[Closed] Jeremy Forrest guilty what do we think ?

This has all got a little bit too serious for a cycling forum. Have some mongrels.

Regerdless of his age, he's a teacher.
I'm not one myself, but I'd imagine that some guidance is given on the teacher training course. "Don't **** schoolchildren" or somesuch.

sobriety - Member
This has all got a little bit too serious for a cycling forum.

Excellent use of ironic username there 😀

I think he interpreted the stance taken by you and some other posters that blur the lines between the age of concent, and then the creation of other hypothetical scenarios involving people just under and over the age of concent as an attempt to mitigate / justify this mans actions. thats how it reads to me also.

Seems to me that the debate is pretty limited if you can make such intepretations without realising the difference between mitigation/justification and understanding/explaining.

We'd be in trouble if all attempts at unravelling crime followed similar lines of "logic"...

It's not my definition - it's the law.

You're carefully dodging my point / question. I don't disagree that it's the law; I said as much, that's not what I asked.

'We' define a child as someone under 16.

We define a [i]minor[/i] as someone under 16. "Child" isn't an accurate word to use IMHO, and it has emotive implications which lead us into Daily Mail territory; you don't just stop being a child and start being an adult on your 16th birthday.

Would you prefer that we looked at each case on an individual basis?
What criteria would you prefer we use to define adulthood?

I think that'd be infinitely more sensible, but immeasurably difficult and impractical. Because, as you say, what criteria do we use to determine it? We have an age of consent precisely because we can't define it reliably any other way; if we could, we (I'd hope) probably would. We had a similar discussion yesterday about video games.

You're doggedly banging on about what is and isn't law. I'm well aware of what the law says and I don't disagree that it's a wholly necessary and important one to protect the vulnerable. But there are degrees of 'crime' within that. Screaming "paedo" helps no-one.

Look at speed limits as an example. I could drive up the M6 at 80mph at three in the morning, and I could drive past a school at 40mph at three in the afternoon. In both cases I've broken the limit by 10mph (and broken the law); should these cases be viewed equally, and carry the same punishment?

I think he interpreted the stance taken by you and some other posters that blur the lines between the age of concent, and then the creation of other hypothetical scenarios involving people just under and over the age of concent as an attempt to mitigate / justify this mans actions. thats how it reads to me also.

you can't compare sentencing here with Stuart Hall, he was sentenced under the old Sexual Offences Act preceding 2003, so the Judge was limited with what he gave out.

5 1/2 years .. blimey bet he's regretting mouthing "I love you" after the guilty verdict later! He's an idiot who abducted a child no if's and but's he's guilty, he's an idiot, he shouldn't have done it. Judge says he led the way.

Oh and today he's pleaded guilty to 5 offences of sexual activity with a child . .so he now admits his own guilt....

Firstly, at 15, and according to both the NHS and my encyclopaedia, she's almost certainly not a child in the true sense of the word.

Did he brake the law? Yes

Is he a dick? Yes

If he a danger to children? I doubt it.

Do I feel sorry for him (and her)? Yes, love (lust?) is blind.

If the girl had better self esteem (something lacking in the home?) she wouldn't have needed his love/attention/approval. Parents take note, make sure your child gets all the love and reassurance they need in YOUR home, not someone else's!

We have some bizarre laws in this country.

Internationally anyone under 18 is considered a child legally. The age of consent in the UK is 16. But if you take photos of your 16 old wife who you've just legally rogered senseless naked it's child pornography!

Also, whereas females these days reach maturity on average between the ages of 12 and 18, boys, who both start puberty later and develop slower, don't reach maturity until the ages of 15 to 20.

From these figures we can see that anyone dating a 'legal' 16 year old old female has a slight chance of being a paedophile, and anyone dating a 'legal' 16 year old boy is most probably a paedophile.

Note. A paedophile is someone who finds children (in the biological sense) sexually attractive. It has nothing to do at all with arbitrary ages of consent, which vary the world over from 9 to 21.

By the way, (simply because I don't think anyone has mentioned it previously) the law does make further distinctions on age other than sixteen - sexual acts with children under the age of (I think?) thirteen are charged (and sentenced)differently. I.e. there are specific offences that relate to younger children only.

I'm not trying to make any inferences from that btw, before the righteously indignant grab their pitchforks.

I was on a jury for a sexual assault on a child (under 13) case, not the nicest week of my life.

You're carefully dodging my point / question. I don't disagree that it's the law; I said as much, that's not what I asked.

No, I'm not.

We all have our own moral values - we all have to decide whether having sex with someone is appropriate or not - consent, age, inebriation, current mental state etc all play a part.

