So the whole thing has now turned into a big ol' cash cow? Never saw that one coming . Will be interesting to see if the teacher does an "exclusive" when he's released.
So the whole thing has now turned into a big ol' cash cow? Never saw that one coming . Will be interesting to see if the teacher does an "exclusive" when he's released.
Not sure that any of that applies in this case where the subject is only 16, cannot be named, and where presumably an adult would have needed to agree etc. Even if it did, most families wouldn't throw their daughter to the wolves to spare any blushes of their own.
I think parental consent is only needed for children under 16.
Well it serves you right for reading the tabloids, what did you expect?
The Sun will have insisted on the sexual details as part of the deal. It could argued that if you were a bit more mature yourself, you might know how tabloids operate...
She may not even have approached them: a common MO with Murdoch tabloids is: 'give us a story or we'll ruin your life'.
I don't know who contacted whom, but it's understandable she wants to give her side of the story given the media coverage of the case.
Bugger me, reminds me why I rarely post here these days!
Serves me right?! I didn't say I was personally affected by her 'revelations' and I'm more than mature enough thanks.
I'm merely pointing out the fact that by spilling the beans to tabloids who as you quite rightly pointed out don't often have the subject's best interests at heart she is doing neither herself nor her incarcerated 'boyfriend' any favours.
A more mature woman may think twice about doing such a thing.
So the whole thing has now turned into a big ol' cash cow? Never saw that one coming . Will be interesting to see if the teacher does an "exclusive" when he's released.
If he does I hope all the money goes to his victim :mad::mad::mad::mad:
No idea if Jeremy Forrest is remorseful (I'd find it difficult to be remorseful for a mutually caring relationship under these circumstances), but he was certainly of previously good character.
There is no evidence that Jeremy Forrest is a threat to other young people. He had no previous history of predatory or inappropriate behaviour, no indecent images of young girls on his computer, nothing to suggest that this is part of a pattern rather than a one-off.
Well unlike me and presumably you the jury heard all the evidence in the abduction case and the Judge the evidence in the sexual conduct case. Unlike you I have some faith in the legal system give appropriate verdicts and sentences. It is clear from the sentence and Judges statement what he thinks of Jermey Forrest and his actions. He was found to be a self-serving sexual predator.
Yes, the circumstances were different - the other cases didn't have top billing on the national news and come in the wake of high-profile abuse scandals that have exposed serious failings by the relevant authorities.
Unlike you I am willing to accept the narrative and circumstances surrounding the case as portrayed by the Judge's statement. Rather than having to resort to conspiracy theory or the Judge having hidden ulterior motives to explain the severity of the sentence. Judges are independent not subject to the whims of politicians or the media they can sentence people how they see fit and if outside the guidelines are subject to appeal to the court of appeal where other Judges will review the sentence.
And what is your opinion of those other cases, which you have described as "loving relationships"? Do you accept that in some cases the feelings between teachers and underage pupils are genuine, or do you think that all the underage pupils in those other cases were "groomed" as well?
I do not see them as cases of grooming a child for sex, I see them as cases of sexual conduct with a child. I view the teachers as acting in a completely unacceptable manner. That they should have not made any advances towards the pupil and should have declined any advances by their pupil explaining if they felt the need that it is inappropriate and would be illegal so they should desist.
She has maintained throughout that their relationship was 100% mutual
That is one of the reasons we have age of consent laws including different age of consent with those in positions of authority and laws on sexual grooming of children. Young people get crushes on people in positions in authority and can be befriended for the purpose of gaining consent.
It'll probably be the Daily Mail, they are the masters of hypocrisy and low reporting, it just wouldn't be right if it wasn't the DM really.
If they sell the wedding rights to the Daily Fail I will take back everything I have said in their defence, since they will have proved themselves to be a pair of complete plonkers...
