I thought the teacher did very well in terms of how he presented his defence but that it all fell to pieces somewhat when he was standing in the dock. As regards the letter at the end, even though he was found not guilty, fact is that, in practical terms, it would be impossible for him to return to that school and next to impossible for him to find a similar job at another school. I think he did care about Kevin's well-being but he made one fatal error of judgement in inviting him back to his flat. Whether the assault, as legally defined, took place or not is almost irrelevant. That error of judgement is what would destroy his career. Was a very good episode. Makes one think.
I honestly don't think he intentionally assaulted the boy, he did very well, if anything I believe it was the teacher that was the real victim in all of this.
I enjoyed this series when I was a kid & this episode was a belter. Keith Drinkel (Tyler) was also in the BBCs version of How Green was my Valley a year earlier. It reminded me of a case where a teacher in 1930s Wales saw promise in a boy, one Richard Jenkins,. With parental permission he became in loco parentis to the extent that while they lived together the teacher taught & groomed Jenkins (in a wholesome way) to the point where the boy passed the entrance exam for Oxbridge. Shortly after this Jenkins decided to become an actor & had changed his surname to that of his teacher. Burton. The rest is history. Incidentally a History teacher explained to me that Teaching could no longer be classed as a profession as teachers did not operate on a standalone basis & were not solely rewarded & promoted on results with the majority of teachers abdicating the responsibility of representation to a Trades Union. Powerful stuff then & now as well as being technically correct. I later read that a former Classics Professor had said the same thing. Enoch Powell. Regardless of that he is still one of the best teachers I have ever met, the best teacher who ever taught me & a powerful role model.By chance I spoke to him recently & he concluded that as far as I was concerned the Oil & Gas Industry's gain had been teaching's loss!
This is an unfortunate situation which nowadays simply could not come about, because the teacher would not be permitted to take a single child out, unsupervised, or have children home to his flat, unsupervised. Children and also vulnerable teachers are protected from forming emotional attachments that extend beyond school.
Interesting and thoughtful. I kept watching despite the sometimes blurred image. Hopefully other viewers also act as jury members as it is interesting to see whether one agrees or disagrees with the verdict, although one is admittedly looking at the issues with modern eyes...
I honestly don't think he intentionally assaulted the boy, he did very well in his own defence, if anything I believe it was the teacher that was the real victim in all of this.
I had a Gay teacher in primary school and 2 gay teachers in high school,they were exemplary and remain to be so...I am 20 now and well rounded and in uni...I also am Heetrosexual.
Most of the male teachers at my school back in the 70s were gay or at least looked it but they knew not to allow the kids into their flat, get undressed and wrestle on the bed.!! lol
I can read most of it, but there are 2 words that I can't quite see. It's addressed to Colin Tyler and it says "In view of XXXXXX XXXXXX we feel it would be in the best interests of yourself and the pupils if you submitted your resignation forthwith." Signed by the Chief Education Officer.
@@rossmcl177 Thank you for that. I watched this very interesting instalment the other evening but couldn't read the letter either. It makes an interesting contrast to his colleague's / headmaster's earlier comments.
This programme is starting to look so dated. This episode treats homosexuality as a perversion rather than an alternative; it also implies that all families have two parents. Single parenthood is common now, whether through not marrying or divorce. Teaching isn't the profession it once was either. I would have found him not guilty but expected the jury to find him guilty.
But homosexuality was still regarded by some as a perversion in the mid-1970s, even though it had been legalised to a degree. Some folk in Britain still regard it as such and of course in some countries it is still regarded as a crime. You cannot criticise the authors for presenting things through 1970s eyes, even though attitudes have changed somewhat. Oh, and I voted 'Not Guilty' as well, by the way. However, there was still a degree of suspense as to the verdict taking into account when the show was made and the fact that the defendant was a bloody fool to have done some of the things he admitted in court.
So proud of my brother who played kevin! Loved crown court.
I thought the teacher did very well in terms of how he presented his defence but that it all fell to pieces somewhat when he was standing in the dock. As regards the letter at the end, even though he was found not guilty, fact is that, in practical terms, it would be impossible for him to return to that school and next to impossible for him to find a similar job at another school. I think he did care about Kevin's well-being but he made one fatal error of judgement in inviting him back to his flat. Whether the assault, as legally defined, took place or not is almost irrelevant. That error of judgement is what would destroy his career. Was a very good episode. Makes one think.
