While some pedos might suffer from a mental disorder, I don't think all pedophilia is committed by people with disorders. Plus, not sure where you live, but it's a criminal offense in the UK at least and everywhere else I would hope.
Actually he's right, there is no crime of "paedophilia" under British law. The charge would be something like "sexual intercourse with a minor" or "sexual contact with a minor". The law doesn't mention the word paedophile at all, precisely because someone could be a paedophile, have desires, but not actually act on them so they wouldn't be guilty of any crime.
Actually he's right, there is no crime of "paedophilia" under British law. The charge would be something like "sexual intercourse with a minor" or "sexual contact with a minor". The law doesn't mention the word paedophile at all, precisely because someone could be a paedophile, have desires, but not actually act on them so they wouldn't be guilty of any crime.
Ah ok I understand. But I thought it was pretty obvious what I was implying. While technically correct a tad pedantic nevertheless.
Ah ok I understand. But I thought it was pretty obvious what I was implying. While technically correct a tad pedantic nevertheless.
Hardly pedantic, it's the very legal issues, what the charges may etc. etc. that we are discussing.
If I was being pedantic I would point out that to be a paedophile would mean someone has desires towards pre-pubescent children, those with desires towards older children and young adults are actually ephebophiles.
Granted, thanks to the media especially, the word paedophile has come to mean anyone who has sex or sexual contact with someone under 16 in the UK.
Jeez! Why are you defending this sick teachers actions. Some of your comments sound like your ok with what he has done. Stop comparing what he has done to something that happened and was acceptable 1500 years ago. We live year 2012. If you want to live by 1500 year old laws, go move to some backward country. Stop making out what he did is ok. Its NOT.
I don't think anybody is defending his actions. Just pointing out that Megan is not entirely blameless, and cannot in any way be classed as a victim. She was not forced into doing anything, she chose to run away with him.
They both were wrong, both to blame for what happened. But what he did was worse and he gets the majority of the blame because of this.
those with desires towards older children and young adults are actually ephebophiles.
Which is even more unhelpful precisely because it includes attraction to both children and as you said, young (legal) adults.
Anyway, this is about a statutory abduction not (at the moment) sexual activity of any kind, goodness only knows why the latter has taken over the thread.
Which is unhelpful because it includes attraction to both children and young (legal) adults.
Anyway, this is about a statutory abduction not (at the moment) sexual activity of any kind goodness only knows why the latter has taken over the thread.
Indeed, but I was only answering igotyoubabe's specific posts.
Hardly pedantic, it's the very legal issues, what the charges may etc. etc. that we are discussing.
If I was being pedantic I would point out that to be a paedophile would mean someone has desires towards pre-pubescent children, those with desires towards older children and young adults are actually ephebophiles.
Granted, thanks to the media especially, the word paedophile has come to mean anyone who has sex or sexual contact with someone under 16 in the UK.
I think nowadays people generally refer to a pedophile as someone who has committed a criminal offence as you described and not some dreamers who just 'think' . But of course technically your right.
Indeed, but I was only answering igotyoubabe's specific posts.
Ah yes, I see that now.
But to reinforce the point, they (who keep on raising the hypothetical sexual aspects) haven't even got the usual "misleading thread title" excuse because this one, to the o/p's credit (well no, reading the O/P it was due to luck actually!) has exactly the right title.
To be honest any teacher that runs off with a young girl is not thinking rationally. It's career suicide, divorce, financial ruin, unemployment, social isolation and long term unemployment even if they don't go to jail. And a monent's rational thought would make it obvious that the relationship would not last either.
Having said that relationships between young people and those with some form of authority over them are wrong and I think the law recognises that. The authority muddles relationships making it difficult to separate genuine feelings. Teacher-pupil, doctor-patient, social worker-client, all wrong.
I think nowadays people generally refer to a pedophile as someone who has committed a criminal offence as you described and not some dreamers who just 'think' . But of course technically your right.
It is not a case of whether they think or do, but the fact that peadophile specifically refers to pre-pubescent children. The merits of how mature a 15 year old can be argued from many perspectives, but I don't think anyone would argue that Megan is not post-pubescent, therefore by definition of the meaning of the word either in the dictionary or by law he cannot be considered to be a peadophile.
But to reinforce the point, they (who keep on raising the hypothetical sexual aspects) haven't even got the usual "misleading thread title" excuse because this one, to the o/p's credit (well no, reading the O/P it was due to luck actually!) has exactly the right title.
