[SofaRosa]

Originally Posted by Flukie

How is it that Megan's mothers surname is Wilson, yet Megan's is Stammers - the name of the mothers ex-boyfriend?
They weren't even married yet she gave Megan his name tho he's not her father..

Apparently he's now married to someone else, which at least explains what puzzled me, when Megan sent a message to him saying can I see you on Saturday. I wondered why she has to ask that of someone she was living with!

Perhaps Mr Stammers adopted Megan? I didn't know that Ms Wilson and Mr Stammers never married either-not that it matters! Lots of kids are given or take on the last name of a parent who brings them up-whether related biologically or not.
I admit to being initially confused with Mr Stammers' status and the comments re the Saturday plan too.

[stirlingguy1]

From his Myspace site:


Jeremy Ayre

It's a bit weird, but after today I'm looking forward to september quite a lot! Just need to get through the next two weeks... :-)

7 June: I wanna wake up naked next to you, kissing the curve in your clavicle.

Does she have a curve in her clavicle?

[PlausibleDenial]

Originally Posted by SofaRosa

Indeed hadn't thought of that-if indeed it is a wolf? Wonder if Forrest is a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'?

Yes it is a wolf. the sun article shows the reverse of that tattoo

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/a...0_1590736a.jpg

[Moony]

Originally Posted by Tt88

I read a comment on daily mail site where someone implied that if the couple can avoid police until she is sixteen then he cant be charged. Im guessing this is wrong as she went when she was 15 but im not sure.

He'll be charged - but it may complicate what he can be charged with.

For example - he took a minor out of the country without parental consent - so in all likelyhood will fall foul of the child abduction law (unless he can provide a reasonable excuse which looks unlikely). That offence has already occured, so he can be prosecuted for it.

If they do evade capture until she turns 16, it would I imagine be more difficult to bring child sex charges against him without her cooperation (assuming they have had sex - or do before she turns 16) - afterall, how do you prove when they first had sex (unless she is pregnant).

There is the teacher pupil thing - but by the time she does turn 16 - would he have a reasonable defence on the basis that he cant possibly still be considered her teacher when sexual contact took place - he effectively walked out of that job (thereby terminating his employment) on Friday.

Can any legal eagles comment - i'm not a law person so the above is all speculation on my part.

[SofaRosa]

I note that Megan posted online that she doesn't like to be called that-prefers Meg or Megzy. If so, wonder why the appeals from her family are all addressed to the more formal Megan? Most families would use nicknames etc

[stirlingguy1]

Originally Posted by PlausibleDenial

Yes it is a wolf. the sun article shows the reverse of that tattoo

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/a...0_1590736a.jpg

“Love will find a way through paths where wolves fear to prey.”

Lord Byron quotes (English Romantic poet and satirist, 1788-1824)

[tinman]

Originally Posted by Flukie

You're a bit late. That one's already been done on here.

I'm not going through 50 pages to find out.;

[droogiefret]

Originally Posted by aggs

But in which universe was that ever going to be anything other than a disaster.

As things stood, it was a little local difficulty and would have remained so. Now, it's Interpol and a life on the run. I can understand how for a lovestruck 15 year old it could have its charm, but for a 30 year old?

Anyway, I would imagine any imagined charm soon pales when the reality of no money, no contact with the outside world and moving from place to place kicks in.

My money's on them turning themselves in. He'll lose his job but may escape prison and in 6 months or so they can set up home together legally.

Then in another 18 months it'll be boring and they'll split up. I shall write the book.

[Moony]

Originally Posted by tinman

I'm not going through 50 pages to find out.;

The search bar is your friend......

[PlausibleDenial]

Originally Posted by stirlingguy1

“Love will find a way through paths where wolves fear to prey.”

Lord Byron quotes (English Romantic poet and satirist, 1788-1824)

That is a very apt quote.

[SofaRosa]

Originally Posted by Moony

He'll be charged - but it may complicate what he can be charged with.

For example - he took a minor out of the country without parental consent - so in all likelyhood will fall foul of the child abduction law (unless he can provide a reasonable excuse which looks unlikely). That offence has already occured, so he can be prosecuted for it.

