Jeremy Forrest on trial

(160 Posts)
PatPig Tue 11-Jun-13 22:12:58

Slightly absurdly, his 15-year-old girlfriend, all over the newspapers at the time, is no longer allowed to be named.

JambalayaCodfishPie Tue 11-Jun-13 22:14:01

I thought exactly the same thing. "Cannot be named for legal reasons"

learnandsay Wed 12-Jun-13 13:18:22

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.

wintera Wed 12-Jun-13 22:02:12

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.

exoticfruits Wed 12-Jun-13 22:09:34

Yesterday's thread was deleted- it will be interesting to see how long this one lasts!

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

CogitoErgoSometimes Thu 13-Jun-13 12:00:31

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.

flippinada Thu 13-Jun-13 14:13:34

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

YoniRanger Thu 13-Jun-13 14:21:33

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

PatPig Thu 13-Jun-13 14:39:27

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.

megandraper Thu 13-Jun-13 14:51:07

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.

PatPig Thu 13-Jun-13 15:04:41

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.

I'm not sure what the law is in France, but as I recall the French were, at least initially, not particularly interested.

megandraper Thu 13-Jun-13 15:22:48

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.

PatPig Thu 13-Jun-13 15:24:44

It doesn't seem like a good idea, no.

EliotNess Thu 13-Jun-13 15:26:43

any under 18 isnt named in court. patpig

JRY44 Thu 13-Jun-13 15:39:54

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!

Redtractoryellowtractor Thu 13-Jun-13 15:41:16

last thread was deleted.

Redtractoryellowtractor Thu 13-Jun-13 15:44:07

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

PatPig Thu 13-Jun-13 15:47:58

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.

JRY44 Thu 13-Jun-13 15:50:32

It's all very sad. For her and for the wife.

Slavetominidictator Thu 13-Jun-13 15:52:11

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'.

flippinada Thu 13-Jun-13 16:23:06

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

PatPig Thu 13-Jun-13 16:28:47

I can't imagine that teacher training does much in the way of filtering out wrong-uns.

YoniRanger Thu 13-Jun-13 17:50:54

I did not mean to post anything prejudicial.

My post should obviously read IF he has committed the alleged offences then ..........


flippinada Thu 13-Jun-13 18:15:19

Obviously not in this case PatPig.

I should probably shut up now wrt the ongoing court case.

PatPig Thu 13-Jun-13 22:04:46

As a matter of principle I can't imagine that teacher training is designed to exclude those who are not suited to teaching, for any reason.

Slavetominidictator Thu 13-Jun-13 23:06:00

That was certainly the case on my PGCE course. The work, although arduous, was not difficult and no one failed, despite several characters I would not want to teach my dc. I don't know how you would devise a test for whichever character traits make someone think a relationship with a teenager is a good idea.

HelenMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 14-Jun-13 13:14:28

Afternoon. Please can we remind you that this trial is still in progress and no one has yet been found guilty (or not guilty) of any offence in connection with this trial.

Any post that suggests guilt may well be deleted - as may other posts that could be prejudicial to a fair trial.

Thanks v much.

Dominodonkey Fri 14-Jun-13 14:17:33

patpig I am not sure she is testifying. Everything I have heard she has said was from interviews she had with the police after she came back from France.

And I agree with JRY she appeared to have an awful lot of freedom for a 14/15 year old. The mother must have been very strange to let her stay with a friend the night after the police had visited and seized her phone.

PatPig Fri 14-Jun-13 14:35:36

As I understand it, she was brought up by her step-father (she carries his surname), but at the time this occurred the step-father and her mother were estranged; subsequently there was this

The current case, which I linked to above, has the girl going off with the 36-year-old man, she having just been taken into care 3 days previously.

Having a difficult home life can make escapes with unsuitable men seem more appealing.

YoniRanger Fri 14-Jun-13 16:54:36

My message was rightly deleted however I would like to restate the point minus the presumption of guilt.

If indeed these events occurred the child in question was not a 'girlfriend' she was a victim of sexual abuse.

Language is important.

I guess mine was rightly deleted too, but my point was that until now I didn't know that at the time of the alleged whatever, he was in his first year of a marriage. I found that very surprising and really feel for his ex?-wife.

PatPig Mon 17-Jun-13 18:20:53

Well it seems that she is testifying in person (didn't want to do a video link).

And basically she is testifying to say that he was her knight in shining armour and it was all her fault/his idea:

PatPig Mon 17-Jun-13 18:21:15

Sorry, her fault, her idea.

EasterHoliday Mon 17-Jun-13 18:25:57

I imagine she was subpoena'd and required to testify, which would explain her rather supportive remarks about him!

bico Mon 17-Jun-13 18:28:53

It was widely publicised at the time that he hadn't been married long (his poor wife). It seems that the school girl is testifying in the hope of assisting his case. She's 16 now and I imagine there will be a further news story once this trial has finished.

PatPig Mon 17-Jun-13 18:32:56

I didn't think witnesses could be required to testify.

I think he had been married about 15 months. I remember looking at his wife's very pretty wedding photos done on Brighton pier. She took them down sharpish, but not sharp enough, because they are all over the web now. Her photography website is down still.

bico Mon 17-Jun-13 19:37:21

Of course witnesses can be required to testify. They don't have to say anything though.

