Some would argue that, but I admire him for calling it the way of his conscience, as opposed to the way the law defines it.
There is something to be said for that attitude, but I think it can make you look a bit daft (I seem to remember a case of a guy having sex with a 14 year old and pleading not guilty because he believed that the age of consent was too high).
The main thing is that he's been banned from working with kids for ever so it'll have sent a message to every teacher reminding them that under 18 = no no no and i can imagine a few teachers disposing of their phones and smashing up laptop hard drives while some hormonal 15 year old is distraught that their favourite teacher has abandoned them who promised to love them forever
But if we follow the 'tariffs at the time' non-logic to its conclusion then anybody convicted today of a murder they committed before the death penalty was abolished should then be sentenced to be hanged :eek:
It only works that way if the current tariffs are higher I think.
People who are outraged about the disparity between Forrest's sentence and that of Stuart Hall need to bear in mind that Hall was sentenced in accordance with the tariffs that applied at the time of his offences, not the tariffs that would apply if he committed the offences today. Thankfully, child abuse is taken far more seriously than it was back in the 70s and 80s.
Another thing I can't get my head round is why this devastated mother allowed her daughter to stay overnight at a friends house on the same day she was confronted with the liaison by Police and a Social Worker in her own home.
Of course she didn't stay at a friend's. She boarded a ferry with her lover.
I don't think the mother really gave much of a toss to be honest which is why I have never believed her to be genuine in her distress.
I don't agree with his sentence, but there's simply no comparison between the tariffs that apply today and the tariffs that used to apply back in the day.
I guess the sentence has a large deterrent factor, sending out a very clear message to teachers about what will happen to them should they do this.
It doesn't work as a deterrent at that school.
In February 2009, teaching assistant Robert Healy was jailed for seven years after he admitted grooming two girls using the social networking site Bebo. He admitted having sex three times with the younger girl between October and December 2007 and seven times with the older girl between February and April 2008.
Canon Gordon Rideout was allowed to remain chair of the school governors for more than a year despite having being suspended by the Church of England following a Criminal Records Bureau check and despite the school being aware. Rideout was jailed for 10 years in May 2013 for abusing 36 vulnerable girls and boys at a now closed Barnardo's home in Crawley, West Sussex, over a four-year period between the 1960s and 1970s
I agree, I'd have sentenced Hall consecutively for the offences. He groped frightened young girls against their will. It's a terrible thing to do. He treated those girls like objects. I think its an appalling crime. I abhor people who treat other human beings like objects with which they can do as they please.
But Jeremy Forrest didn't treat his pupil like an object. He fell in love with her, he respected her wishes, he looked after her. Indeed, he treated her as a human being. The authorities however, have treated her as something other than fully human. She says she wasn't abused by him, but the authorities say they know better. She says she wanted to be with him, but that counts for nothing according to the law. She has been treated by the police and the courts like a baby or worse - the property of her parents. The authorities have objectified this girl just as Stuart Hal objectified his victims.
If a 15 year old is competent to give her consent to life changing medical operations (which they are), then, however inadvisable or inappropriate a relationship with a teacher is, to label what happened abuse or some sort of crime against her is fundamentally misconceived. It was unprofessional, it was unfortunate, but anyone who seriously believes that her relationship with this man has done her more harm than being put through this ridiculous trial is deluding themselves.
I don't see how the law has objectified her. The teacher broke the law - not her. It is obvious why she may be psychologically unprepared to admit she is a 'victim' yet. She has a lot emotionally invested in believing she was 'in love' - as has he.
Going through any court case is an horrendous trauma in the short-term but ultimately, in the longterm - a good thing as she will see hopefully, she was exploited by an adult into whose care she'd been entrusted.
It is horrendous being a witness, but there are obvious motivating factors why she'd be defensive of him, and let's face it, the first person you fall in lerve with, is at the time the love of your life, etc etc. She could even marry him a day after she was 16. But give her a few years - the whole rest of her life - and the short term trauma of the court case will be as nothing, compared to the enormity of being abused.