He seem to have a lot of support here. Some of his supporters must have a bf or husband, would you find it acceptable if your husband bring his 15yr old mistress home to have sex behind your back? put yourself in his wife's shoes and take off your rose tinted glasses.We needs to send out a loud and clear message that this is wrong or every paedo in the country will use the excuse that it's alright to have sex with underage girls as long as they're in love. To me every comment on here supporting this guy is a vote for child abuse.
He seem to have a lot of support here. Some of his supporters must have a bf or husband, would you find it acceptable if your husband bring his 15yr old mistress home to have sex behind your back? put yourself in his wife's shoes and take off your rose tinted glasses.We needs to send out a loud and clear message that this is wrong or every paedo in the country will use the excuse that it's alright to have sex with underage girls as long as they're in love. To me every comment on here supporting this guy is a vote for child abuse.
You're right. It amazes me that some people find it acceptable for a male teacher of 30 to start a relationship with a 13 year old.
Did you see Lorraine Kelly interviewing Forrest's sister last week? What a daft woman she is. She described the interview (at the end) as "fascinating". She has a daughter not much older and I wonder how she would feel if her teacher had been having sex with her. I don't think she'd call that "fascinating".
You're right. It amazes me that some people find it acceptable for a male teacher of 30 to start a relationship with a 13 year old.
Did you see Lorraine Kelly interviewing Forrest's sister last week? What a daft woman she is. She described the interview (at the end) as "fascinating". She has a daughter not much older and I wonder how she would feel if her teacher had been having sex with her. I don't think she'd call that "fascinating".
I don't watch the programme, so does Kelly usually use interviews to favour the viewers with her opinion on whatever the topic is? Is it the company's editorial policy to do so, do you think?
Confused a little, and sorry if its been asked! When they went missing last year the girl was named as SNIP, but into days papers it the teenage girl (due to legal reasons unable to name) but if the girl was already named why can't they now!
When they went missing she was a missing person so her name and picture were published as it were in her best interests. She was a missing person, assumed abducted who they wanted to find.
Now however she is a minor involved in a legal case, a sexual one at that. So she has automatic anonymity, it doesn't matter that her name is known (I had forgotten her name till you said it) as by law you aren't allowed to publish her name.
When they went missing she was a missing person so her name and picture were published as it were in her best interests. She was a missing person, assumed abducted who they wanted to find.
Now however she is a minor involved in a legal case, a sexual one at that. So she has automatic anonymity, it doesn't matter that her name is known (I had forgotten her name till you said it) as by law you aren't allowed to publish her name.
I said "don't publish her name!" Because her name shouldnt be published as its illegal to do so and also the thread could easily get deleted which I don't want to happen. We have gotten 94 pages in without the thread overstepping the line and being nerfed and it would be a shame for it to go to shit now.
I said "don't publish her name!" Because her name shouldnt be published as its illegal to do so and also the thread could easily get deleted which I don't want to happen. We have gotten 94 pages in without the thread overstepping the line and being nerfed and it would be a shame for it to go to shit now.
Oops, sorry, I had done so several days ago here.:o
I honestly hadn't realised one shouldn't; if one puts his name in google, it leads to hers.
Fine, that's a valid argument (though I still disagree and would say it's too rigid), but then at least acknowledge that that's what you're saying: that the only way to protect those who would otherwise actually be groomed and abused is to ride roughshod over the wishes and feelings of those who are unfortunate enough to be the inevitable exception to the rule, and to have genuine non-grooming-induced feelings for someone.
If that's your position, then say to the girl in this case "very sorry, maybe you really weren't groomed and you and he genuinely love each other, but the pain we're putting you through is just the price you have to pay for protecting other people in superficially similar positions". Don't keep insisting that you have absolute 100% knowledge that she was groomed, just because to admit that maybe she wasn't would sit uncomfortably with your favoured method of protection.
And I ask again - how would you feel if it were you? I know you replied that you can only see it from the point of view of a parent, but surely you can try and put yourself in the position of all parties, not just the parents? Or are you agreeing with those who have made it clear that they see the girls' mother as the true victim here, and we shouldn't give a toss about the girl herself? Parents don't own their children, nor do they always know what's best for them.
