That's what I never really understand with these issues. Didn't she give an interview a few years back where (and I stand to be corrected) said they went away when she was 13 and had sex on her 14th birthday?
Yet nothing, not a thing ever came of that, either at the time or since. Neither is any stigma ever seemingly linked to him or the Stones, unlike other singers, showbiz stars of similar misdemeanours.
I've no opinion either way on the sentence here, but the terminology seems at first glance to be unusually excessive.
She might have said that later but for Wyman to face charges she has to make a complaint to the police and give a statement or at least be prepared to do so if someone else makes a complaint instead.
I just find the fact that a guy who had been teaching for a number of years actually had to go to Google to find out what his punishment would be for hieing off to France with an underage pupil a bit bizarre to be honest.
Well he discovered that a good defence for his action of abducting was that it was done to save her life, hence the preposterous defence he used at his trial.
I haven't followed this too closely, so what was the wish of the girl? That he would be let off and free or put away?
She has applied for visiting orders, and said prior to the trial that she would wait for him. She had to be arrested in order to give evidence, after apparently refusing to. She cried when he was found guilty.
I don't think her wishes have been taken into account whatsoever. In fact, it seems like the Judge took more notice of her mother's feelings than hers. I only heard of the mum's victim statement ..... it seems the actual victim (according to the law) didn't get a say. Bizarre really.
Well he discovered that a good defence for his action of abducting was that it was done to save her life, hence the preposterous defence he used at his trial.
...by the girl. He didn't take the stand, she did, and she made the claim.
i dont think it was even abduction ..they ran away together.
Legally, it was since she was underage at the time and so couldn't leave the country without parental consent.
However, it is at the lower end of the offence. It's not as if he kidnapped her, tied up up, hid her in the boot of his car and drove to France. The fact that she consented was a mitigating factor but he still broke the law.
Yes I did! I wanted him out of her way until she's 18 and that's exactly what's happened.
I'm glad he didn't get away with his grooming and sexual activity with a child, and that he won't be free to resume his relationship with her until she's 18 (if she is still interested). The law is not an ass. thank goodness.
She probably will be.
In fact I'd say she will feel sorry for him, and it will strengthen their bonds even further.
As far as I know, there is currently no law which prevents her from visiting him in prison. Unless they invent one to stop her seeing him.
Pretty much I think, that happens quite a lot. I personally don't know how he could defend the abduction charge though. It was pretty clear that by the letter of the law he was guilty.
From a pedantic point of view, I don't agree with the prosecution labeling him a paedophile.
And the comparisons with the Hall sentence are bound to be made.
Absolutely! British justice is messed up when the scheming multiple offender Hall gets a sentence which will probably see him out in six months, and the authorities feeling sorry for him as 'an old man' - AND when he brazenly came out with all that crap with the long words that nobody understood - and Forrest gets this.
If the two sentences had been switched round I wouldn't have thought it unfair.
I also bet Hall's wearing his own clothes in a cushy hotel room-like 'cell' with his Sky TV and state-of-the-art gym, and Forrest's in the screaming nonce wing of some 19th century hell-hole.
I think that Forrest has been utterly selfish and reckless. He clearly didn't pay any heed to the warnings and advice given to him by his fellows and did what he wanted anyway. He discarded the professional code of conduct expected for those working with minors and seems to have encouraged this girl's latching on to him without any thought for the consequences- not for his wife and family, the girl's family or his colleagues. All the same, the sentence does seem unduly harsh when there are rapists and serial child molesters getting away with much less. It all seems very warped. Also, I don't claim to know the law very well but it does seem unfair if other charges were added at the last minute (because of more information being provided) and he wasn't given due time to prepare a defence. I have no sympathy for the man on one level but do think the sentencing is questionable. He is 'marked' for life, anyway, and has lost his teaching career (rightly so) the latter being pretty apt in terms of 'justice' so I suppose the only reason for keeping him locked up for a few years is to keep him away from his 'victim'.
Absolutely! British justice is messed up when the scheming multiple offender Hall gets a sentence which will probably see him out in six months, and the authorities feeling sorry for him as 'an old man' - AND when he brazenly came out with all that crap with the long words that nobody understood - and Forrest gets this.
If the two sentences had been switched round I wouldn't have thought it unfair.
