User talk:Eli1109

His Facebook page is untouched, his birthday passed unmarked, and now Hayden's Miles' mother is facing Christmas without her shy young son at her side. The Christchurch teenager disappeared three months ago, the day after phoning his mum Jacqui to say he'd been attacked by three men who took his phone. He spent that night at a friend's house in the city but had disappeared by morning and has not been officially sighted since. A tearful Ms Miles fronted a media conference on Tuesday to plead for the 16-year-old to "please come home". "We love you. That's all we want ... just to know he's OK." Hayden had been having some tough times in the lead-up to his disappearance, moving to a CYF home and getting treatment for depression. Hayden had been having some tough times in the lead-up to his disappearance, moving to a CYF home and getting treatment for depression. But throughout his troubles, he'd maintained regular contact with his parents. The week before he disappeared, Ms Miles had taken him to a doctor to increase his anti-depressant medication, "so he wasn't in a good frame of mind". In the days after he disappeared many assumed he, like most teenagers in his situation, would show up again, but as time wore on family, police and the child protection agency have grown increasingly concerned. Police are still treating Hayden as a missing person, but say while there have been sightings, none have been verified. He hadn't called home once, had made no contact on the birthday he was "so looking forward to" and despite loving social media, hadn't touched his Facebook page. According to his mother, he was shy and quiet, was not street smart and couldn't easily live independently, not least for three months. Ms Miles said the lack of contact was "totally out of character" and not knowing what had happened was "torturous". "With Christmas approaching, we would dearly love to have our Hayden home with us soon," she said as a plea to anyone with information on his whereabouts.

France is reeling after a 17-year-old boy raped and murdered a girl at a chic boarding school while conditionally freed on charges of rape a year ago.

"It's absurd. It could have been avoided with a little less negligence," the dead 13-year-old's mother, Paola Marin, told Europe 1 radio as a nation struggled to comprehend how the gruesome crime could have happened.

The girl, Agnes, was a pupil at the College-lycee Cevenol International in central France.

Her burned body was found after she was raped and murdered in what the prosecutor said was "an extremely violent and brutal way".

The girl's family, the school and French educational and judicial authorities are all asking the same question: how could such a crime have taken place given the boy's history?

The school prides itself on teaching non-violence and the town where it is situated, Le-Chambon-sur-Lignon, is famous for having protected French Jews from the Nazis during World War II.

Did the school know that the boy, identified as Mathieu, had been charged with rape in the south of France in 2010? Why did the courts allow him to go to a "normal" school despite his past? Did the system fail?

Prime Minister Francois Fillon said "we must clarify possible malfunctioning of the penal system" and make prevention of repeat offences "an absolute priority".

The killing reignites debate in France over how to halt repeat offences, after right-wing President Nicolas Sarkozy brought in a law to severely punish such crimes after a spate of headline-grabbing cases.

Agnes vanished on Wednesday after Mathieu allegedly lured her into a nearby forest, where she was killed on the same day. Her body was found on Friday after the boy confessed to "raping and burning" her.

The girl's parents have accused the school of failings, with her father, Frederic Marin, insisting the school knew of the boy's past.

Anges's mother said: "The school should have been a bit more vigilant."

But the school, whose motto is "humanism and tolerance", has blamed the judicial system. Its management said it did indeed know that Mathieu had spent four months in prison but did not know exactly why.

"If I had known, I would not have accepted him in our establishment, because we're not equipped," headmaster Philippe Bauwens said.

The boy, described as a brilliant pupil in the final year of high school, was in August 2010 charged with raping a minor and spent four months in jail pending trial before being freed under judicial supervision.

Prosecutor Jean-Yves Coquillat said the justice system did what it had to do, with the boy only being released under strict conditions: he was treated by a psychiatrist in a nearby town and by a psychologist at the school.

The prosecutor's office pointed to psychiatric evaluations that said the boy could be "rehabilitated and did not show signs of being dangerous".

Many blamed a lack of communication between different state services. "There was a serious breakdown between what the school's management knew and what the national education system and the judiciary knew," said Anne-Sylvie Debard, a member of the school's board of governors.

There's a standoff tonight between protesters occupying Auckland's Aotea Square and Auckland City Council. The council has sought a court order to evict protesters who have been camping out since mid-October. The judge set to rule on the rights of protesters reserved their judgment today. If the court order is granted, it will give protesters 48 hours to leave or the court can order them removed by police. The Occupy Auckland movement was issued a trespass notice by the council yesterday. The council had decided that the right to protest versus council bylaws should be decided by the court. The notice, from council CEO Douglas McKay, requires the members of the protest group to leave and stay away from Aotea Square. "Despite our best efforts to work through the issues, ultimately the group has refused to move on," said Auckland Council's Natalie Verdouw. "We are left with no choice but to issue trespass notices and ask the court to issue orders prohibiting further breaches of council bylaws." But, the protesters say they are well within their rights to be in Auckland's Aotea Square and that they will stay put for as long as they can. Clean-up bill

However the council, as owners of Aotea Square, have been counting the cost. "There's been a significant dying off of the grass," said council lawyer Ross Burns. "If it's damaged beyond repair and that may well be the case, the cost of replacing it could be anything up to $97,000." The council said that by erecting tents and other man-made structures, the protective waterproof membrane of The Civic car park could get damaged. "Paving stones all need to be replaced, cleaning, we've had $46,000 on security and not to mention all the legal costs," said Councillor Cameron Brewer. The council said the clean up bill could surpass $150,000. Auckland occupiers are claiming the protest occupation is warranted as "everyone has a right to freedom of expression". "(Freedom of expression) includes the freedom to seek revive and impart information and opinions in any form, it doesn't say you have to have a council permit first," protester Penny Bright told the court. The council claims the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech included, must come second to council bylaws. The council said it still hopes for a peaceful outcome with occupiers but "the group has breached a number of bylaws and occupied an important urban space set aside for the residents of Auckland to enjoy." But occupiers deny any wrong doing. "They're out trying to cut and paste bylaws to try and make out what we're doing is wrong," protester Isaac Connell told ONE News outside the court today. Occupy Auckland Spokesman Chris Glen said the council action was in direct contradiction with the understood position of Mayor Len Brown. He said at their latest liaison meeting Brown stated no immediate action would be taken against the group while discussions were ongoing. "Occupy Auckland had been in constant communication and negotiation with Auckland Council," Glen said. What do you think about the council's move? Have your say on the messageboard below.