We define a minor as someone under 16. "Child" isn't an accurate word to use IMHO; you don't just stop being a child and start being an adult on your 16th birthday.

I think that'd be infinitely more sensible, but immeasurably difficult and impractical. Because, as you say, what criteria do we use to determine it? We have an age of consent precisely because we can't define it reliably any other way.

So if you agree that a fixed age of consent is the only reasonable course of action, how can individual assessment be more 'sensible?'
It makes no sense, for the reasons we both seem to agree on.

You're doggedly banging on about what is and isn't law. I'm well aware of what the law says and I don't disagree that it's a wholly necessary and important one to protect the vulnerable. But there are degrees of 'crime' within that.

Yes, I agree.
As far as I'm aware, that's why we have magistrates and judges.
Each case is judged (sic) on an individual basis.
As I said in my previous post.

By the way, (simply because I don't think anyone has mentioned it previously) the law does make further distinctions on age other than sixteen - sexual acts with children under the age of (I think?) thirteen are charged (and sentenced)differently.

That's correct. It's confusing to the lay person.

Whereas the 'age of consent' is 16, the law states a girl of 13 and above can actually give consent, so consensual sex isn't rape. The law says a girl under 13 can't give her consent, so consensual sex is rape.

One has to bear in mind it's long that long ago in the big scheme of things that the age of consent in the UK was 12.

Edlong you are right to a point. Basically any sexual offences on a child Under 13, the child CANNOT consent. SO for example in this case, Forrest has had sex with a consenting 15 year old. Yes it is an offence however sentencing guidelines change, if she was under 13 then the law says she can't consent and hence don't pass go more serious sentencing.

Everyone has different moral standards.
Obviously some adults feel that they can justify having sex with a child on moral grounds.

I just don't see it so black and white eg there are many different ages of consent in the EU, so you could have something on one side of a border is fine, move one metre to your left and it's illegal and immoral. On the subject of morals (and religion) the Vatican state has one of the lowest age of consent in Europe (14) - not that I'm agreeing with it.

I'd say each case should be determined by the individual circumstances.

Let's stick to the point regarding emotional maturity and the age of consent.

If we're talking about emotional security, I've met fifteen year olds who seemingly shag about around to their heart's content with no apparent ill effects. I've also met thirty year olds who've been an absolute mess for weeks after what turned out to be just a one night stand with someone they really fancied.

One other point, when you do your PGCE (post grad qual to become a teacher) you are given lectures on child protection law/guidelines and you are left in no doubt as to a) what is acceptable behavior b) the consequences if you break those laws/guidelines. Then when you get a job in a school there is mandatory child protection training on induction and this is repeated every few years.

The point I am trying to make is that whilst you could argue the case that a non teacher etc in a night club........ as you have mentioned before, may not know that the person is under 16 and wouldn't be aware enough to look for it.

This person knew exactly how old she was, knew exactly what the law states about this, had lectures on how it is an abuse of power, and also would have had lectures on the nature of the relationship dynamic between teenagers and adults in positions of responsibility. he took all of this, ignored it and groomed the child. He deserves every single day of his sentence!

I've never met a sexy 15yr old.

Are you 100% sure about that?

I just don't see it so black and white eg there are many different ages of consent in the EU, so you could have something on one side of a border is fine, move one metre to your left and it's illegal and immoral.

My younger BIL was very pleased with himself to be taking his soon-to-be 16yo GF across the water to Dublin for her 16th. I think he was less pleased when my MIL had a quiet word with him to explain that the age of consent in ROI is 17, so he'd be better off booking somewhere in Wales!

So he'd be an illegal, immoral, sex criminal if he'd done the deed in Ireland on holiday, but just a loved up teenager having stayed in Wales. Are you all absolutely sure this is black and white?

We all have our own moral values

So morality is subjective, is that what you're saying? I suppose you're right; I mean, Forrest presumbably didn't think he acted immorally (either that or he did but didn't care). I suspect he's very much in the minority there though.

Does we determine that someone's actions are "moral" or "immoral" based on majority opinion, then? Or can we say matter of fact that what he's done is immoral? I'd have thought so, but it's an interesting question.

Well, if you're getting into semantics, we're all someone's child

Heh. TBH it wasn't really semantics I was picking at, more that it's terminology which encourages an emotive reaction rather than a logical (or arguably, sensible) one.

So if you agree that a fixed age of consent is the only reasonable course of action, how can individual assessment be more 'sensible?'

I'm not sure how I can make that much clearer TBH. In an ideal world, making tailored decisions and judgements based on individual situations and circumstances would be preferable, and yield better (and fairer) results. Unfortunately there's no easy way of doing this in practice and so we have to have generalised laws which are hopefully appropriate in modal cases.

