What grinds my gears...

[Vacamion]

Especially when that youngish teacher got 4.5 years for smashing some slut who was a few months under the arbitrary acceptable sex cutoff age.

British justice system - more third world than the third world.

 

 

Jeremy Forrest isn't 17.

 

It's not even as if he's an adult who met a young girl and she's lied about her age.

 

He is 30, a teacher and he used his position of trust to groom young girl, from age 14, over whom he exercised responsibility.

 

There's no grey area here.

 

Your post makes it sound like you sympathise with him.

[Captain...]

Especially when that youngish teacher got 4.5 years for smashing some slut who was a few months under the arbitrary acceptable sex cutoff age.

British justice system - more third world than the third world.

And the small matter of running away with her, Hall is guilty but no longer a threat to society what benefit is there in locking him up for longer, even at all. Make the cvnt pay rather than cost us, the tax payers, more money.

[MooseBreath]

Jeremy Forrest isn't 17.

It's not even as if he's an adult who met a young girl and she's lied about her age.

He is 30, a teacher and he used his position of trust to groom young girl, from age 14, over whom he exercised responsibility.

There's no grey area here.

Your post makes it sound like you sympathise with him.

I do think his sentence is harsh. In other countries it would have been perfectly legal. It was reported that they were at it up to eight times a night. She wasn't exactly begging for him to stop.

Because he was a teacher he does deserve some punishment, maybe the permanent loss of his job and public humiliation would have been enough. The fact that he has been given a significantly tougher sentence than someone who abused his position of power to touch up numerous kids seems unbalanced to me.

[Captain...]

Jeremy Forrest isn't 17.

It's not even as if he's an adult who met a young girl and she's lied about her age.

He is 30, a teacher and he used his position of trust to groom young girl, from age 14, over whom he exercised responsibility.

There's no grey area here.

Your post makes it sound like you sympathise with him.

Well there is grey area in the sense that she was willing and consenting and she didn't have a problem with it. In France her age would have made her legal to decide who she wants to fvck and bestowed upon her the maturity to make that decision. Whereas in the UK we deem people to be too immature to make that decision at 14. In that sense it is arbitrary the age of consent.

[Captain...]

I do think his sentence is harsh. In other countries it would have been perfectly legal. It was reported that they were at it up to eight times a night. She wasn't exactly begging for him to stop.

Because he was a teacher he does deserve some punishment, maybe the permanent loss of his job and public humiliation would have been enough. The fact that he has been given a significantly tougher sentence than someone who abused his position of power to touch up numerous kids seems unbalanced to me.

8 times a night!?!? Don't care how young the bird is that is impressive.

[Vacamion]

I think my concern is more about him being a teacher and shagging a pupil.

 

If you send out the message that shagging people you are responsible for is merely a slight transgression, the whole idea of "position of trust" and "in loco parentis" falls down.

 

Like I say, if he'd met her in a nighclub or was young himself, I have far less of a problem with it.

 

A 14 year old girl (however much of a "slut" you think she is) is to some degree emotionally immature and vulnerable and a teacher who abuses that (he began the inappropriate behaviour when she was 14) should go to jail with an examplary sentence.

 

Avoiding Nabokovian situations is one of the cardinal rules of the teaching profession.

 

I would have sent him down for 6 years and added 2 for mouthing "i love you" across the court, which shows that he shows no remorse for what he has done.

Edited 22 June 2013 by Vacamion

[MooseBreath]

I think my concern is more about him being a teacher and shagging a pupil.

If you send out the message that shagging people you are responsible for is merely a slight transgression, the whole idea of "position of trust" and "in loco parentis" falls down.

Like I say, if he'd met her in a nighclub or was young himself, I have far less of a problem with it.

A 14 year old girl (however much of a "slut" you think she is) is to some degree emotionally immature and vulnerable and a teacher who abuses that (he began the inappropriate behaviour when she was 14) should go to jail with an examplary sentence.

Avoiding Nabokovian situations is one of the cardinal rules of the teaching profession.

I would have sent him down for 6 years and added 2 for mouthing "i love you" across the court, which shows that he shows no remorse for what he has done.

Maybe he loves her?

I agree with what you're saying on the position of trust but disagree with you on the severity of the sentence. But the main point is, surely what Hall did was considerably worse? He was feeling up 9-year-olds. A genuinely sick and disturbing crime. For me, at least five times as bad as what the teacher did and should carry a sentence to match.

[Captain...]

Maybe he loves her?

I agree with what you're saying on the position of trust but disagree with you on the severity of the sentence. But the main point is, surely what Hall did was considerably worse? He was feeling up 9-year-olds. A genuinely sick and disturbing crime. For me, at least five times as bad as what the teacher did and should carry a sentence to match.

I agree but what benefit is there in jailing Hall? And with regard to the teacher I think that him running away with the girl is a lot worse than them having sex, but I also don't see what benefit these is in jailing him, to be honest, he is not a threat to anyone other than her, probably and there is no evidence he is going to nonce anyone else. If you believe he fell in love with her then his only crime is impatience.

[Rincewind]

The thing is there is always a line regarding age. A teenager of 16 could have sex with a 15 year old girl the day before her birthday and be charged yet if he waited a day it would be legal. It depends on the maturity of those involved. The teacher should have played it safe so to speak. He should have realised that some girls have crushes at that age and waited.