Isn't that the truth. The more we learn about Mr Forrest, the more idiotic he appears. And is it just me, or do some of the the quotes attributed to his French lawyer sound more like a young girl's idea of romance than another adult?
"What these two people have been through is a story of intense love and passion. It is as old as the world and I believe that that can never be stopped"
"His only crime is to have fallen in love with a 15-year-old"
It is not a case of whether they think or do, but the fact that peadophile specifically refers to pre-pubescent children. .
Here we go again. Show me a reputable dictionary definition that says that (and there are a few) and I'll show you more, even medical and nursing dictionaries, that just say "children". In common parlance it's just "children". That Wikipedia article that many seem to have picked up on (and often misunderstand) has a lot to answer for.
Just thought I'd point out that the specialist meaning (e.g. in research circles) has a wider meaning to the general public. Like the classical in classical music - two meanings. Sometimes, words are like that.
The priority should not have been to find her quickly, But to find them in such a way where Megan's welfare and psychological wellbeing is not seriously harmed. If it took six months to find them and then another six months of softly, softly negotiations to encourage them to come back to the UK. It would have produced a much better outcome for Megan. Preserved the relationship with her family (which is now I can imagine irrevocabally damaged) and would have meant that she was not as likely to be the subject of bullying once she returned to school.
So let me understand what you are saying here!
You are saying that everyone should have butted out and left them alone to just get on with it!
Does it not occur to you that at some stage this teacher would more than likely do the same to Megan as he has done to his current wife and run away with another woman, only this time leaving a vulnerable young teenager in a strange place maybe too scared to contact her family for help.
This is how many young teenage girls end up on the street selling their bodies for sex to pay for their drink and drug habits that they get drawn into in an attempt to mask the emotional pain men like him inflict on them!
Do you really believe he was going to bring her back once she turned 16?
Why would he?
Lets face it, He has nothing to come back to! His career has evaporated, his wife now knows about his sordid affair with a school girl that began when Megan was only 14, He knew very well what he had done and he also knew the if he ever returned to these shores he would be arrested and spend time in prison.
Are you really saying that her mother should have waited only to find out that her beloved daughter had been found in a gutter with her wrist cut?
He should pay for what he has done with time behind bars.
IMHO they did the right thing getting her away from him as quickly as possible, if only the school had acted so swiftly, this could have so easily been nipped in the bud, but I have a feeling the school where to busy trying to avoid yet another scandal.
Here we go again. Show me a reputable dictionary definition that says that (and there are a few) and I'll show you more, even medical and nursing dictionaries, that just say "children". In common parlance it's just "children". That Wikipedia article that many seem to have picked up on (and often misunderstand) has a lot to answer for.
Just thought I'd point out that the specialist meaning (e.g. in research circles) has a wider meaning to the general public. Like the classical in classical music - two meanings. Sometimes, words are like that.
As far as I can see there is no evidence at all to suggest that his attraction to Megan was because of her age. If, he was looking for an underage girl then surely it would have been fairly easy to have found someone outside the school that he worked in, particularly with his involvment in music.
As I have said before, totally inappropriate and undoubtedly very silly and misguided, but imo it does not make him a paedophile. Of course legally the blame lies solely with him as he is the one with responsibility to act in a certain way. That does not mean that Megan was not a willing partner, or that she didn't know what she was doing.
Here we go again. Show me a reputable dictionary definition that says that (and there are a few) and I'll show you more, even medical and nursing dictionaries, that just say "children". In common parlance it's just "children". That Wikipedia article that many seem to have picked up on (and often misunderstand) has a lot to answer for.
But this case is about a statutory child abduction anyway.
That wiki article has 133 references, you can't find any among them that are a lot more reputable than an online dictionary? I found these within the first half dozen or so entries (and would have been more if I could be bothered to open pdf files and read the medical papers referenced):
Edit: By the way, relying on search engines for reliable organic results is pretty futile as they are designed to block anything of a sensitive nature.
That wiki article has 133 references, you can't find any among them that are a lot more reputable than an online dictionary? I found these within the first half dozen or so entries (and would have been more if I could be bothered to open pdf files and read the medical papers referenced):
Edit: By the way, relying on search engines for reliable organic results is pretty futile as they are designed to block anything of a sensitive nature.