There are conflicting interests and as in all such cases society has to take a view on which interest is paramount. Society expresses its view through the law and that's my viewpoint too. So even though I feel sorry for the situation the girl finds herself in I feel nothing but dismay for what Forrest engineered and it is essential for a message to be sent out to the many other teachers out there who might consider doing this kind of thing that it is unacceptable and has consequences.
Any upset or harm now caused to the girl is 100% the fault of the dominant adult, Forrest, and as best we can, we as a society need to stop it happening again (or at least try). Locking him away is the best we can do. We can of course offer support to the girl and I am sure this has been done but it's up to her and her parents to decide if it is accepted. Going to the papers isn't a good start.
Of course you can make judgements on an individual basis, that's the whole point of a police investigation & a trial, not to say the social workers & mental health professionals who will have been involved in this case.
A trial is held to determine if the defendant has broken the laws of the land, and that can only be evaluated by detailed analysis of the available evidence.
The law deems that minors under the legal age of consent, but between the ages of 13-15, capable of consent in law, and that consent is taken into consideration.
You want to daub all instances of relationships between teenagers and adults as grooming and child abuse, and that is no way to protect the best interests of the children involved.
I have stated repeatedly that I saw different kinds of relationships when I was at school: there were the predatory pervs & there was a genuine relationship.
It serves no purpose to conflate the two & punish the girl in a genuine relationship for the sins of the predatory pervs.
You can't avoid emotional turmoil to the girl in cases like this but as I said above, that is 100% the fault of the dominant adult, Forrest. He should have thought of the potential consequences when after striking up a friendship with her, he made that first decision to meet her with a sexual motive (which is incidentally when a sexual grooming offence is triggered).
Society has an overriding duty to try and protect all girls in her position from teachers wishing to groom them for sex and yes, like it or not that's what he did, however she now feels about it. Innocent parties do suffer when someone commits a crime but that is entirely the fault of those who commit the crimes and the blame cannot be deflected elsewhere as some seem intent on doing. He knew exactly what he was doing and all the potential consequences for them both; she did not, for she could not at 14 have had the necessary life experience to know.
She's the victim, even if she doesn't yet realise it, and he's the perpetrator of a deliberate series of criminal acts against her. Her emotional suffering now was caused by that, and nothing else. All society can do now is offer support, the damage is done, and it was caused by Forrest.
So the whole thing has now turned into a big ol' cash cow? Never saw that one coming . Will be interesting to see if the teacher does an "exclusive" when he's released.
no he won't be able to do that, criminals can't sell their story and profit from it
although...I dont know where the law would stand on say selling the rights to their wedding as that would be different
Not surprising at all. The internet is full of sexist little men who will always blame the woman first, even if the woman is/was an underage girl.
At this point I'm wishing the media would stop giving the young lass the attention, but they have no kind of morals when it comes to knowing when to back off, so...:mad:
This man created the opportunity to be alone with her by giving her detentions after school. He flattered her taste in music and took advantage to get close to her when she was away from her parents on a school trip. Seriously if this isn't grooming then I don't know what is. It's bad enough for his sister to go on TV to justify what he did, now this girl is selling her story to the paper and from the sound of it, she is a very immature 15 yr old. Who in their right mind would want to have a baby at her age ?? Read the article, all he wants to do is have sex with this underage girl, they have absolutely nothing in common !
Not sure how I feel about a paper allowing a 16 year old to "sell her story" in this way about an incident of this nature. I would think/hope that at least one parent had to give their blessing for it to happen. But still. Just feels a bit wrong to me.
That can be true of people of any age. It is an error to assume that everybody over a certain age acts with total logic with regards to emotions, and it is also an error to assume that an adult cannot be manipulated by someone much younger. The way some kids wrap their parents around the little finger proves this.