 

When my sister was around 16 she did part time work in a Leicester shop. One of the customers was a bloke about 40. My mother and step-dad disapproved but the more they objected the closer she got to him. Eventually they lived together.

She is in her 50's now and thinks of him as a bit of a fool. The thing is he paid her a lot of attention and idolised her making her feel special. That is what young girls want.

[leicsmac]

As has been said so many times before on here, there needs to be flexibility on the age of consent rules. Having one arbitrary age that covers thousands of different situations is clearly not fit for purpose.

[Captain...]

As has been said so many times before on here, there needs to be flexibility on the age of consent rules. Having one arbitrary age that covers thousands of different situations is clearly not fit for purpose.

I don't know if we need flexibility on the rule, but I think there needs to be flexibility in punishing and sentencing, being labelled a paedo for the rest of your life because as a 17 year old you shagged a 15year old the day before her birthday is clearly madness, but you can't go diluting the rules and allowing ambiguity when there are dangerous predators around who will look to exploit young girls. Priority number one must be to protect them ahead of people who can't keep it in their pants. I would welcome more sensible rules and common sense with the law but not at the expense of putting more people at risk.

Edited 22 June 2013 by Captain Pancake Face

[Webbo]

How can you have flexibility of on the age of consent? How can you send one man down for poking a 14 y o and and not another? do you suggest that the court puts the victim on trial to decide whether she was intelligent/mature enough to decide for herself? Totally unworkable.

[leicsmac]

How can you have flexibility of on the age of consent? How can you send one man down for poking a 14 y o and and not another? do you suggest that the court puts the victim on trial to decide whether she was intelligent/mature enough to decide for herself? Totally unworkable.

 

How about numerical rules based on age of both parties? Have a flat limit at 14 then apply the 'divide 2 plus 7' rule. 

 

Of course under that rule the teacher would still have gone down, but he should have done for abusing a position of trust anyway.

Edited 22 June 2013 by leicsmac

[Webbo]

How about numerical rules based on age of both parties? Have a flat limit at 14 then apply the 'times 2 plus 7' rule. 

 

Of course under that rule the teacher would still have gone down, but he should have done for abusing a position of trust anyway.

Laws are best if they're simple so that everyone can understand. A standard cut off age, you can argue what that should be if you like. is least complicated solution. There is some flexibility in this of course, not all cases are prosecuted and not all accused are found guilty.

[leicsmac]

Laws are best if they're simple so that everyone can understand. A standard cut off age, you can argue what that should be if you like. is least complicated solution. There is some flexibility in this of course, not all cases are prosecuted and not all accused are found guilty.

 

Fair enough, a flat limit like we have now is least complicated. 

 

Thing is this particular area is such a hot potato (and with good reason), and there tends to be a world of difference from case to case - so that adds so much complexity.

[ADK]

A jail sentence for the teacher seems really harsh. Losing his right to teach and doing unpaid work would be a better punishment.

[Trav Le Bleu]

This morning's Mail front page. Covering the story of Jeremy Forrest's imprisonment they put a picture of Chloe Queen, looking like a girl in her later teens, possibly even older.

 

Given that he would have known her age as a teacher, but why accompany it with that picture - almost as if they're trying to excuse him.

 

Weirdly, the Forrest family's solicitor looks more like a schoolgirl.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345665/Jeremy-Forrest-jailed-FIVE-AND-A-HALF-YEARS-guilty-abducting-pupil-15.html

Edited 22 June 2013 by Trav Le Bleu

[Webbo]

This morning's Mail front page. Covering the story of Jeremy Forrest's imprisonment they put a picture of Chloe Queen, looking like a girl in her later teens, possibly even older.

 

Given that he would have known her age as a teacher, but why accompany it with that picture - almost as if they're trying to excuse him.

That's a different girl than the one he was convicted for. Imo they were trying to show he was trying it on with other underage girls as well. Not really excusing him.

[Rincewind]

What the teacher should have done was sat down and talked to the parents and explained his feelings and to say that if they only wanted him to see her when with them then he'd agree. Once they see that he was genuine and got to know him then fine. But by running off it was disrespectful to the parents.

[Trav Le Bleu]

What the teacher should have done was sat down and talked to the parents and explained his feelings and to say that if they only wanted him to see her when with them then he'd agree. Once they see that he was genuine and got to know him then fine. But by running off it was disrespectful to the parents.

 

This isn't the BBC in 1970 any more Ken.

[Facecloth]

Writing a massively long post in this thread regarding the Forrest case, clicking off to another tab to check something to return and find the post has gone! 5-10 mins of my life wasted! Shall have another go later.

[Rincewind]

This isn't the BBC in 1970 any more Ken.

Sorry I was thinking too much.

[Captain...]

Writing a massively long post in this thread regarding the Forrest case, clicking off to another tab to check something to return and find the post has gone! 5-10 mins of my life wasted! Shall have another go later.

There is an autosave feature and you can recover things that were lost, if you click reply there should be an icon to bring the post back.

[Facecloth]

There is an autosave feature and you can recover things that were lost, if you click reply there should be an icon to bring the post back.

Tried that, I've used the auto save before, but this time it didn't come back. Not sure what happened I didn't even click off the page just went to a new tab.

[Rocket-Ron]

I went to Millners yesterday for a dozen baps. They only gave me 12. 

Edited 23 June 2013 by Rocket-Ron