So morality is subjective, is that what you're saying? I suppose you're right; I mean, Forrest presumbably didn't think he acted immorally (either that or he did but didn't care). I suspect he's very much in the minority there though.

Yes, of course morality is subjective, though to what level is another question entirely - nature vs nurture.
Morality differs between each individual and collectively between each country and region.

Does we determine that someone's actions are "moral" or "immoral" based on majority opinion, then? Or can we say matter of fact that what he's done is immoral? I'd have thought so, but it's an interesting question.

Morality is not specifically innate - it's determined by majority opinion, which shifts over time as our society changes - see TuckerUK's post.

The age of consent has risen as our concept of childhood has been redefined - the concept of adolescence is a relatively new one, for example.
This is most obvious in our changing attitudes toward child labour over the past couple of hundred years.

Our law changes to reflect our changing morality.

I'm not sure how I can make that much clearer TBH. In an ideal world, making tailored decisions and judgements based on individual situations and circumstances would be preferable, and yield better (and fairer) results. Unfortunately there's no easy way of doing this in practice and so we have to have generalised laws which are hopefully appropriate in modal cases.

Tired he fell for a child then?

Forrest was very foolish. Society punishes abuses of trust severely, and it is obvious what the correct actions should have been. I presume he's pleaded guilty to subsequent charges on the grounds that i) they happened and ii) if he didn't, he'd still be liable to be charged at a later date and be subject to a further trial and possible conviction. It would be of no consequence if they were subsequently happily married when the case came to court (although the "in the public interest" test may be questionable).

The age of consent in England and Wales is 16 regardless of sexual orientation and/or gender, as specified by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. However, if person A is over the age of 18 and is in a position of trust to person B who is under the age of 18, it is illegal for A to engage in sexual activity with B

Is pretty clear. Legally, a 16yo is a child and an 18yo is an adult. An 18yo who is sexually attracted to a 16yo is not by defacto a paedophile. If they met when he was 15 years and 364 days, she is still not a paedophile, but might like to wait a day 😉

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22989030 ]BBC Agrees with Grey Area Shocker[/url]

So we agree - the courts deal with cases on an individual basis & the age of consent is the only workable way of protecting the majority?

Sure.

We just need to convince the tabloids and the professionally outraged now.

However anecdotally, it seems to be more widespread. In 2007, a YouGov survey of 2,200 adults found one in six knew of someone who had had an "intimate relationship" with a teacher while at school.

nice attempt to twist the statistics in that there BBC report

So we agree - the courts deal with cases on an individual basis & the age of consent is the only workable way of protecting the majority?

Carefully billy, the liberals didn't like it when I said that earlier.

<edit>*Or rather talking about it. While you may be entirely serious there is a whiff of "internet hard man" about it.

5 1/2 years ? so with time on remand of 9 months He will serve 2 years before being able to apply for parole ? Can a condition of that be that he doesnt contact her even if she wants him to upon release?

was going to say you both seemed to be arguing the same point, but somehow still disagreeing.

"We ENJOY it!" 😀

I don't think it's just the liberals who get upset about people dishing out* their own "justice" via the much loved fisticuffs method.

I doubt the non-liberals on here could offend / shock anyone, STW is still way left of centre compared to the baying hyenas who pass as editors for most of the red tops!

I don't think it's just the liberals who get upset about people dishing out* their own "justice" via the much loved fisticuffs method.

Hey, if you can't handle the fact that I'd punch a paedo, thats your problem, you can give him a cuddle afterwards?

See, I take that sort of comment with a pinch a salt. I'm reasonably likely to say things like "well, if he said that to me I'd throw him out of the bloody window" or some such, but I'm all mouth and no trousers and I'm as likely to dish out vigilante justice as I am to become the Queen of Peru.

Thing is though, I kind of assume people know that about me when I say it; it's a tongue in cheek way of venting steam, I don't really expect people to take it seriously.

Dunno if that was the intention in this case, but, well, meh.

Or maybe not, hm.

*comments involving beating up paedos are to be taken with a pinch of salt* HTH

redundant comments given the Edinburgh defence ^^^^^^^^^^

I just wanted to check if anyone mentioned the Paedofinder General yet? Coincidently, I'm in Italy where the age of concent appears to be 14.

Hey, if you can't handle the fact that I'd punch a paedo, thats your problem, you can give him a cuddle afterwards?

*In any sort of criminal case

Besides, you're probably too old for him.

