelle's secret either. They could've made the guy maybe 18. Then Michelle would still have been seen as a cradle-snatcher and would still have had to leave her job at the school. But it wouldn't be anything shady beyond that. After all if they're trying to tap into her backstory with Den, she wasn't underage when she slept with him.
She's not a paedophile as some are wrongly claiming, and it's palatable to a degree with the age of consent being 16 here and the connection to her backstory, but already people are overreacting - so I'd have made the guy 18 to avoid this backlash as a recast of such a huge character is already up against it.
Odd decision IMO.
BIB - sorry, but I disagree. I don't think it is palatable at all. The facts are that Michelle was living in America - for 20 years - and so knew the laws but still chose to break them. Whatever our age of consent, it's irrelevant. it's difficult to feel sympathy for Michelle as she was a teacher and in a position of trust and with a sin not far off her lovers age you think she would have realised just how ridiculous the whole thing was. If she had explained it as a fling, that she got carried away with his flattery and wanting to be desired and that it had lasted maybe a month or two then maybe we could have some sympathy or understanding. But to hear her repeatedly protest that they were in love and were going to be together was like listening to a 15 year old riddled with hormones.
As for her comment that if it was the other way round and it was an older guy with a younger girl he would be lauded, well Sharon should have told her how the square turned against Max because he had a fling with Lucy.
Given that the age of consent in Florida is 18....
Jay unknowingly sexts underage girl, is (initially) rejected by the Mitchells and labelled a paedo and given criminal record in some big storyline.
Michelle knowingly sleeps with underage boy, and gets "craddlesnatcher" followed by a wink and a hug.
I know consent laws vary but it does seem a bit problematic. If you have sex with a 17 year old in Florida it's the same as having sex with a 15 year old here. A wink and a hug isn't really appropriate is it?
Or is the difference that the victim in Michelle's case is male and therefore 'not as bad'? Either way it's fairly distasteful.
You are, of course, right and there are cases of women in America who have been given very stiff prison sentences for doing what Michelle did. I'm not saying that is always right, it does no good after all, but it does need to be taken seriously.
I think it will be taken seriously. Sharon spoke very sharply to Michelle about it, she was aghast in fact, but what could she do? Michelle is in bits and, lets face it, she hasn't raped anyone. The boy concerned is no doubt getting on with his life quite well.
What I hope is that Michelle doesn't fixate on someone else young enough to be her son, that would show her to be something more than a woman making a mistake. I presume she can't return to America though, if the law wasn't informed or involved in any way, she probably could; however husband and son don't want to know her so she may be back for good. I hope so in a way and would like to see her doing something good but you never know what's round the corner in a soap.
As for Jay, putting that poor lad on the sex offenders list was totally unjust and the writers haven't dealt with it well because I am sure, in real life, that could be reversed if all the facts were known. Still we can't do anything about it.
I wonder if the writers actually intended for Michelle to have only broken the abuse of position law. They might be under the impression that the age of consent in Florida is 16 or 17 as it is in many states. It's unlikely I know but the script contained one or two other mistakes. I just can't see why they'd put this in for Michelle knowing it would cause such a backlash when viewers are already in some cases having a hard time getting used to the recast.
I think that the writers ****ed up a bit here. In the US, the age of consent is different all over the place as opposed to the age of consent in England being 16. I think they wanted to recreate Den/Michelle with Michelle/Preston but they messed up big time. If she stayed in Alabama, she would have been fine because the age is 16. Yes she still would have been fired but she wouldn't be classified as a rapist.
Ironically enough, some states have a defense called the "Mistaken Age Defense". That might have been able to help Jay but only 13 states have it and neither of them are Alabama or Florida.
Hopefully EastEnders doesn't just ignore this and treat it like a "mistake" which Michelle was implying and then hugging it out with Sharon. She's worse than Jay as she knew the victim was under age, and was his teacher and they actually did it.
While the age of consent might be 18 in America it isn't the UK, here its 16 so while yeah Michelle was stupid to do what she did had this happened in England no one would be batting an eyelid so the reaction is a little over the top
It doesn't matter what the law is in the UK. She was an American citizen when she comitted the crime. It's not about batting eyelids, its about abiding by the laws of the country you're in.