I own a 30,000+ reference printed dictionary of nursing/medical terms and several standard dictionaries. They all just say "children". I know some online sources say "pre-pubescent" but many (more) do not. I'm just saying that people who continually pick up anyone who uses the "children" definition aren't helping as there is clearly the specialised meaning and also the general meaning, which is in common use among the general public.
This is no different from the debates we used to see among afficionados of classical, romantic, baroque etc. music, who jumped upon those of us who deign to lump them all together as "classical music". Both are right.
Having said all that, this case is about a statutory child abduction offence and not sexual offences of any kind (at the moment).
I don't think anybody is defending his actions. Just pointing out that Megan is not entirely blameless, and cannot in any way be classed as a victim. She was not forced into doing anything, she chose to run away with him.
They both were wrong, both to blame for what happened. But what he did was worse and he gets the majority of the blame because of this.
It doesn't matter what she did.
As a teacher he knew right from wrong, it was entirely his duty to not be tempted.
I've seen 15 yr olds throwing themselves at teachers, finding out where they drink in the hope they may have just a bit too much and can be seduced.
None of that matters, the rules for teaching are very clear, it's the teachers responsibility.
I hope she won't be treated as a 'returning heroine' while he languishes in jail.
I also hope her parents, after the initial relief of having her home, will take her to task for what she' s put everyone through.
Leaves the parents in a very sticky situation. Teenagers at the best of times are 'difficult' but she will be truly emotional and unpredictable. It really has messed up her life and I do hope she can get her head round what's happened.
Stupid teacher. Still can't comprehend how a grown man of such trust could be so irresponsible. Saying he was in love just doesn't cut it. At his age he should already know love means thinking about the other person and the consequences of your actions.
Didnt want to keep going on about the definition of a pedo, but whilst technically he might not be and criminally he might not get charged with any child abuse type crimes, if,he ends up in prison, he should ask any of his 'peers' what they think he is. I don't think a criminal dictionary is going to defend him in there.
Comments
Actually he's right, there is no crime of "paedophilia" under British law. The charge would be something like "sexual intercourse with a minor" or "sexual contact with a minor". The law doesn't mention the word paedophile at all, precisely because someone could be a paedophile, have desires, but not actually act on them so they wouldn't be guilty of any crime.
Ah ok I understand. But I thought it was pretty obvious what I was implying. While technically correct a tad pedantic nevertheless.
Hardly pedantic, it's the very legal issues, what the charges may etc. etc. that we are discussing.
If I was being pedantic I would point out that to be a paedophile would mean someone has desires towards pre-pubescent children, those with desires towards older children and young adults are actually ephebophiles.
Granted, thanks to the media especially, the word paedophile has come to mean anyone who has sex or sexual contact with someone under 16 in the UK.
They both were wrong, both to blame for what happened. But what he did was worse and he gets the majority of the blame because of this.
Which is even more unhelpful precisely because it includes attraction to both children and as you said, young (legal) adults.
Anyway, this is about a statutory abduction not (at the moment) sexual activity of any kind, goodness only knows why the latter has taken over the thread.
Indeed, but I was only answering igotyoubabe's specific posts.
I think nowadays people generally refer to a pedophile as someone who has committed a criminal offence as you described and not some dreamers who just 'think' . But of course technically your right.
But to reinforce the point, they (who keep on raising the hypothetical sexual aspects) haven't even got the usual "misleading thread title" excuse because this one, to the o/p's credit (well no, reading the O/P it was due to luck actually!) has exactly the right title.
Having said that relationships between young people and those with some form of authority over them are wrong and I think the law recognises that. The authority muddles relationships making it difficult to separate genuine feelings. Teacher-pupil, doctor-patient, social worker-client, all wrong.
It is not a case of whether they think or do, but the fact that peadophile specifically refers to pre-pubescent children. The merits of how mature a 15 year old can be argued from many perspectives, but I don't think anyone would argue that Megan is not post-pubescent, therefore by definition of the meaning of the word either in the dictionary or by law he cannot be considered to be a peadophile.
Isn't that the truth. The more we learn about Mr Forrest, the more idiotic he appears. And is it just me, or do some of the the quotes attributed to his French lawyer sound more like a young girl's idea of romance than another adult?
"What these two people have been through is a story of intense love and passion. It is as old as the world and I believe that that can never be stopped"
"His only crime is to have fallen in love with a 15-year-old"
"I believe it will never end"
Good grief.