Grooming and seduction are really the same thing; she's not unattractive, it's entirely possible that she did "groom" him. Whether she will come to regret it later is irrelevant IMHO as it does not alter her actions now. That's not to absolve him for the bad decisions that he made, but just to recognise that in some situations it takes two to tango. Teenagers should not be absolved of all responsibility for the bad decisions that they make. They should learn from them and move on lest we create generations of increasingly stupid and infantalized teenagers, as well as adults who aren't ready for real life and cannot deal with responsibility.
When they went missing she was a missing person so her name and picture were published as it were in her best interests. She was a missing person, assumed abducted who they wanted to find.
Now however she is a minor involved in a legal case, a sexual one at that. So she has automatic anonymity, it doesn't matter that her name is known (I had forgotten her name till you said it) as by law you aren't allowed to publish her name.
Don't publish her name!
It does seem absurd , as everyone following the story knows her name .
Not sure how I feel about a paper allowing a 16 year old to "sell her story" in this way about an incident of this nature. I would think/hope that at least one parent had to give their blessing for it to happen. But still. Just feels a bit wrong to me.
That can be true of people of any age. It is an error to assume that everybody over a certain age acts with total logic with regards to emotions, and it is also an error to assume that an adult cannot be manipulated by someone much younger. The way some kids wrap their parents around the little finger proves this.
Grooming and seduction are really the same thing; she's not unattractive, it's entirely possible that she did "groom" him. Whether she will come to regret it later is irrelevant IMHO as it does not alter her actions now. That's not to absolve him for the bad decisions that he made, but just to recognise that in some situations it takes two to tango. Teenagers should not be absolved of all responsibility for the bad decisions that they make. They should learn from them and move on lest we create generations of increasingly stupid and infantalized teenagers, as well as adults who aren't ready for real life and cannot deal with responsibility.
When they went missing she was a missing person so her name and picture were published as it were in her best interests. She was a missing person, assumed abducted who they wanted to find.
Now however she is a minor involved in a legal case, a sexual one at that. So she has automatic anonymity, it doesn't matter that her name is known (I had forgotten her name till you said it) as by law you aren't allowed to publish her name.
Don't publish her name!
It does seem absurd , as everyone following the story knows her name .
Not surprising at all. The internet is full of sexist little men who will always blame the woman first, even if the woman is/was an underage girl.
Or there could alternatively be a lot of people who think the world is slightly more complex than a simplistic cartoon made up of only black and white with no shades of grey.
Comments
Will it be OK or Hello who cover the wedding?
It'll probably be the Daily Mail, they are the masters of hypocrisy and low reporting, it just wouldn't be right if it wasn't the DM really.
I think parental consent is only needed for children under 16.
Bugger me, reminds me why I rarely post here these days!
Serves me right?! I didn't say I was personally affected by her 'revelations' and I'm more than mature enough thanks.
I'm merely pointing out the fact that by spilling the beans to tabloids who as you quite rightly pointed out don't often have the subject's best interests at heart she is doing neither herself nor her incarcerated 'boyfriend' any favours.
A more mature woman may think twice about doing such a thing.
If he does I hope all the money goes to his victim :mad::mad::mad::mad:
So she can get a lush wedding dress!!!!!
Well unlike me and presumably you the jury heard all the evidence in the abduction case and the Judge the evidence in the sexual conduct case. Unlike you I have some faith in the legal system give appropriate verdicts and sentences. It is clear from the sentence and Judges statement what he thinks of Jermey Forrest and his actions. He was found to be a self-serving sexual predator.
Unlike you I am willing to accept the narrative and circumstances surrounding the case as portrayed by the Judge's statement. Rather than having to resort to conspiracy theory or the Judge having hidden ulterior motives to explain the severity of the sentence. Judges are independent not subject to the whims of politicians or the media they can sentence people how they see fit and if outside the guidelines are subject to appeal to the court of appeal where other Judges will review the sentence.