If they do evade capture until she turns 16, it would I imagine be more difficult to bring child sex charges against him without her cooperation (assuming they have had sex - or do before she turns 16) - afterall, how do you prove when they first had sex (unless she is pregnant).

There is the teacher pupil thing - but by the time she does turn 16 - would he have a reasonable defence on the basis that he cant possibly still be considered her teacher - he effectively walked out of that job (thereby terminating his employment) on Friday.

Can any legal eagles comment?

Of course he can still be charged! Retired teachers have been charged with sexual offences dating back yonks etc It also doesn't have to be a pupil at the school at which the teacher taught at either. It is ANY student under 18. General Teaching Council can clarify all this.

[SofaRosa]

Originally Posted by PlausibleDenial

Yes it is a wolf. the sun article shows the reverse of that tattoo

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/a...0_1590736a.jpg

Thanks PD.

[Moony]

Originally Posted by SofaRosa

Of course he can still be charged! Retired teachers have been charged with sexual offences dating back yonks etc It also doesn't have to be a pupil at the school at which the teacher taught at either. It is ANY student under 18. General Teaching Council can clarify all this.

He can - if they can prove sexual contact took place before she was 16 or whilst he was still in a teacher/pupil scenario.

If he is no longer her teacher, and they cant prove sexual contact took place before she turned 16 - what exactly will he be charged with?

[SofaRosa]

Originally Posted by droogiefret

My money's on them turning themselves in. He'll lose his job but may escape prison and in 6 months or so they can set up home together legally.

Then in another 18 months it'll be boring and they'll split up. I shall write the book.

No, he wouldn't be able to 'set up home with her legally' until she's 18-different rules/laws apply to teachers etc in past/present positions of trust.

[PlausibleDenial]

I just read this on his blog:

About a week ago I had a bit of a moral dilemma to deal with, both internally and externally. And the overiding question it left me with was this;

How do we, and how should we, define what is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable???

I came to a few different conclusions, mainly that actually we get a lot of things wrong, but at the end of the day I was satisfied that if you can look yourself in the mirror and know that, under all the front, that you are a good person, that should have faith in your own judgement.
http://jeremyayremusic.com/2012/05/1...t-like-heroin/

[droogiefret]

Originally Posted by PlausibleDenial

I just read this on his blog:

Do you think it's related???

Spoiler

sorry - I'll stop

[Ethel_Fred]

I see that not only has the school had a similar case in the recent past but that it also allowed a paedo priest to remain as a governor - and the school received an excellent rating from OFSTED on dealing with such situations. Guess it's because they have so much practice.

[Moony]

Originally Posted by SofaRosa

different rules/laws apply to teachers etc in past/present positions of trust.

Can you clarify?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ition-of-trust

From the wording in section 2 and 4, It would appear an offence has only occurred if the sexual contact happened whilst the person over 18 was in the position of trust at the time the sexual contact occurred.

There is nothing to suggest the law would apply to anybody who has ever held a past position of trust.

[SofaRosa]

Originally Posted by Moony

He can - if they can prove sexual contact took place before she was 16 or whilst he was still in a teacher/pupil scenario.

If he is no longer her teacher, and they cant prove sexual contact took place before she turned 16 - what exactly will he be charged with?

It isn't only sexual contact-it's physical or emotional harm and a wealth of other things that can be taken into account here under the SAFE Practice guidelines. No matter how you may try and spin this, Forrest can certainly be charged& it dosen't only hinge on sexual contact.

[MargMck]

The messages he sent to her come from the lyrics of a band he went to see with family members at Camden, according to his blog.

"Clavicle" by Alkaline Trio

i've been on top of the world since about six months ago, marking the first time i laid eyes on you. i lost all train of thought as i entered the room. i saw what looked like really good food, then i saw you and so did you. i wanna wake up naked next to you, kissing the curve in your clavicle. kissing your clavicle. i've been on top of the world since about 1 week ago, marking a time when i was drunk enough to talk to you. i lost all train of thought as your eyes met mine. told you i thought you were gorgeous. you gave me your phone number, i gave you mine. before you left i said that you can bet i'll be bothering you soon. you said, "no bother, please do." i've called you twice. it's been a hellish fight to not think about you all the time. sitting around waiting for your call. i wanna wake up naked next to you, kissing the curve in your clavicle. kissing your clavicle. i wanna wake up naked next to you, kissing the curve in your clavicle.

