Are the teachers making fun of the child?  The robes want to examine the mother

Are the teachers making fun of the child? The robes want to examine the mother

When he read them Chat of teacher in which the 8-year-old son was mocked and insulted with severe abuse, the young mother was not discouraged and decided to report the abuse to the two teachers and their colleagues immediately. Legally, one would think. Not for the prosecutor of Pavia (file holder) who, just a month after the opening of the investigation, asked for the case to be dismissed, claiming that there had been no abusive behavior towards the student. And so far it could more or less be there. Except now the baby’s mother is under investigation. The reason? “He read the teachers’ private conversations.” In short, an invasion of privacy.

The case

there story it is this one. In April last year, the mummy of the little boy, a teacher at the same elementary school his son attended accidentally discovers the existence of some chats in which two colleagues make fun of the child. “Pirla”, “Pirletta”. And again: “Baby of me …”, we read in the WhatsApp conversations. Supported by the lawyer Luisa Flore, the woman decides to denounce the teachers. The school intervened, as did the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Pavia – where the crime took place – who opened a file of mistreatment, misuse of proofreading tools and defamation. The two suspects then decide to sue the complaining colleague by accusing her of illegally reading her private correspondence from the school PC. The case ends up in the offices of the Milan prosecutor’s office, which is responsible for computer crimes at the district level, in a parallel investigation into the young mother.

The archiving request

According to the paper edition of Il Resto del Carlino, the Pavia prosecutor would have asked about itarchiving suitable for the two teachers. According to the judge, there was no mistreatment of the student – “there is no such thing as torturous treatment,” he said – and no misuse of correctional tools either. As for the crimes, “the content of the verdicts, however caustic, is not defamatory,” guarantees the public prosecutor’s office. And finally, he specifies that “they are spontaneous statements aimed solely at ‘taking out’ their momentary frustration on a colleague”. Ergo: Everyone can make mistakes. However, the boy’s mother is still under investigation. The only consolation for her is the passage in which the Pavia judge admits that the investigations “have revealed a professional incompetence on the part of the suspects, who sometimes lack the qualities of sensitivity and humanity necessary to meet the needs of those entrusted to them to support students”. Ça va sans dire, the French would say.