I do not see them as cases of grooming a child for sex, I see them as cases of sexual conduct with a child. I view the teachers as acting in a completely unacceptable manner. That they should have not made any advances towards the pupil and should have declined any advances by their pupil explaining if they felt the need that it is inappropriate and would be illegal so they should desist.
That is one of the reasons we have age of consent laws including different age of consent with those in positions of authority and laws on sexual grooming of children. Young people get crushes on people in positions in authority and can be befriended for the purpose of gaining consent.
I imagine so.
There will be whichever soap star or RTV contestant is the current tabloid fave pressed into service as bridesmaid.
If they sell the wedding rights to the Daily Fail I will take back everything I have said in their defence, since they will have proved themselves to be a pair of complete plonkers...
You're right. It amazes me that some people find it acceptable for a male teacher of 30 to start a relationship with a 13 year old.
Did you see Lorraine Kelly interviewing Forrest's sister last week? What a daft woman she is. She described the interview (at the end) as "fascinating". She has a daughter not much older and I wonder how she would feel if her teacher had been having sex with her. I don't think she'd call that "fascinating".
I don't watch the programme, so does Kelly usually use interviews to favour the viewers with her opinion on whatever the topic is? Is it the company's editorial policy to do so, do you think?
When they went missing she was a missing person so her name and picture were published as it were in her best interests. She was a missing person, assumed abducted who they wanted to find.
Now however she is a minor involved in a legal case, a sexual one at that. So she has automatic anonymity, it doesn't matter that her name is known (I had forgotten her name till you said it) as by law you aren't allowed to publish her name.
Don't publish her name!
The melodrama.
Melodrama? Where?
I said "don't publish her name!" Because her name shouldnt be published as its illegal to do so and also the thread could easily get deleted which I don't want to happen. We have gotten 94 pages in without the thread overstepping the line and being nerfed and it would be a shame for it to go to shit now.
Oops, sorry, I had done so several days ago here.:o
I honestly hadn't realised one shouldn't; if one puts his name in google, it leads to hers.
Any upset or harm now caused to the girl is 100% the fault of the dominant adult, Forrest, and as best we can, we as a society need to stop it happening again (or at least try). Locking him away is the best we can do. We can of course offer support to the girl and I am sure this has been done but it's up to her and her parents to decide if it is accepted. Going to the papers isn't a good start.
You can't avoid emotional turmoil to the girl in cases like this but as I said above, that is 100% the fault of the dominant adult, Forrest. He should have thought of the potential consequences when after striking up a friendship with her, he made that first decision to meet her with a sexual motive (which is incidentally when a sexual grooming offence is triggered).
Society has an overriding duty to try and protect all girls in her position from teachers wishing to groom them for sex and yes, like it or not that's what he did, however she now feels about it. Innocent parties do suffer when someone commits a crime but that is entirely the fault of those who commit the crimes and the blame cannot be deflected elsewhere as some seem intent on doing. He knew exactly what he was doing and all the potential consequences for them both; she did not, for she could not at 14 have had the necessary life experience to know.
She's the victim, even if she doesn't yet realise it, and he's the perpetrator of a deliberate series of criminal acts against her. Her emotional suffering now was caused by that, and nothing else. All society can do now is offer support, the damage is done, and it was caused by Forrest.
no he won't be able to do that, criminals can't sell their story and profit from it
although...I dont know where the law would stand on say selling the rights to their wedding as that would be different
Not surprising at all. The internet is full of sexist little men who will always blame the woman first, even if the woman is/was an underage girl.
At this point I'm wishing the media would stop giving the young lass the attention, but they have no kind of morals when it comes to knowing when to back off, so...:mad:
It does seem absurd , as everyone following the story knows her name .
It does seem absurd , as everyone following the story knows her name .
Or there could alternatively be a lot of people who think the world is slightly more complex than a simplistic cartoon made up of only black and white with no shades of grey.