I also bet Hall's wearing his own clothes in a cushy hotel room-like 'cell' with his Sky TV and state-of-the-art gym, and Forrest's in the screaming nonce wing of some 19th century hell-hole.
Totally agree.
Forrest has not denied anything.
Hall lied about his activities until he knew he couldn't get out of it. He'll get soft treatment because he's an old man.
Yes I did! I wanted him out of her way until she's 18 and that's exactly what's happened.
I'm glad he didn't get away with his grooming and sexual activity with a child, and that he won't be free to resume his relationship with her until she's 18 (if she is still interested). The law is not an ass. thank goodness.
Really? You think this is nearly four times worse than the 20-year campaign of Stuart Hall, who touched up a nine-year-old? (Don't forget the rape charge that's still 'on file', and his 'video collection').
In fact I'd say she will feel sorry for him, and it will strengthen their bonds even further.
As far as I know, there is currently no law which prevents her from visiting him in prison. Unless they invent one to stop her seeing him.
Well, if it's true that he was also sending cards and stuff to other girls then I feel that she may be too old for him when he gets out. :rolleyes: I hope she's finally grown up a bit and seen sense by then too.
She has applied for visiting orders, and said prior to the trial that she would wait for him. She had to be arrested in order to give evidence, after apparently refusing to. She cried when he was found guilty.
I don't think her wishes have been taken into account whatsoever. In fact, it seems like the Judge took more notice of her mother's feelings than hers. I only heard of the mum's victim statement ..... it seems the actual victim (according to the law) didn't get a say. Bizarre really.
In a way, the victim's opinions are not relevant to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, but something like an impact statement may affect sentencing. So her opinions don't matter in the sense of - either he committed the crime, or he didn't. He did commit the crime. So it is a Guilty. Whether his sentence might have been reduced because of her opinions is the question. I tend to think that again, her opinions are irrelevant as the point is - she is a child. Therefore she does not understand all the implications of what happened. When she is older and looks back, she may well realise she was being exploited by an adult who was in a position of trust and actually had a duty of care to her. Hence the sentence. He is not just a randomer who imagined he 'fell in love with' a child - he was someone who was trusted to keep her safe, and care about her GCSE results, not her other attributes.
She has applied for visiting orders, and said prior to the trial that she would wait for him. She had to be arrested in order to give evidence, after apparently refusing to. She cried when he was found guilty.
I don't think her wishes have been taken into account whatsoever. In fact, it seems like the Judge took more notice of her mother's feelings than hers. I only heard of the mum's victim statement ..... it seems the actual victim (according to the law) didn't get a say. Bizarre really.
It seems to be that her entire evidence given in court , was completely disregarded. According to law your incapable of making decisions for yourself in till your sixteen. I'm not sure what the point of her giving evidence was AT ALL.
Essentially calling the judge a moron on twitter ,did show up her age a little!
As far as I know, there is currently no law which prevents her from visiting him in prison.
Well I think she should indeed be allowed to visit him and that she will. Whether or not she will want to resume their relationship in two years time though is unknown, none of us can read the future. I think a Daily Mail series will be on the cards though, which may influence their decision then.
I dont think child abduction should be the correct term used, but unfortunately i dont think there is a term suitable either.
All Im reminded of is that Mark Bridger was charged with child abduction, and I cannot see how they are the same thing. YES she was 15 and therefore a child in the eyes of the law, BUT she willingly went to france with him. In my eyes, children that are abducted do not willingly go with the abducter.
5.5 years seems harsh to me, especially as Stuart Hall only got months for doing things with younger children that were not willing. It seems the family/mothers statement saying how they were subjected to appalling distress and how she now felt she was the worst mother in the world as "Someone got my child and I never saw it coming or saw it while it was happening." Im presuming the father didnt give a statement saying dont jail him as he thought in the press yesterday.
Why is anyone surprised that he was charged with the sexual crimes. What did they think would happen? The girl admitted to the police in detail the extent of the sexual relationship. Of course he knew he would be sentenced for it. He did not prepare a defence as he had none.
I'm slightly confused. How come he receives 5.5yrs for child abduction of one yet Stuart Hall only ets 15 months for abuse of 13 or possibly more children?