But on the subject of batting eyelids. Are you really saying nobody minds or disapproves in this country when a 40something adult has sex with or dates a teenager?
Horrible Michelle is a sexual predator, no two ways about it.
Well, no, she isn't. Did you watch last night's episode?
She felt ugly, fat and unloved and someone showed her some attention. Yes, it was wrong, and illegal in Florida, there really are no two ways about that, but to call her a sexual predator is silly. She wasn't predatory, she was lonely. He told her he loved her, she was flattered and enamoured by him and it probably felt a bit exciting. I reiterate that it's wrong in the US and the wink at the end from Sharon was a little misjudged, but there are so many overreactions on this forum. It's a soap. Oh, and she's not a sexual predator.
Given that the age of consent in Florida is 18....
Jay unknowingly sexts underage girl, is (initially) rejected by the Mitchells and labelled a paedo and given criminal record in some big storyline.
Michelle knowingly sleeps with underage boy, and gets "craddlesnatcher" followed by a wink and a hug.
I know consent laws vary but it does seem a bit problematic. If you have sex with a 17 year old in Florida it's the same as having sex with a 15 year old here. A wink and a hug isn't really appropriate is it?
Or is the difference that the victim in Michelle's case is male and therefore 'not as bad'? Either way it's fairly distasteful.
I assume most people would assume age of consent to be same as over here. I wasn't aware of it being 18 before tonight. Sharon probably not aware either and assumes it's above age of consent as age of consent is 16 over here.
I assume most people would assume age of consent to be same as over here. I wasn't aware of it being 18 before tonight. Sharon probably not aware either and assumes it's above age of consent as age of consent is 16 over here.
I thought it was really clear in the episode seeing as Michelle admitted she'd broken the law that the law was different out there, but I too wasn't sure of the legalities before last night's episode.
It doesn't matter what the law is in the UK. She was an American citizen when she comitted the crime. It's not about batting eyelids, its about abiding by the laws of the country you're in.
But on the subject of batting eyelids. Are you really saying nobody minds or disapproves in this country when a 40something adult has sex with or dates a teenager?
Why should people disapprove over here if a forty something sleeps with a 17 year old as itsoon leaflet. Only small minded people would mind or disapprove. Also the reason Sharon didn't bat an eye lid is she may assume age of consent is 16 like here, and think that she was just under ethical sleeping with a student.
I thought it was really clear in the episode seeing as Michelle admitted she'd broken the law that the law was different out there, but I too wasn't sure of the legalities before last night's episode.
She never said what law shed broken Sharon may have assumed it was abuse of position sleeping with student and not under age of consent
Why should people disapprove over here if a forty something sleeps with a 17 year old as itsoon leaflet. Only small minded people would mind or disapprove. Also the reason Sharon didn't bat an eye lid is she may assume age of consent is 16 like here, and think that she was just under ethical sleeping with a student.
Because they do. People's reactions can be disgust or ridicule or anger. Nothing to do with being small minded. It's the knowledge that a teenager may still be growing up, still discovering who they are. They may have issues and be open to manipulation by an older more experienced adult.
If she stayed in Alabama, she would have been fine because the age is 16. Yes she still would have been fired but she wouldn't be classified as a rapist.
.
i'm not so sure. Not sure about Alabama law, but here do class people who have sex with their students here (if under 18) as guilty of sexual offences.
I thought it was really clear in the episode seeing as Michelle admitted she'd broken the law that the law was different out there, but I too wasn't sure of the legalities before last night's episode.
Yes this was clearly stated. The faux pas is in the fact that producers don't seem to realise that what she did was ALSO against the law here. It seemed as if they wanted to somewhat redeem her by the fact he was over the UK age of consent (16). But what they described was an act of sexual abuse against a minor here, where a teacher has sex with her 17 year old student.
In the US Michelle broke the laws regarding age of consent and any laws they might have outlawing teacher/student relations.
In the UK she committed incident assault and sexual intercourse with a person under care between the age of 17 and 18.
Essentially Michelle confessed sexual abuse on a male student, as considered by both UK and US law (albeit for different reasons perhaps) and she effectively got a high-five for it. It's quite grotesque and would never happen the other way round.
Yes this was clearly stated. The faux pas is in the fact that producers don't seem to realise that what she did was ALSO against the law here. It seemed as if they wanted to somewhat redeem her by the fact he was over the UK age of consent (16). But what they described was an act of sexual abuse against a minor here, where a teacher has sex with her 17 year old student.
