ChatterBank2 mins ago
A Lesson Not Learnt
Jeremy Forrest mouthing I LOVE YOU in court to the underage pupil he had an affair and absconded to France with shows he either doesn't appreciate what he's done wrong or doesn't care. So IMO he deserves a very long sentence until at the very least he gets it into his thick head why such a relationship is wrong. The fact that the girl apparently responded the same way, also apologising and pledging to wait til he's free is not such a concern as she is an infatuated child. By the time Forrest gets out she may well have moved on, though if she is allowed to visit him in jail that will perpetuate an illicit romance for the Media. I've also been disturbed by glowing references Forrests fellow teachers gave to help his case, which surely condone his actions and therefore also make those teachers unsuitable for their jobs. Surely Forrest should never be allowed anywhere near a school again. what do you think?
Answers
All those trying to mitigate Forrest's actions by blaming the parenting, the school, anyone else or any organisation are shooting themselves in the foot! In doing so they admit this man's grotesque guilt, and they should applaud the court's findings. For an adult man, teacher or not, to "fall in love" with a 14-15 year-old girl is a danger to society if that...
20:05 Fri 21st Jun 2013
Just-Jude - if you have read this thread from start to finish it will be clear that Forest was not sentenced for 'falling in love' - he was sentenced for sexual activity with a minor (a girl of fourteen) and kidnapping.
Plenty of people manage to fall in love without doing either of those things - much less both!
Plenty of people manage to fall in love without doing either of those things - much less both!
All those trying to mitigate Forrest's actions by blaming the parenting, the school, anyone else or any organisation are shooting themselves in the foot!
In doing so they admit this man's grotesque guilt, and they should applaud the court's findings.
For an adult man, teacher or not, to "fall in love" with a 14-15 year-old girl is a danger to society if that "love" is the true adult type as Forrest himself implied in his declaration in court. As such it IS paedophilia by defintion and he is a clear-cut paedophile, even if it only deals with one child.
Teenager or not, she is a child under the law.
Adult kind of "love", soon or eventually, inevetibly leads to sexual intercourse and is a good and heathy thing for consenting adults.
Neither party has necessarily told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the detailed history of their "love affair". Hence intercourse cannot be ruled in or out.
His teacher compatriot's evidence should have been ruled out of court by the judge as it was given by predjudiced parties. Indeed their own predilictions should be investigated by the police as they knew what he was doing.
Posts saying we are all human and make mistakes are laughable in this case of blatant, knowing and persistent criminality.
So for safety's sake he should be jailed in a real slammer for a very long time - and certainly not in an open prison because of his "professional" background as some of our senile judges might do.
Caught bang-to-rights, get him away from decent citizens and throw away the key!
SIQ.
In doing so they admit this man's grotesque guilt, and they should applaud the court's findings.
For an adult man, teacher or not, to "fall in love" with a 14-15 year-old girl is a danger to society if that "love" is the true adult type as Forrest himself implied in his declaration in court. As such it IS paedophilia by defintion and he is a clear-cut paedophile, even if it only deals with one child.
Teenager or not, she is a child under the law.
Adult kind of "love", soon or eventually, inevetibly leads to sexual intercourse and is a good and heathy thing for consenting adults.
Neither party has necessarily told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the detailed history of their "love affair". Hence intercourse cannot be ruled in or out.
His teacher compatriot's evidence should have been ruled out of court by the judge as it was given by predjudiced parties. Indeed their own predilictions should be investigated by the police as they knew what he was doing.
Posts saying we are all human and make mistakes are laughable in this case of blatant, knowing and persistent criminality.
So for safety's sake he should be jailed in a real slammer for a very long time - and certainly not in an open prison because of his "professional" background as some of our senile judges might do.
Caught bang-to-rights, get him away from decent citizens and throw away the key!
SIQ.
When I was at school (fourty years ago) one of the teachers made advances inappropriately to a number of the 14/15 year old girls in his class. My friends mum came up to the school and complained about it to the Head. Another girl inthe same class, started seeing the same teacher just before she left school. We all knew he was dating her. Oddly enough her parents seemed quite proud of the fact that their daughter had managed to date a teacher. (My mum knew the parents). She was later pregnant, married him, had another child and was divorced by the time she was 20. He was still dating younger girls.
