ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Jeremy Forrest verdict - aibu to be confused?(1000 Posts)
Yep, I don't think even his own parents could deny he's a massive, hideous scumbag with no impulse control - but how can he have been found guilty of abduction when the girl he had an affair with said it was her idea to go to France and she went willingly?
Can somebody legal shed some light?
How is anyone confused?
Would you be equally confused if your own DD was taken abroad by their teacher who had sex with them?
Would it be OK if it was your DD's idea to go abroad?
Get a grip people. There is a very good reason why it is not OK for teachers to have sex with underage pupils and if you can't understand that reason then there is something very wrong with your thinking.
It is the same as statutory rape, youmeatsix. The 15 yo might 'consent' but legally, they can't. She 'consented' to go to France but legally she can't.
Add me to the "confused about the confusion" lot.
It's quite straightforward. She cannot give consent because she's a child - the fact she says she wanted to go is irrelevant because she can't give consent legally.
Child abduction isn't necessarily against a child's will - children will often go quite willingly with people they know and trust. Even a parent can abduct a child.
Lets say a neighbour tells your child they are going to Disneyland. Your child says "please can you take me too" so the neighbour gets them in the car and off they go. Your child consented, they wanted to go, they asked to go - is that abduction?
But he wasn't convicted of statuatory rape.
I could understand him being convicted of statutory rape, why he wasn't tried for that is confusing.
She is a child! She is unable to give her willing bloody consent to being abducted and sexually abused by any adult.
I do hope I've helped clear up some of the confusion.
What greythorne said.
Blimey, hope none of you confused lot are in positions of care for children. Who knows what illegal things you could end up doing because you were 'confused'.
The judge and jury made a decision entirely in accordance with British law, but that law is certainly rather inconsistent: in this case a 15 year old is deemed a child incapable of making up her own mind, but in the Bulger case 10 year olds were tried in an adult court for murder. Either you're criminally/legally responsible or you're not at a certain age. The law absolutely needs to be changed.
There is no doubt that he was morally culpable and acted in a wicked manner - he totally abused his position of trust as a teacher, and he should have been prosecuted for that alone, as well as for having sex with a minor, and for aiding her plans to run away. But 'child abduction' is not the right crime for what he did. There should be a legal differentiation between someone who physically takes a younger child against their will and someone who, as here, abuses their status to exploit a teenager. Ultimately, though, I suppose the important thing is that he didn't get away with it without being punished.
lljkk - it could be that the girl has denied any sexual contact and refused any examination. Or it could've been down to something to do with age of consent in France.
I think he has added to his sentence just that bit more by saying 'I love you' to the girl prior to sentencing.
or it could be there is no such thing as statutory rape in british law.
He should also have been tried to that lljkk.
Frankly I find this debate shocking. The idea that it's OK because a child consented to sex, an appropriate relationship, running away. This man was in a Position of Trust. It is a legal framework that he would have been WELL aware of. I am because I worked in SS. He would because he works in a school.
Regardless of the sexual relationship, had he run away with her knowing her age and vulnerability, he could be prosecuted. As Rike says, abduction is frequently with the 'consent' of the child.
Next time you are in a public place and spot a child, offer them sweets. Offer to take them to buy some sweets. When they willingly accept, pop them in your car and drive them away. Then see how the child's parents, the police and any sane person views your actions.
YOU CANNOT TAKE CHILDREN AWAY WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT. That should be so clear to everyone.
And that doesn't even address the fact that he raped her, he was in a position of authority, she was vulnerable etc. etc.
That would be *tried for that too.
Nulli - you may have a point, however you are talking about two different things.
The age of consent in this country is 16 (as we all know).
BUT he wasn't just any adult, he was her teacher. Perentis in loco.
The age of criminal culpability is 10 in England and Wales. That's not saying that the fact the offender(s) are children are ignored.
Terrifying that there is confusion.
FFS. What part of POWER IMBALANCE is not grasped here?
Why wasn't he tried for statutory rape? Because maybe the British Police and DPA were doing a good job and ABDUCTION carries a longer sentence, which he well deserves?
Folkgirl says it all: girls are supposed to have crushes, it is developmentally appropriate.
He was SUPPOSED to respond to her flirting with grave respect, and keep her safe. Like other responsible mature, proper men: Daddies, uncles, neighbours etc etc that little girls practice clumsily on.
it is Child abduction. The emphasis is that a minor cannot give informed consent to begin removed from his/her home.
What Greythorne said, both times.
I can't believe how many people think that 'she went willingly therefore is partly to blame'
She's a child.
He's an adult, and her teacher at that.
I think the confusion has actually been cleared up on this thread.
The term abduction, in the general way most of us know would be 'taking by force' and therefore we know that in actually fact she was a willing subject in this abduction. Hence the initial confusion, and understandably so. But in the eyes of the law and the legal system, we now see how they are looking at it.
Well that is how I now see it anyway.
I am not sure that people are saying she is partly to blame. I still think we look at abduction as in grabbing, blindfolding and taking away, sort of scenarios.
She is a child. When I was at school we did as the teachers told us (well most of the time) it was not left to pupils to make decisions for the teachers
So she says it was her idea and what he lost sense of what is right and wrong. poor guy was just overwhelmed by her sexual advances he lost the power to think straight
and if she was threatening suicide why did he not inform a professional
I believe that he could only be tried for the offences upon which he was extradited, so as the age of consent is 15 in France, they couldn't bring charges against him for sex with a minor.
Which means he won't be on the sex offenders' register, which makes me wonder if the choice of France as a destination was carefully planned. Disgusting man.
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.