Guilty though he is, the sentence does seem very harsh, say compared with Stuart Hall, who got only 14 months for something like 14 convictions inc Rape, with the youngest victim only 9 years old.

Not defending Hall but he was done for sexual assault not rape.

Front page of the Sun leads with "Pervert teacher Jeremy Forest..." Nice to see it's readers minds have been made up for them.

Forrest is a criminal - he abused his position of trust to allow a relationship with someone vulnerable to attention from an adult in a position of authority.

Perhaps the girl is a scheming manipulator who set out to ruin the life of a very very dumb man and to try and get a very poor holiday to France.

The thinking man would have sent her to a nunnery for a couple of years, got his divorce sorted and found a new job. If he'd done that then I'd believe it was love.

The thinking man would have sent her to a nunnery for a couple of years

I'm sure that still happens in Ireland, but sadly we've lost that great tradition.....

one thing is for sure, he will be a nonce inside nick...

oliverd1981 - Member
Perhaps the girl is a scheming manipulator who set out to ruin the life of a very very dumb man and to try and get a very poor holiday to France.

So just supposing she is.
How on earth does this justify his actions in any way whatsoever?

Can a condition of that be that he doesnt contact her even if she wants him to upon release?

Why?

So just supposing she is.
How on earth does this justify his actions in any way whatsoever?

Well, everyone here is jumping up and down about how he was this cold-hearted manipulator of this poor defenceless emotionally immature girl. What if, hypothetically, it's actually the other way round: he's a very emotionally immature man, and she's actually a shrewd young woman.

It seems to be emotional, as opposed to physical maturity that most are worrying about in regard to this. As I said above, I've known of some teenagers who seem intent on shagging their way through the alphabet, and bugger off to Ibiza just to do so. I've also known men and women in their 30s who've been emotionally distraught when it transpires that the relationship they thought they were going to have with someone they really fancied turned out to be a one night stand.

It's perfectly possible to be emotionally immature in regard to relationships at any age, just admittedly much rarer as people get older - usually because of once-bitten, twice-shy.

Take a step back.

Mother nature starts pubity from 10-13 in most females. In past years and different modern societies (subcontinent, Asia) a 30+ male with a 10-13y female easily accepted.

'We' in the modern western world have changed the rules. Unfortunately for him he broke them - very very stupid idiot.

Only they really know it is true love or not. But does it have to be? Some things feel right at the right time - it don't have to feel right forever.

As usual I completely disagree with Zokes. Its uncanny how he manages to write so much that I disagree with. The guy was a teacher, why did he become a teacher? He shagged a pupil, this is a massive breach of the trust place in teachers. She was under the age of consent, this is rape. He took her away from her parents, this is abduction. Whatever her motives, feelings or influence on him and he must be very stupid, nothing at all can defend his actions. I think he has got off lightly.

She was under the age of consent, this is rape

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/jeremy-forrest-guilty-what-do-we-think/page/3#post-5091188 ]No it isn't.[/url]

It is still rape as he had sex with an u16 .. they just won't prosecute for rape as she consented, hence the sexual activity with a child charges

He had previosly tryed it on with other underaged school girls, if it was a one of and he didn't normally go with young girls, then I would believe it could be love. I don't I think he is a dirty man that likes her for her age not for her personality.

I feel sorry for the bloke. She was clearly willing, and wanted the relationship. Reports also indicated he knew it was dodgey ground and he was torn between her and the arbitrary law.
The comments made by the prosecution were disgusting! "his carnal lust for the flesh of a child" i'm appalled they allowed that. Its clearly not like that. And then he goes down for 5 years and stuart hall gets a long weekend for fiddlin kids! Disgusting!!!

He is very very foolish. I HOPE they get back together, to hilight the stupidity of the arbitrary age limit, and to rub it in the face of the critics like the mail and sun

I'll put the kettle on.

Olly - setting aside the legal aspects of this case, how would you feel if it was your daughter? We can, and will, argue at length about the law, this is STW after all, but I find it difficult to grasp that you actually feel sorry for this bloke. If nothing else, he has massively abused his position of trust.

I think the interesting thing is that some of those with sympathy for Jezza are ignoring the context here, he didn't meet some "grown up looking/acting" girl in a club with a fake ID. He met her in a classroom, she was wearing a uniform FFS, surely he knew her age from day one and his job was to check homework not start having sex with her and then whip her off to France...

We've touched on "emotional maturity" in this discussion, I think it's worth considering what that term actually means. To my way of thinking it's being able to think beyond your instinctive emotional responses to any given situation and temper your actions based partly on your emotions but with consideration of the consequences for yourself and any others involved.