As I said upthread, one of my kids' teachers was done for internet pR0n and the effects on other people, not just the abusive teacher, are far-reaching. His wife and child lost their home. Parents of the children he taught are still left wondering what he was thinking when he was looking at their daughters. My son, whose teacher he'd been for several years, and who was his star pupil in his year, was also severly upset by the whole thing as that was someone he had liked and trusted.This was a couple of years ago now, and this teacher never laid a finger on any child but the repercussions go on and on.
Just because he shared a folie a deux with a child, of some huge, Disneyesque romantic love, does not make it any more acceptable than if he was a pervert hanging round the skateboard park in a dirty raincoat.
It'll be interesting to see reactions if this turns out to be one of those rare situations where they do ultimately settle down and marry and have kids.
I don't see how the law has objectified her. The teacher broke the law - not her. It is obvious why she may be psychologically unprepared to admit she is a 'victim' yet. She has a lot emotionally invested in believing she was 'in love' - as has he.
Going through any court case is an horrendous trauma in the short-term but ultimately, in the longterm - a good thing as she will see hopefully, she was exploited by an adult into whose care she'd been entrusted.
It is horrendous being a witness, but there are obvious motivating factors why she'd be defensive of him, and let's face it, the first person you fall in lerve with, is at the time the love of your life, etc etc. She could even marry him a day after she was 16. But give her a few years - the whole rest of her life - and the short term trauma of the court case will be as nothing, compared to the enormity of being abused.
As I said upthread, one of my kids' teachers was done for internet pR0n and the effects on other people, not just the abusive teacher, are far-reaching. His wife and child lost their home. Parents of the children he taught are still left wondering what he was thinking when he was looking at their daughters. My son, whose teacher he'd been for several years, and who was his star pupil in his year, was also severly upset by the whole thing as that was someone he had liked and trusted.This was a couple of years ago now, and this teacher never laid a finger on any child but the repercussions go on and on.
Just because he shared a folie a deux with a child, of some huge, Disneyesque romantic love, does not make it any more acceptable than if he was a pervert hanging round the skateboard park in a dirty raincoat.
You definitely have a point, but I'm not sure you should treat someone as a victim if they don't want to be treated as one. You cant force her to think that he abused her if she doesn't see it that way.
I don't agree with his sentence, but there's simply no comparison between the tariffs that apply today and the tariffs that used to apply back in the day.
There have been similar cases of teacher/student sex more recent than the the cases being used as a comparison. It would probably be sensible to look at those cases when comparing tariffs handed out.
It'll be interesting to see reactions if this turns out to be one of those rare situations where they do ultimately settle down and marry and have kids.
We'd never know, because I'm guessing he will be given a new identity when he leaves prison.
Even so, they'd still be people who wouldn't accept it.
People who are outraged about the disparity between Forrest's sentence and that of Stuart Hall need to bear in mind that Hall was sentenced in accordance with the tariffs that applied at the time of his offences, not the tariffs that would apply if he committed the offences today. Thankfully, child abuse is taken far more seriously than it was back in the 70s and 80s.
The main thing is that he's been banned from working with kids for ever so it'll have sent a message to every teacher reminding them that under 18 = no no no and i can imagine a few teachers disposing of their phones and smashing up laptop hard drives while some hormonal 15 year old is distraught that their favourite teacher has abandoned them who promised to love them forever
These case are nothing now , it's all happened before and it will happen again in the future, teachers know the risk and are willing to sacrifice everything, regardless of this harsh sentencing
These case are nothing now , it's all happened before and it will happen again in the future, teachers know the risk and are willing to sacrifice everything, regardless of this harsh sentencing
We'd never know, because I'm guessing he will be given a new identity when he leaves prison.
Even so, they'd still be people who wouldn't accept it.
Why would he get a new identity? Public opinion seems to be more on his side than against so he isn't likely to be at risk of attack. Surely if he is on the sex offenders register, he'd have to have the same identity or how would he be monitored?
I saw on the front page of one of the red tops today, they were calling him a paedophile.
What?! A paedophile?!
He should sue. It's not legally right. And it's libelous.
Paedophilia is a sexual predilection for pre-pubescent children. A world away from fancying a teenager. :rolleyes:
My guess is that a court would rule that the legal definition is different from the dictionary definition. I do agree that the papers (and indeed the prosecution) shouldn't use the word though, if anything because it might actually put his life at risk in prison and when he's released.