I honestly don't think he intentionally assaulted the boy, he did very well, if anything I believe it was the teacher that was the real victim in all of this.
I enjoyed this series when I was a kid & this episode was a belter. Keith Drinkel (Tyler) was also in the BBCs version of How Green was my Valley a year earlier.
It reminded me of a case where a teacher in 1930s Wales saw promise in a boy, one Richard Jenkins,. With parental permission he became in loco parentis to the extent that while they lived together the teacher taught & groomed Jenkins (in a wholesome way) to the point where the boy passed the entrance exam for Oxbridge. Shortly after this Jenkins decided to become an actor & had changed his surname to that of his teacher. Burton. The rest is history.
Incidentally a History teacher explained to me that Teaching could no longer be classed as a profession as teachers did not operate on a standalone basis & were not solely rewarded & promoted on results with the majority of teachers abdicating the responsibility of representation to a Trades Union. Powerful stuff then & now as well as being technically correct. I later read that a former Classics Professor had said the same thing. Enoch Powell.
Regardless of that he is still one of the best teachers I have ever met, the best teacher who ever taught me & a powerful role model.By chance I spoke to him recently & he concluded that as far as I was concerned the Oil & Gas Industry's gain had been teaching's loss!
Unfortunately the world isn't ready for this honesty 😔
This is an unfortunate situation which nowadays simply could not come about, because the teacher would not be permitted to take a single child out, unsupervised, or have children home to his flat, unsupervised. Children and also vulnerable teachers are protected from forming emotional attachments that extend beyond school.
Interesting and thoughtful. I kept watching despite the sometimes blurred image. Hopefully other viewers also act as jury members as it is interesting to see whether one agrees or disagrees with the verdict, although one is admittedly looking at the issues with modern eyes...
He was guilty.
17:30 No one would ever admit being erect! His honesty is staggering
What a bummer.
What did the letter say
I honestly don't think he intentionally assaulted the boy, he did very well in his own defence, if anything I believe it was the teacher that was the real victim in all of this.
I had a Gay teacher in primary school and 2 gay teachers in high school,they were exemplary and remain to be so...I am 20 now and well rounded and in uni...I also am Heetrosexual.
Most of the male teachers at my school back in the 70s were gay or at least looked it but they knew not to allow the kids into their flat, get undressed and wrestle on the bed.!! lol
Do you mean you had homosexual teachers. I had some very gay teachers in my school and none of them were homosexual.
what did the letter say?
ughh I know.. I was tryna zoom in to read it lol
I can read most of it, but there are 2 words that I can't quite see. It's addressed to Colin Tyler and it says "In view of XXXXXX XXXXXX we feel it would be in the best interests of yourself and the pupils if you submitted your resignation forthwith." Signed by the Chief Education Officer.
Fernando Puig Ramassat - Basically, the school fired him.
@@rossmcl177 the two words you can't quite see are "recent events".
@@rossmcl177 Thank you for that. I watched this very interesting instalment the other evening but couldn't read the letter either. It makes an interesting contrast to his colleague's / headmaster's earlier comments.
I agreed with the verdict
Good
guilty
Not Guilty ?
Exactly!! He shouldn't have had a hope of being found innocent. By his own words he was condemned.
f u
Yup. Hear it and weep.
This programme is starting to look so dated. This episode treats homosexuality as a perversion rather than an alternative; it also implies that all families have two parents. Single parenthood is common now, whether through not marrying or divorce.
Teaching isn't the profession it once was either.
I would have found him not guilty but expected the jury to find him guilty.
I think maybe the teacher felt that paedophilia is an alternative & not a perversion
But homosexuality was still regarded by some as a perversion in the mid-1970s, even though it had been legalised to a degree. Some folk in Britain still regard it as such and of course in some countries it is still regarded as a crime. You cannot criticise the authors for presenting things through 1970s eyes, even though attitudes have changed somewhat. Oh, and I voted 'Not Guilty' as well, by the way. However, there was still a degree of suspense as to the verdict taking into account when the show was made and the fact that the defendant was a bloody fool to have done some of the things he admitted in court.