He wasn't charged with kidnapping. That does involve fraud or force to take someone against their will. He was charged with child abduction which consists of taking someone who is a child, and at 15 they are, out of the control of their parent or guardian.
As to the sentence, I am sure the CPS representatives and prosecuting counsel will not lose sleep over it. After all, Ronnie Jaffa , who was Mr Forrest's defence counsel, has told the BBC that the sentence was within guidelines, and he does not presently think that it's appealable , though he will give that further thought. I think it's worth a try, but he had all the evidence and the mitigation. He didn't call his client to testify, so he must have sensed that putting the man in the box would make the sentence far worse.
As to the sentence, I am sure the CPS representatives and prosecuting counsel will not lose sleep over it. After all, Ronnie Jaffa , who was Mr Forrest's defence counsel, has told the BBC that the sentence was within guidelines, and he does not presently think that it's appealable , though he will give that further thought. I think it's worth a try, but he had all the evidence and the mitigation. He didn't call his client to testify, so he must have sensed that putting the man in the box would make the sentence far worse.
jno, // I don't buy the line "It wasn't my fault because it was somebody else's job to stop me."//
I don’t remember seeing that anywhere. Did he say that?
solvitquick //Posts saying we are all human and make mistakes are laughable….//
I can’t find anything remotely humorous in this case. It’s just terribly sad. Silly, silly man.
//I don't quite understand how he had 5 extra charges 'sprung' on him, at sentencing.//
Listening to BBC Radio 4 tonight, I understood that the charges couldn’t be brought before the outcome of the initial trial because they related to events that took place in France where his crime of sleeping with a 15 year old is not a crime. However, when they were brought, he immediately pleaded 'guilty'. No doubt someone will correct me if I’ve misunderstood that.
I don’t remember seeing that anywhere. Did he say that?
solvitquick //Posts saying we are all human and make mistakes are laughable….//
I can’t find anything remotely humorous in this case. It’s just terribly sad. Silly, silly man.
//I don't quite understand how he had 5 extra charges 'sprung' on him, at sentencing.//
Listening to BBC Radio 4 tonight, I understood that the charges couldn’t be brought before the outcome of the initial trial because they related to events that took place in France where his crime of sleeping with a 15 year old is not a crime. However, when they were brought, he immediately pleaded 'guilty'. No doubt someone will correct me if I’ve misunderstood that.
A lot may depend on how true this is:
http://
Some of the points people here have raised in Jeremy Forrest's defence may turn out to be based on false testimony. I really hope this isn't true, not least because I'm one of those who have tried to defend him from some accusations.
http://
Some of the points people here have raised in Jeremy Forrest's defence may turn out to be based on false testimony. I really hope this isn't true, not least because I'm one of those who have tried to defend him from some accusations.
Correct , naomi. One of the rules for extradition is that the offence must be one that is an offence in the country from which extradition is sought. This really means ' essentially the same' to allow for differences in wording but,probably, the CPS were advised that the difference in the age of consent between France and England meant that sex with a 15 year-old, our offence, was not the same as theirs, though it might be argued that the offence was 'essentially' the same, and therefore the suspect could not be extradited for it. Both countries have an offence of abduction of a child and so he was extradited for that offence.
Prosecuting counsel are not supposed to use emotive language. Using words like 'paedophile', as this one did, might be seen as a breach of that rule.
Prosecuting counsel are not supposed to use emotive language. Using words like 'paedophile', as this one did, might be seen as a breach of that rule.
Dear Naomi24,
I find your PARTIAL quote from me as disappointing from you of all people.
You rightly quote part of my statement "Posts saying we are all human and make mistakes are laughable...."
However YOU DELIBERATELY STOP THERE AND EXCLUDE MY FULL STATEMENT! I continued by saying "in this case".
To use this partial-quote tactic to call me silly is quite disgraceful and you demean yourself in the process.
Having "known" you for years I am deeply disappointed to see you expose such an underhand side of your character.
Indeed you also twist jno's post for your own purpose whatever that is!
