ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Jeremy Forrest on trial(160 Posts)
Slightly absurdly, his 15-year-old girlfriend, all over the newspapers at the time, is no longer allowed to be named.
I thought exactly the same thing. "Cannot be named for legal reasons"
Things remain in print forever. So the judge is doubtless thinking more of what is going to be printed in the future than what's been printed in the past. Let's face it, the newspapers don't exactly go out of their way to get the facts right, do they! And what about the internet? There's another box of horrors. Doubtless some bloggers are going to find themselves on the wrong side of a contempt charge.
I've just been reading an article about it and was thinking the same. I still remember her name from when it was all over the press last year.
Yesterday's thread was deleted- it will be interesting to see how long this one lasts!
I can't help wondering how anyone that stupid got to be a maths teacher in the first place. Abuse of position and morality aside ... absconding to France thinking no-one would find them??? Brainiac.
As I understand it a big part of the case was that they went to France, where the age of consent is 15, and moreover I believe they lack the 'position of trust' laws prohibiting relationships between teachers/other similar figures and people aged 16 and 17. Hence why he is been charged with child abduction rather than a sexual offence.
I am not sure therefore that is appropriate to describe him as her victim, as he has not been convicted of any offence. I would imagine that his lawyers will be exploring the definition of child abduction and trying to define his behaviour as outside the scope of that.
One of the things in the paper at the time was that they reviewed similar relationships from the past. It was common that the relationships did appear to be abusive. But current laws do not necessarily define abuse and Forrest is not on trial for abuse.
E.g., if a 16-year-old male and an 40-year old male had a homosexual relationship in 1999, then that would have been criminal. In 2000, it was no longer criminal. That does not make either case a case of abuse, although in practice it might be.
Obviously she lacks a lot of legal protection in practice because her name, face, Facebook, pinterest, and numerous other things were (and remain) plastered all over the internet.
Hopefully everything will turn out ok in this case:
but in the internet age, her name, photo, etc. are effectively indelible.
I am not sure therefore that is appropriate to describe him as her victim
No, PatPig, it is completely inappropriate! I think that may have been a Freudian error on your part though. Do you think male schoolteachers are unfairly tempted by teenage nymphets? That they shouldn't be expected to resist all that young flesh on offer?
Many - I would hope most - people think otherwise. It is illegal in both England and France for a school-teacher to have a sexual relationship with a pupil, regardless of whether the pupil is under or over the age of consent.
A schoolteacher has a duty of care. It is their job to take responsibility for their pupils. If a pupil wants to consume rat-poison or throw themselves out of a classroom window, the teacher should do all they can to prevent it. If a pupil wishes to have sex with the teacher, the teacher should not comply. Simple as that.
Well I mean that there is an ongoing trial at the moment so just as her identity is protected, it seems inappropriate to use language that suggests guilt.
Whether or not he abused her is not in my opinion defined by prevailing laws, although obviously there is a broad correlation.
People can be in abusive relationships without laws being broken, and vice versa.
Many countries have laws covering these relationships.
In the UK where a student and teacher have a sexual relationship, an offence is automatically convicted. In Sweden, apparently the law is not so clear cut. www.thelocal.se/46104/20130210/
I'm not sure what the law is in France, but as I recall the French were, at least initially, not particularly interested.
Yes, you're right, PatPig, there shouldn't be any guessing at individual guilt or otherwise while the trial is in place.
Do you think schoolteacher/pupil sexual relationships are sometimes okay? I think that is always an abuse. It's a very basic abuse of the teacher-pupil relationship.
It doesn't seem like a good idea, no.
any under 18 isnt named in court. patpig
The relationship was wrong on many counts - age/teacher/married. In court the girl is saying it was mutual consent, but as an adult and a teacher he should have known better than to abuse his power.
I was amazed to read that, after the social services visit to her home to question her about the relationship the day they absconded, the mother let her go off and sleep at a friends house. I would have kept a DD in my sight!
last thread was deleted.
I am not clear why she is testifying. Presumably she no longer has contact with him from the fact that she is choosing to do so.
It's all very sad. For her and for the wife.
The point about teacher pupil relationships is that they are necessarily unequal in terms of power. I teach in a comprehensive and see many teenage girls (attractive, bright, funny) with crushes on really pretty lame male teachers. Also, increasingly, boys with crushes on me and my
old female colleagues. Scarcity value and authority can make any vaguely attractive teacher appear significantly more attractive to some teenagers. This is why it is crucial for teachers to never exploit the strange crucible of a classroom. I tried to explain this to a male colleague once. He really thought he had suddenly become very attractive when he started teaching....... Ridiculous. They should include this in teacher training rather than just saying 'don't do it'.
I can't imagine that teacher training does much in the way of filtering out wrong-uns.
I did not mean to post anything prejudicial.
My post should obviously read IF he has committed the alleged offences then ..........
Obviously not in this case PatPig.
I should probably shut up now wrt the ongoing court case.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.