A Lesson Not Learnt

[vernonk]

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?

[andy-hughes]

AOG, you and I have been back and forth with out exchange of views for some time on this, but I have to repeat what i feel are the salient points in my argument -

in order for any teacher and pupil to be in a position where either can contemplate loving the other, then a degree of inapporpriate behaviour has to have taken place - and for that, responsibility lies fairly and squarely with the teacher.

His (or indeed hers) is the responsibility to act according to their status and position, and the adult in the relationship, to steer it well away from relationship waters before it ever gets even close. This is done simply by establishing some basic ground rules, and arranging a professional distance between both parties - which the majority of teachers in secondary schools manage to achieve on a daily basis.

The judge - who is party to direct evidence and testimony which we are not, believes without doubt that Forrest was the instigator and driver of this relationship, and that is obviously evident in the fact that he took the child abroad. even if this had been her idea, its execution is entirely down to him, to prevent it, as he should have prevented sexual activity with a girl who was days past her fifteenth birthday.

The issue is not about her maturity, or the depth and reality of their feelings for each other, it is the simple fact that anything other than a standard teacher-pupil relationship was fostered and developed by a mature adult with a vulnerable teenager, and for that, he has received just punishment, and removal from the settting where it could re-occur.

[naomi24]

Sipowicz, //It seems the teacher is not the only one lacking common sense.//

I couldn't agree more.

[Sqad]

naomi....we both have been on AB a long time and it has been clear that on subjects as this and others, there has been a mad scramble to reach the summit of the "high moral ground"
Quite often justifiably so,but i have now reached the situation whereby i agree in principal to the moral/ amoral aspect that after reading the same blurb,from the same people that i automatically take an opposite view.

Sad i know, but true.

Also the moral view to me is so complicated with diverse explanations that it takes 4 or 5 paragraphs to explain it and unfortunately i suffer from severe attention deficiency syndrome ( I get bored)

[jackthehat]

The Law does not bend itself to fit particular circumstance.
The Law says that when you are an adult man, you may not kidnap/run away nor have sexual relationships with a fifteen year old girl.

That these two see themselves as star-crossed lovers is neither here, nor there.

That's not so hard to understand, either, is it?

[emmie]

5 and a half years, long enough to reflect on his stupidity.

[Ellipsis]

Maybe they are star crossed lovers.

Or maybe when he gets out she'll be too old for him and he'll start banging/abducting a different 15-year-old.

Who knows? Who cares?

[Ellipsis]

LOL, seeing an ad for "Complete Classroom Management - Free Trial" alongside this thread ...

[emmie]

Ellipsis, the parents will i expect..

[emmie]

if it had been my daughter i would want him hung, drawn and quartered.

[Prudie]

Jeez there is absolutely not a scrap of evidence that he has hankered after a 'young girl' before nor that he will do so again. He's made a massive mistake, has been more than sufficiently punished. Doesn't that satisfy everyone enough without further adding the vitriol?

[naomi24]

Jack, //That these two see themselves as star-crossed lovers is neither here, nor there.

That's not so hard to understand, either, is it?//

No, the way they see themselves patently obvious – which is why charges of paedophilia and abduction are so utterly ridiculous. How easy it is to point the finger.

[naomi24]

*is patently .....

[Carakeel]

No, if he were a priest, he would not have been arrested in the first place! He would have had a "naughty boy" glance from his bishop at most!!!

[Ellipsis]

Naomi, have you got children or are you an auntie, godmother or good friend to somebody who has? If so, please imagine how you or the parents would feel if their child was abducted by a teacher ...

[emmie]

child grooming, abduction, having sex with a minor, not a little matter at all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23004956

[humbersloop]

he broke the law, he exploited his position as a teacher and he breached public trust

how is expressing moderate disapproval of those things holier than thou?

[naomi24]

Ellipsis, I am a mother.

[jackthehat]

Naomi - He wasn't charged with any offences relating to paedophilia, that is the National Press using emotive terms.

In order for him to have been charged with Kidnapping/Abduction, etc. there has to be such an offence on the Statute Books.......and lo! there is. It fitted his actions and he was tried and convicted under it.

Just because it may not seem to 'fit' the complicated circumstances of this event in the court of Public Opinion rally is of little matter.