In the US Michelle broke the laws regarding age of consent and any laws they might have outlawing teacher/student relations.
In the UK she committed incident assault and sexual intercourse with a person under care between the age of 17 and 18.
Essentially Michelle confessed sexual abuse on a male student, as considered by both UK and US law (albeit for different reasons perhaps) and she effectively got a high-five for it. It's quite grotesque and would never happen the other way round.
I understand what you're saying but I do think there's a difference between breaking the law and committing sexual abuse. Abuse is a strong word, and I don't think Michelle abused this 17 year old lad. I completely understand it's against the law and that's very clear and simple fact, but sexual abuse is a term I associate with predatory actions of someone consciously doing it. I may be completely wrong but that's my understanding.
Yes, she broke the law and there should be punishment. If SOC sticks to his ways, she should be punished for it. No, I don't think she's a predator or an abuser.
I understand what you're saying but I do think there's a difference between breaking the law and committing sexual abuse. Abuse is a strong word, and I don't think Michelle abused this 17 year old lad. I completely understand it's against the law and that's very clear and simple fact, but sexual abuse is a term I associate with predatory actions of someone consciously doing it. I may be completely wrong but that's my understanding.
Yes, she broke the law and there should be punishment. If SOC sticks to his ways, she should be punished for it. No, I don't think she's a predator or an abuser.
But she IS a sexual abuser under UK law.
Breaking the law in regards to a teacher having sex with a student under the age of 18 is sexual abuse. It isn't a matter of opinion, I'm afraid.
Sexual abuse isn't not sexual abuse because someone doesn't consider it sexual abuse
If that happened here, even with the age of consent differences, a teacher sleeping with their 17 year old student would be guilty of committing a sexual offence and be considered a sex offender.
Breaking the law in regards to a teacher having sex with a student under the age of 18 is sexual abuse. It isn't a matter of opinion, I'm afraid.
Sexual abuse isn't not sexual abuse because someone doesn't consider it sexual abuse
If that happened here, even with the age of consent differences, a teacher sleeping with their 17 year old student would be guilty of committing a sexual offence and be considered a sex offender.
Very true and this is why Jay Brown is a peadophile and will always be viewed as a peadophile.
Comments
You think there's a group support coffee morning they could abscond to?
What
She's not a paedophile as some are wrongly claiming, and it's palatable to a degree with the age of consent being 16 here and the connection to her backstory, but already people are overreacting - so I'd have made the guy 18 to avoid this backlash as a recast of such a huge character is already up against it.
Odd decision IMO.
Michelle didn't mention being arrested so I assume the school and boy's mother didn't call the cops in return for her losing her job. But if it was all over social media god knows how they didn't become aware anyway.
I don't think they've really thought this through. It had to be something big for Michelle to return to Walford after all this time but I feel this is too much.
I don’t think the police know as Michelle didn’t mention being arrested and she was able to fly to London. I know (at least I assume, I'm not au fait with Floridian laws) she would still go to prison for abusing her position as his teacher but when I say I'd rather that was the only law she'd broken I'm talking in terms of audience reaction. It's the age of consent causing most of the recoiling there.
As the police somehow seemingly don't know, it's just about what we can get our heads round as an audience. And I could've got my head around her just breaking that law more than I can her shagging someone underage on top of it.
I wonder if the writers actually intended for Michelle to have only broken the abuse of position law. They might be under the impression that the age of consent in Florida is 16 or 17 as it is in many states. It's unlikely I know but the script contained one or two other mistakes. I just can't see why they'd put this in for Michelle knowing it would cause such a backlash when viewers are already in some cases having a hard time getting used to the recast.
Louise is 15 now still an underage character of course
As for her comment that if it was the other way round and it was an older guy with a younger girl he would be lauded, well Sharon should have told her how the square turned against Max because he had a fling with Lucy.
You are, of course, right and there are cases of women in America who have been given very stiff prison sentences for doing what Michelle did. I'm not saying that is always right, it does no good after all, but it does need to be taken seriously.
I think it will be taken seriously. Sharon spoke very sharply to Michelle about it, she was aghast in fact, but what could she do? Michelle is in bits and, lets face it, she hasn't raped anyone. The boy concerned is no doubt getting on with his life quite well.