[thorr]

Originally Posted by Moony

He can - if they can prove sexual contact took place before she was 16 or whilst he was still in a teacher/pupil scenario.

If he is no longer her teacher, and they cant prove sexual contact took place before she turned 16 - what exactly will he be charged with?

But there is no limit on a bringing a conviction. The crime has already been committed, it doesn't lapse as soon as she reaches 18.

But what on earth was he thinking! No matter where they go, they will always be on the run. No amount of time can undo what he's done. He'll never be able to earn a living, certainly not busking because teaching is out of the question now. If they ever try to get back into the uk, they'll be picked up as soon as they hit passport control. They can stay on the run forever, so the sooner he turns himself in, might go in his favour. However, as a maths teacher, he is soon going to find out that 1+1=3. 3 years that is!

[Moony]

Originally Posted by thorr

But there is no limit on a bringing a conviction. The crime has already been committed, it doesn't lapse as soon as she reaches 18.

Which crime - there are many that could apply here (I have already covered the child abduction one).

[thorr]

Originally Posted by SofaRosa

It isn't only sexual contact-it's physical or emotional harm and a wealth of other things that can be taken into account here under the SAFE Practice guidelines. No matter how you may try and spin this, Forrest can certainly be charged& it dosen't only hinge on sexual contact.

Agreed.

[Smokeychan1]

Originally Posted by Igotyoubabe

They were investigating 'concerns'. The parents probably knew about the concerns, but not the affair. She may have lied to her parents and said nothing is going on.

Maybe they will eventually come back, he will get into whatever trouble the police have in store for him, she will sell her story, make loads of money, he will be out next year and then they will live happily ever after.

The supply teacher who had sex with a 16 year old from the same school and sex with a 15 year old (it was not clear in the report I read if the younger girl also attended Bishop Bell), was sentenced to 7 years in prison. Although Mr Forrest isn't known to be a repeat offender, I would not have thought his action in taking Megan out of the country will be treated trivially.

Originally Posted by aggs

But it also says that the pair had had their phones investigated and been questioned by the Police - so that would imply that as the parents of a minor they were informed and present. Indeed, the headmaster has said:

http://news.sky.com/story/989565/mis...d-pairs-phones

Even as a bottom covering exercise, I wouldn't have thought the head could say the parents were aware if thet weren't?

Maybe they believed her and thought it was something that had been blown up out of proportion, but it sounds like they did know there was something that was being investigated?

And maybe the parents were of the same mind as some here who feel that a 'softly-softly' approach to a teenage romance (despite age differences) is the best stance if you want to avoid the sort of situation that has occurred. I'm not sure it is useful to examine how they reacted, or question what they knew or didn't know. They will be giving themselves a hard enough time, even though blameless in all this.

Originally Posted by SofaRosa

Well, that story comes from a neighbour who reported the rows to the police-who attended several times- but no action was taken.

This is a contrary one isn't it. On the one hand the police assert Megan is in no danger and on the other the media imply Mr Forrest was involved in 'violent' ding-dongs with his wife - though I don't think it was clear from the unnamed neighbour's comments who was being 'violent' to who. Unfortunately, domestic violence is one of those crimes for which no action being taken (by the police) still doesn't mean much, but the source of the implied accusation is too dubious to give much credit.

[Moony]

Originally Posted by SofaRosa

It isn't only sexual contact-it's physical or emotional harm and a wealth of other things that can be taken into account here under the SAFE Practice guidelines. No matter how you may try and spin this, Forrest can certainly be charged& it dosen't only hinge on sexual contact.

I'm not trying to "spin" anything. Cant we go 2 minutes without accusations being thrown around?

People are apparently speculating on what he can and cant be charged with - depending on when they are found or return:

Post #1246

"I read a comment on daily mail site where someone implied that if the couple can avoid police until she is sixteen then he cant be charged. Im guessing this is wrong as she went when she was 15 but im not sure."

I'm simply discussing those speculations. I already stated he'll be charged - i'm discussing what exactly he'll be charged with.