Really? You think this is nearly four times worse than the 20-year campaign of Stuart Hall, who touched up a nine-year-old? (Don't forget the rape charge that's still 'on file', and his 'video collection').
Comments
Just because those charges were only made public today it doesn't mean they were only put to him today.
Well he discovered that a good defence for his action of abducting was that it was done to save her life, hence the preposterous defence he used at his trial.
She has applied for visiting orders, and said prior to the trial that she would wait for him. She had to be arrested in order to give evidence, after apparently refusing to. She cried when he was found guilty.
I don't think her wishes have been taken into account whatsoever. In fact, it seems like the Judge took more notice of her mother's feelings than hers. I only heard of the mum's victim statement ..... it seems the actual victim (according to the law) didn't get a say. Bizarre really.
...by the girl. He didn't take the stand, she did, and she made the claim.
Legally, it was since she was underage at the time and so couldn't leave the country without parental consent.
However, it is at the lower end of the offence. It's not as if he kidnapped her, tied up up, hid her in the boot of his car and drove to France. The fact that she consented was a mitigating factor but he still broke the law.
She probably will be.
In fact I'd say she will feel sorry for him, and it will strengthen their bonds even further.
As far as I know, there is currently no law which prevents her from visiting him in prison. Unless they invent one to stop her seeing him.
Absolutely! British justice is messed up when the scheming multiple offender Hall gets a sentence which will probably see him out in six months, and the authorities feeling sorry for him as 'an old man' - AND when he brazenly came out with all that crap with the long words that nobody understood - and Forrest gets this.
If the two sentences had been switched round I wouldn't have thought it unfair.
I also bet Hall's wearing his own clothes in a cushy hotel room-like 'cell' with his Sky TV and state-of-the-art gym, and Forrest's in the screaming nonce wing of some 19th century hell-hole.
Had Jeremy just stuck to that he wouldn't be in this mess.
And by his defence team who presumably take instruction from him.
Totally agree.
Forrest has not denied anything.
Hall lied about his activities until he knew he couldn't get out of it. He'll get soft treatment because he's an old man.
Really? You think this is nearly four times worse than the 20-year campaign of Stuart Hall, who touched up a nine-year-old? (Don't forget the rape charge that's still 'on file', and his 'video collection').
Well, if it's true that he was also sending cards and stuff to other girls then I feel that she may be too old for him when he gets out. :rolleyes: I hope she's finally grown up a bit and seen sense by then too.
Exactly. Hall is evil. Forrest... disreputable and foolish, but no way would I equate him with Hall, never mind say he's four times worse.
In a way, the victim's opinions are not relevant to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, but something like an impact statement may affect sentencing. So her opinions don't matter in the sense of - either he committed the crime, or he didn't. He did commit the crime. So it is a Guilty. Whether his sentence might have been reduced because of her opinions is the question. I tend to think that again, her opinions are irrelevant as the point is - she is a child. Therefore she does not understand all the implications of what happened. When she is older and looks back, she may well realise she was being exploited by an adult who was in a position of trust and actually had a duty of care to her. Hence the sentence. He is not just a randomer who imagined he 'fell in love with' a child - he was someone who was trusted to keep her safe, and care about her GCSE results, not her other attributes.
It seems to be that her entire evidence given in court , was completely disregarded. According to law your incapable of making decisions for yourself in till your sixteen. I'm not sure what the point of her giving evidence was AT ALL.
Essentially calling the judge a moron on twitter ,did show up her age a little!
Well I think she should indeed be allowed to visit him and that she will. Whether or not she will want to resume their relationship in two years time though is unknown, none of us can read the future. I think a Daily Mail series will be on the cards though, which may influence their decision then.
All Im reminded of is that Mark Bridger was charged with child abduction, and I cannot see how they are the same thing. YES she was 15 and therefore a child in the eyes of the law, BUT she willingly went to france with him. In my eyes, children that are abducted do not willingly go with the abducter.
5.5 years seems harsh to me, especially as Stuart Hall only got months for doing things with younger children that were not willing. It seems the family/mothers statement saying how they were subjected to appalling distress and how she now felt she was the worst mother in the world as "Someone got my child and I never saw it coming or saw it while it was happening." Im presuming the father didnt give a statement saying dont jail him as he thought in the press yesterday.
I was referring only to the Forrest case.
he has served enough time and should be freed