Why would he get a new identity? Public opinion seems to be more on his side than against so he isn't likely to be at risk of attack. Surely if he is on the sex offenders register, he'd have to have the same identity or how would he be monitored?
Because, based even on the replies in this thread, there are likely to be some people who think he's a danger, and may act accordingly. I'd certainly consider asking for it if I were him. As for the sex offenders register, I'm not sure how that works, but I'm fairly sure there are provisions for it.
You definitely have a point, but I'm not sure you should treat someone as a victim if they don't want to be treated as one. You cant force her to think that he abused her if she doesn't see it that way.
But that's exactly the problem, she is not old enough to make those type of decisions.
Looking back i'm appalled at some of situations i put myself through when i was a young teen, there is no doubt that till a certain age your decisions are clouded by your immaturity. As you grow older you may regret things you do but your thought process is clear. Till a certain age If you cannot protect yourself, you even if you are not willing too, society has a duty to protect you.
This guy has no excuse because he was teacher, that justifies the harshness of the sentence.
I don't see how the law has objectified her. The teacher broke the law - not her. It is obvious why she may be psychologically unprepared to admit she is a 'victim' yet. She has a lot emotionally invested in believing she was 'in love' - as has he.
The law objectifies her by saying that her wishes count for nothing. It does not accord her the rights of an autonomous human being who can decide if she wants to run off to france with her teacher. It says she can do that when she is 16, but not when she is 15. It takes no account of her, her understanding, her maturity. To ignore the things that make someone human - their freedom of choice, their desires and wishes and say 'these things are irrelevant' is treat them as something other than human. It is objectifying.
Going through any court case is an horrendous trauma in the short-term but ultimately, in the longterm - a good thing as she will see hopefully, she was exploited by an adult into whose care she'd been entrusted.
You can't possibly know that. Everyone has anecdotal stories about the girl at school who ended up with a teacher (and got away with it). Many of them stay together, and many girls who have consensual relationships with older men, even if they don't last, maintain they weren't exploited in any way. They say it was a part of their life, that it formed their character, that they enjoyed it at the time. I think you are being impossibly paternalistic. As if somehow it makes sense to say that at 15 girls don't know what's good for them but at 16 they do, or at 18 they do, and that in any event you always know best.
It is horrendous being a witness, but there are obvious motivating factors why she'd be defensive of him, and let's face it, the first person you fall in lerve with, is at the time the love of your life, etc etc. She could even marry him a day after she was 16. But give her a few years - the whole rest of her life - and the short term trauma of the court case will be as nothing, compared to the enormity of being abused.
Again, I don't see you've any evidence for saying she was abused. He broke a law. In some countries what he did would not have been unlawful - and even if it was technically unlawful it would not be prosecuted. Whether she was abused is a separate question to whether he committed a criminal offence. She says she wasn't.
Comments
There is something to be said for that attitude, but I think it can make you look a bit daft (I seem to remember a case of a guy having sex with a 14 year old and pleading not guilty because he believed that the age of consent was too high).
Doubtful. Love and lust are as blind as ever.
It only works that way if the current tariffs are higher I think.
What about Graham Ovenden?
Of course she didn't stay at a friend's. She boarded a ferry with her lover.
I don't think the mother really gave much of a toss to be honest which is why I have never believed her to be genuine in her distress.
I don't agree with his sentence, but there's simply no comparison between the tariffs that apply today and the tariffs that used to apply back in the day.
It doesn't work as a deterrent at that school.
I don't see how the law has objectified her. The teacher broke the law - not her. It is obvious why she may be psychologically unprepared to admit she is a 'victim' yet. She has a lot emotionally invested in believing she was 'in love' - as has he.
Going through any court case is an horrendous trauma in the short-term but ultimately, in the longterm - a good thing as she will see hopefully, she was exploited by an adult into whose care she'd been entrusted.