What I hope is that Michelle doesn't fixate on someone else young enough to be her son, that would show her to be something more than a woman making a mistake. I presume she can't return to America though, if the law wasn't informed or involved in any way, she probably could; however husband and son don't want to know her so she may be back for good. I hope so in a way and would like to see her doing something good but you never know what's round the corner in a soap.
As for Jay, putting that poor lad on the sex offenders list was totally unjust and the writers haven't dealt with it well because I am sure, in real life, that could be reversed if all the facts were known. Still we can't do anything about it.
I did wonder this myself.
Ironically enough, some states have a defense called the "Mistaken Age Defense". That might have been able to help Jay but only 13 states have it and neither of them are Alabama or Florida.
It doesn't matter what the law is in the UK. She was an American citizen when she comitted the crime. It's not about batting eyelids, its about abiding by the laws of the country you're in.
But on the subject of batting eyelids. Are you really saying nobody minds or disapproves in this country when a 40something adult has sex with or dates a teenager?
Well, no, she isn't. Did you watch last night's episode?
She felt ugly, fat and unloved and someone showed her some attention. Yes, it was wrong, and illegal in Florida, there really are no two ways about that, but to call her a sexual predator is silly. She wasn't predatory, she was lonely. He told her he loved her, she was flattered and enamoured by him and it probably felt a bit exciting. I reiterate that it's wrong in the US and the wink at the end from Sharon was a little misjudged, but there are so many overreactions on this forum. It's a soap. Oh, and she's not a sexual predator.
I assume most people would assume age of consent to be same as over here. I wasn't aware of it being 18 before tonight. Sharon probably not aware either and assumes it's above age of consent as age of consent is 16 over here.
I thought it was really clear in the episode seeing as Michelle admitted she'd broken the law that the law was different out there, but I too wasn't sure of the legalities before last night's episode.
Why should people disapprove over here if a forty something sleeps with a 17 year old as itsoon leaflet. Only small minded people would mind or disapprove. Also the reason Sharon didn't bat an eye lid is she may assume age of consent is 16 like here, and think that she was just under ethical sleeping with a student.
She never said what law shed broken Sharon may have assumed it was abuse of position sleeping with student and not under age of consent
Because they do. People's reactions can be disgust or ridicule or anger. Nothing to do with being small minded. It's the knowledge that a teenager may still be growing up, still discovering who they are. They may have issues and be open to manipulation by an older more experienced adult.
i'm not so sure. Not sure about Alabama law, but here do class people who have sex with their students here (if under 18) as guilty of sexual offences.
Yes this was clearly stated. The faux pas is in the fact that producers don't seem to realise that what she did was ALSO against the law here. It seemed as if they wanted to somewhat redeem her by the fact he was over the UK age of consent (16). But what they described was an act of sexual abuse against a minor here, where a teacher has sex with her 17 year old student.
In the US Michelle broke the laws regarding age of consent and any laws they might have outlawing teacher/student relations.
In the UK she committed incident assault and sexual intercourse with a person under care between the age of 17 and 18.
Essentially Michelle confessed sexual abuse on a male student, as considered by both UK and US law (albeit for different reasons perhaps) and she effectively got a high-five for it. It's quite grotesque and would never happen the other way round.
I understand what you're saying but I do think there's a difference between breaking the law and committing sexual abuse. Abuse is a strong word, and I don't think Michelle abused this 17 year old lad. I completely understand it's against the law and that's very clear and simple fact, but sexual abuse is a term I associate with predatory actions of someone consciously doing it. I may be completely wrong but that's my understanding.
Yes, she broke the law and there should be punishment. If SOC sticks to his ways, she should be punished for it. No, I don't think she's a predator or an abuser.
But she IS a sexual abuser under UK law.
Breaking the law in regards to a teacher having sex with a student under the age of 18 is sexual abuse. It isn't a matter of opinion, I'm afraid.
Sexual abuse isn't not sexual abuse because someone doesn't consider it sexual abuse
If that happened here, even with the age of consent differences, a teacher sleeping with their 17 year old student would be guilty of committing a sexual offence and be considered a sex offender.
Very true and this is why Jay Brown is a peadophile and will always be viewed as a peadophile.