14/15 YO girls are typically the centre of their own universe, so it's to be expected that she'd not fully consider the fallout of her actions, Jezza on the other hand has no such excuses, married for a year, employed in a position which required responsibility and care for other people's children and their education, he knew far better.

The [I] "People in love do kerazy things"[/I] defence is pretty weak, immature people thrive on creating drama and crisis but seldom solve it.

A (married) Teacher who engages in an inappropriate relationship with a pupil has ignored the consequences for himself, his pupil, both of their families and anyone else close to either of them.

That level of impulsive immaturity is, particularly in this instance, criminal IMO...

The longevity of their relationship is immaterial, if they're still together in five years time it doesn't make his conduct six years earlier any more excusable.

The one thing I dont understand is why anyone would want to go out with a teen girl.

Different strokes.

Front page news again in most of the papers. Is this really the most important news story of the day...?

For what it's worth I reckon it's probably the right outcome, abuse of position of trust etc. I fail to understand the rampant media interest though. It's happened before, it'll happen again.

Different strokes.

You have experience, Cougar? Do tell us more...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

Despite all the training, all the eductation and lectures he had, he still choose to dump his wife and elope with one of his pupils,while in a position of trust over pupils,but quite a few people who took him on and warned him should seriously look at their ability to be in a position of trust that allowed this man mis guidedly to stay at the school so long.

The sad thing is he is definately not the first, 2 teachers locally being convicted of having sex with 2 different underage pupils, at the same school, which was a privetely funded one.

What would peoples thoughts be if the two of them ended up being married in 5 or 10 years time?

What would peoples thoughts be if the two of them ended up being married in 5 or 10 years time?

He had previosly tryed it on with other underaged school girls

how would you feel if it was your daughter?

To answer your question I doubt I would leap for joy but that hardly needs stating

I think the interesting thing is that some of those with sympathy for Jezza are ignoring the context here,

What would peoples thoughts be if the two of them ended up being married in 5 or 10 years time?

What a strange question. In 5 or 10 years time the girl will no longer be a child. Why would anyone have an issue with a 40 year old marrying a 25 year old ?

If love is a defence,then many of the pet lovers I know might want to take things a little further,as Cougar says,different strokes.

He had previosly tryed it on with other underaged school girls

Why was this not presented at the trial and what on earth is your evidence for this?

link to the evidence

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10136139/Jeremy-Forrest-routinely-cuddled-me-aged-13-says-another-former-pupil.html

I wonder why they were never at the trial and why they never reported him- though one said she did to her parents. Interesting and if true that he had "form" it would alter my view massively

Cheers for the Link

Interesting and if true that he had "form" it would alter my view massively

More likely it's just some parent pushing their kids forward for a nice payout from a tabloid desperate for a scoop.

Alternatively the Judge wouldn't allow it as bad character evidence, probative value v prejudicial effect so discounted it! Happens regularly in trials and you won't find out until afterwards. Hey it only took the Jury 2 1/2 hours to find him guilty and it was a unanimous verdict so they clearly all realise he's a dirty bertie teacher.

"More likely it's just some parent pushing their kids forward for a nice payout from a tabloid desperate for a scoop."

Yeah, I don't know why kids would be reluctant to tell adults when they've been abused, either. :rolleyes:

"Interesting and if true that he had "form" it would alter my view massively"

Without the defence attempting to introduce evidence of his previous good character (which would open the door to discrediting evidence) it generally wouldn't be admissible (unless eg it showed a consistent pattern/methodology), for precisely the reason you demonstrate: juries would be distracted by what a wrong un the defendant is without considering whether he or she was guilty of the charge in question.

There's a couple of different things here, just going to talk about one... Just for the sake of argument, disregard the age of consent (imagine she was 18, if you prefer), see what that does to your own opinion. Would it be fine then for a teacher to have a relationship with a pupil? Our students are (mostly) 18+ but it'd still be an ethical no-no, it's still a staff/student relationship, not a relationship of equals. Gross misconduct, etc etc, fundamentally Not Cool. (you could easily have a situation where the student is older than the staff member, still Not Cool)

(or as someone said the other day- graduation day is brilliant, because we're not allowed to ogle the students but there's no rules about their guests)

If love is a defence,then many of the pet lovers I know might want to take things a little further,as Cougar says,different strokes.

Well it's OK in some societies, who's to say what's right but gotta follow the rules.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950

the plot thickens, this makes me think like wtf has really been going on?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4980242/Abducted-schoolgirl-I-want-to-wed-jailed-teacher.html

her dads supports the relationship.

School trip to Los Angeles 😯

I work with his father, but have no further comment