As regards your "ignorance" of the French and English law situation, this is simply blowing up smoke to obscure the real issue. He is subject to English Law and confessed to his paedophilia. Open and shut case.
Well done prosecutor and judge for ensuring justice was done to a certain extent - he'll be out soon so lock up your female children folks!
He should have got 2-3 times as many years - sorry to Forrest's closet sympathisers.
Disgusted, tho' not from Tunbridge Wells,
SIQ.
I find your PARTIAL quote from me as disappointing from you of all people.
You rightly quote part of my statement "Posts saying we are all human and make mistakes are laughable...."
However YOU DELIBERATELY STOP THERE AND EXCLUDE MY FULL STATEMENT! I continued by saying "in this case".
To use this partial-quote tactic to call me silly is quite disgraceful and you demean yourself in the process.
Having "known" you for years I am deeply disappointed to see you expose such an underhand side of your character.
Indeed you also twist jno's post for your own purpose whatever that is!
As regards your "ignorance" of the French and English law situation, this is simply blowing up smoke to obscure the real issue. He is subject to English Law and confessed to his paedophilia. Open and shut case.
Well done prosecutor and judge for ensuring justice was done to a certain extent - he'll be out soon so lock up your female children folks!
He should have got 2-3 times as many years - sorry to Forrest's closet sympathisers.
Disgusted, tho' not from Tunbridge Wells,
SIQ.
Just-Jude or as I prefer Mere-Jude,
You pitifully ignorant "person". Let me draw you a simple picture.
(1) You are denying Forrest's own confession that he committed paedophilia. His confession means he is a paedophile. There is no such thing as committing a one-off crime without being classed as a criminal.
If you only murder one person, you are still classed as a murderer.
Undertand; comprenez; verstehen?
(2) Thank you for "educating" me that only murderers are real criminals and only they deserve decent peoples venom. I never knew that!
(3) The immediate above is called "sarcasm", look that word up in the dictionary if you have one and can read.
I'm now off outside to wipe your dog-type views off the soul of my shoe.
SIQ.
You pitifully ignorant "person". Let me draw you a simple picture.
(1) You are denying Forrest's own confession that he committed paedophilia. His confession means he is a paedophile. There is no such thing as committing a one-off crime without being classed as a criminal.
If you only murder one person, you are still classed as a murderer.
Undertand; comprenez; verstehen?
(2) Thank you for "educating" me that only murderers are real criminals and only they deserve decent peoples venom. I never knew that!
(3) The immediate above is called "sarcasm", look that word up in the dictionary if you have one and can read.
I'm now off outside to wipe your dog-type views off the soul of my shoe.
SIQ.
solvitquick, and I also continued in my next line with ‘in this case’. Of course it’s ‘in this case’. This is the case we’re talking about! I’m at a loss to understand why you think I’ve twisted jno’s post which implied that the offender had claimed that it was someone else’s job to stop him, inferring, quite unfairly I believe, that he has failed to accept full responsibility for his actions – which as far as I’m aware he hasn’t. However, I’m willing to be corrected, but I’m still awaiting an answer. I freely confess I am guilty of ignorance of French law – but you didn’t understand why extra charges were brought so I told you what I’d heard on BBC Radio 4 – the content of which has since been verified by other people here. As for disappointing you – I am never duplicitous, and hence, disappointing those who have a penchant for assuming that their own questionable methods are also employed by others is of no consequence to me. Furthermore, I have no objection whatsoever to disappointing anyone who finds it impossible to conduct a discussion without resorting to personal insults. I’m delighted to say that a mind that can produce such unwarranted venom into what is simply a conversation between total strangers is quite beyond my comprehension.
And incidentally, unlike you, I am not in the habit of insulting people. Since my use of the word ‘silly’ followed a reference to ‘this case’, I would have thought it pretty obvious that I was referring to this whole sorry mess and simply reiterating my opinion of the teacher in question.
Jude, thank you.
And incidentally, unlike you, I am not in the habit of insulting people. Since my use of the word ‘silly’ followed a reference to ‘this case’, I would have thought it pretty obvious that I was referring to this whole sorry mess and simply reiterating my opinion of the teacher in question.
Jude, thank you.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
News4 mins ago
Some Hospitals, Universities And Police...
News10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