It is horrendous being a witness, but there are obvious motivating factors why she'd be defensive of him, and let's face it, the first person you fall in lerve with, is at the time the love of your life, etc etc. She could even marry him a day after she was 16. But give her a few years - the whole rest of her life - and the short term trauma of the court case will be as nothing, compared to the enormity of being abused.
As I said upthread, one of my kids' teachers was done for internet pR0n and the effects on other people, not just the abusive teacher, are far-reaching. His wife and child lost their home. Parents of the children he taught are still left wondering what he was thinking when he was looking at their daughters. My son, whose teacher he'd been for several years, and who was his star pupil in his year, was also severly upset by the whole thing as that was someone he had liked and trusted.This was a couple of years ago now, and this teacher never laid a finger on any child but the repercussions go on and on.
Just because he shared a folie a deux with a child, of some huge, Disneyesque romantic love, does not make it any more acceptable than if he was a pervert hanging round the skateboard park in a dirty raincoat.
You definitely have a point, but I'm not sure you should treat someone as a victim if they don't want to be treated as one. You cant force her to think that he abused her if she doesn't see it that way.
There have been similar cases of teacher/student sex more recent than the the cases being used as a comparison. It would probably be sensible to look at those cases when comparing tariffs handed out.
We'd never know, because I'm guessing he will be given a new identity when he leaves prison.
Even so, they'd still be people who wouldn't accept it.
Or the entire legal system is corrupt :rolleyes:
These case are nothing now , it's all happened before and it will happen again in the future, teachers know the risk and are willing to sacrifice everything, regardless of this harsh sentencing
What?! A paedophile?!
He should sue. It's not legally right. And it's libelous.
Paedophilia is a sexual predilection for pre-pubescent children. A world away from fancying a teenager. :rolleyes:
Like I said, love (and indeed lust) are blind.
Why would he get a new identity? Public opinion seems to be more on his side than against so he isn't likely to be at risk of attack. Surely if he is on the sex offenders register, he'd have to have the same identity or how would he be monitored?
My guess is that a court would rule that the legal definition is different from the dictionary definition. I do agree that the papers (and indeed the prosecution) shouldn't use the word though, if anything because it might actually put his life at risk in prison and when he's released.
Because, based even on the replies in this thread, there are likely to be some people who think he's a danger, and may act accordingly. I'd certainly consider asking for it if I were him. As for the sex offenders register, I'm not sure how that works, but I'm fairly sure there are provisions for it.
But that's exactly the problem, she is not old enough to make those type of decisions.
Looking back i'm appalled at some of situations i put myself through when i was a young teen, there is no doubt that till a certain age your decisions are clouded by your immaturity. As you grow older you may regret things you do but your thought process is clear. Till a certain age If you cannot protect yourself, you even if you are not willing too, society has a duty to protect you.
This guy has no excuse because he was teacher, that justifies the harshness of the sentence.
And less the time he's already served, of course.
He's no danger to anyone, hopefully he'll be let out early.
It's ironic he'd have got less time if he'd killed her!
You get people who murder two people with a car and get about 2 years.
Hall's judge allegedly has consistently given lower sentences for offences involving children. He is scheduled to be the judge at the Roach trial
The law objectifies her by saying that her wishes count for nothing. It does not accord her the rights of an autonomous human being who can decide if she wants to run off to france with her teacher. It says she can do that when she is 16, but not when she is 15. It takes no account of her, her understanding, her maturity. To ignore the things that make someone human - their freedom of choice, their desires and wishes and say 'these things are irrelevant' is treat them as something other than human. It is objectifying.
You can't possibly know that. Everyone has anecdotal stories about the girl at school who ended up with a teacher (and got away with it). Many of them stay together, and many girls who have consensual relationships with older men, even if they don't last, maintain they weren't exploited in any way. They say it was a part of their life, that it formed their character, that they enjoyed it at the time. I think you are being impossibly paternalistic. As if somehow it makes sense to say that at 15 girls don't know what's good for them but at 16 they do, or at 18 they do, and that in any event you always know best.
Again, I don't see you've any evidence for saying she was abused. He broke a law. In some countries what he did would not have been unlawful - and even if it was technically unlawful it would not be prosecuted. Whether she was abused is a separate question to whether he committed a criminal offence. She says she wasn't.