Here we go again. Show me a reputable dictionary definition that says that (and there are a few) and I'll show you more, even medical and nursing dictionaries, that just say "children". In common parlance it's just "children". That Wikipedia article that many seem to have picked up on (and often misunderstand) has a lot to answer for.
Just thought I'd point out that the specialist meaning (e.g. in research circles) has a wider meaning to the general public. Like the classical in classical music - two meanings. Sometimes, words are like that.
So let me understand what you are saying here!
You are saying that everyone should have butted out and left them alone to just get on with it!
Does it not occur to you that at some stage this teacher would more than likely do the same to Megan as he has done to his current wife and run away with another woman, only this time leaving a vulnerable young teenager in a strange place maybe too scared to contact her family for help.
This is how many young teenage girls end up on the street selling their bodies for sex to pay for their drink and drug habits that they get drawn into in an attempt to mask the emotional pain men like him inflict on them!
Do you really believe he was going to bring her back once she turned 16?
Why would he?
Lets face it, He has nothing to come back to! His career has evaporated, his wife now knows about his sordid affair with a school girl that began when Megan was only 14, He knew very well what he had done and he also knew the if he ever returned to these shores he would be arrested and spend time in prison.
Are you really saying that her mother should have waited only to find out that her beloved daughter had been found in a gutter with her wrist cut?
He should pay for what he has done with time behind bars.
IMHO they did the right thing getting her away from him as quickly as possible, if only the school had acted so swiftly, this could have so easily been nipped in the bud, but I have a feeling the school where to busy trying to avoid yet another scandal.
As far as I can see there is no evidence at all to suggest that his attraction to Megan was because of her age. If, he was looking for an underage girl then surely it would have been fairly easy to have found someone outside the school that he worked in, particularly with his involvment in music.
As I have said before, totally inappropriate and undoubtedly very silly and misguided, but imo it does not make him a paedophile. Of course legally the blame lies solely with him as he is the one with responsibility to act in a certain way. That does not mean that Megan was not a willing partner, or that she didn't know what she was doing.
That wiki article has 133 references, you can't find any among them that are a lot more reputable than an online dictionary? I found these within the first half dozen or so entries (and would have been more if I could be bothered to open pdf files and read the medical papers referenced):
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618?journalCode=clinpsy
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/448575/pedophilia
http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia
Edit: By the way, relying on search engines for reliable organic results is pretty futile as they are designed to block anything of a sensitive nature.
I own a 30,000+ reference printed dictionary of nursing/medical terms and several standard dictionaries. They all just say "children". I know some online sources say "pre-pubescent" but many (more) do not. I'm just saying that people who continually pick up anyone who uses the "children" definition aren't helping as there is clearly the specialised meaning and also the general meaning, which is in common use among the general public.
Here's one though, a respected medical dictionary, and googling it brings up loads more at the top of the results page. http://www.merriam-webster.com/medlineplus/pedophilia
This is no different from the debates we used to see among afficionados of classical, romantic, baroque etc. music, who jumped upon those of us who deign to lump them all together as "classical music". Both are right.
Having said all that, this case is about a statutory child abduction offence and not sexual offences of any kind (at the moment).
It doesn't matter what she did.
As a teacher he knew right from wrong, it was entirely his duty to not be tempted.
I've seen 15 yr olds throwing themselves at teachers, finding out where they drink in the hope they may have just a bit too much and can be seduced.
None of that matters, the rules for teaching are very clear, it's the teachers responsibility.
I also hope her parents, after the initial relief of having her home, will take her to task for what she' s put everyone through.
Leaves the parents in a very sticky situation. Teenagers at the best of times are 'difficult' but she will be truly emotional and unpredictable. It really has messed up her life and I do hope she can get her head round what's happened.
Stupid teacher. Still can't comprehend how a grown man of such trust could be so irresponsible. Saying he was in love just doesn't cut it. At his age he should already know love means thinking about the other person and the consequences of your actions.
Didnt want to keep going on about the definition of a pedo, but whilst technically he might not be and criminally he might not get charged with any child abuse type crimes, if,he ends up in prison, he should ask any of his 'peers' what they think he is. I don't think a criminal dictionary is going to defend him in there.
Admin Notice: This thread is continued here: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=61417845#post61417845