Catlike Tue 18-Jun-13 18:15:33

And basically she is testifying to say that he was her knight in shining armour and it was all her fault/his idea:

Eurgh that DM article is grim. Was there really any need for them to go into detail about the number of times Forrest and the girl had sex when they were meeting? And for them to mention that she was wearing her school uniform the first time and then go on to describe each item of the uniform as if they were trying to create a visual picture for the readers? I honestly can't quite believe that shock

Agree with you though Patpig, it does seem very like she's deliberately taking the "blame" in order to shield him. Yuck.

PatPig Tue 18-Jun-13 18:16:55
thesmallestpotato Tue 18-Jun-13 18:36:06

His poor wife, the first time she's seen him since he disappeared, I feel so sorry for her, what a horrible mess.

One thing I don't understand is why he has only been charged with child abduction?

flippinada Tue 18-Jun-13 19:32:06

I see my previous posts were deleted - for very good reasons!

My take on the 'it was my fault' line is that it's a rather sad way of trying to take responsibility.

I read somewhere (will see if I can find it) that he actually had a conversation with the girls mum and said effectively that the girl was a liar and a 'pain' and she ended up apologising for her daughters behaviour.

I see his wife was crying while giving evidence today

I'll refrain from posting my opinion on his character. We'll see what happens.

BeauNidle Tue 18-Jun-13 19:39:20

Poor wife.

The 15 year old girl in question is clearly still besotted with him. Appaz keeps smiling at him and not testifying behind a screen

TheFallenNinja Tue 18-Jun-13 19:46:51

It's a whole sad sorry mess for sure with all kinds of legal and moral questions.

Whatever the verdict there are many ruined lives as a result.

Sad stuff

flippinada Tue 18-Jun-13 19:48:10

She appears to be a very troubled girl (from the details that have come out).

Is it ok to make an observation that he looks quite startlingly unattractive? Please feel free to delete if so.

flippinada Tue 18-Jun-13 19:49:07

"It's a whole sad sorry mess for sure with all kinds of legal and moral questions.

Whatever the verdict there are many ruined lives as a result.

Sad stuff"

Yes, absolutely. Very sad indeed.

thesmallestpotato Tue 18-Jun-13 20:31:56

Why is his wife allowed to be named though? The mother of the girl isn't allowed to be named so I'm not sure why his wife can be, and her face on the front page for all to see, how totally humiliating for her, and is she in the same room as the girl too? I read in that article that apparently Forrest and the girl were smiling at each other across the court room, I hope his wife didn't have to see that sad

If we are allowed to comment on his appearance, he's not looking too good at all is he, very gaunt, where do they keep people who are awaiting trial? <no idea about this kind of thing

Catlike Tue 18-Jun-13 20:35:21

Is it ok to make an observation that he looks quite startlingly unattractive?

He is very weaselly looking. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years time, this girl will feel disgust that she ever let him near her.

TheCrackFox Tue 18-Jun-13 20:42:20

He is quite plain looking.

His poor wife, this must be very difficult for her.

If he is found guilty and sent to prison for a couple of years I can't imagine that the teenager in question will be waiting for him. She will have grown out of her infatuation by then.

His wife is named because he is named. If the girls mother was named it would be pretty obvious who the girl is

flippinada Tue 18-Jun-13 21:02:25

"He is very weaselly looking"

Yes, that's what I was thinking before but couldn't find the word. Weaselly. Although weasels, dare I say it, are more photogenic.

The mother isn't allowed to be named because it would identify the girl.

zippey Tue 18-Jun-13 21:42:02

I don't think you need to bring people's looks into it. A persons attractiveness is more than just about outwardly appearance.

TirAnna Tue 18-Jun-13 23:43:20

I have to echo thesmallestpotato's question, why is he only being charged with abduction? Surely he should also be charged with statutory rape as the girl is alleging that they had sex when she was underage? I would have thought that would be an even bigger deal than abduction under the circumstances (him being much older, her teacher etc).

thesmallestpotato Wed 19-Jun-13 07:54:19

Just to clarify my comment on his appearance, I meant he's not looking too good health-wise (like he's lost an awful lot of weight and isn't getting much sleep) I wasn't commenting on his attractiveness as a man.

I'm a bit nervous posting on these threads in case I accidentally say something illegal confused

PatPig Wed 19-Jun-13 10:46:42

It isn't statutory rape at that age, it's called unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged 13 to 16.

I guess child abduction was thought easier to prove and they can take all the other stuff into consideration during sentencing (which for child abduction could potentially be several years inside).

DuelingFanjo Wed 19-Jun-13 12:02:32

it seems to me like the poor victim in all this is setting herself up as being the one to blame. Typical how this happens. Even she believes it is all her fault, even she believes she has to save him at all costs.

flippinada Wed 19-Jun-13 13:10:17

Yes, making a snarky comment about his appearance was a bit childish. Apologies if anyone was offended by that.

DuelingFanjo agree absolutely, that's my take on it.

Also, I notice that although the girl involved has given evidence, he has declined to do so.

Catlike Wed 19-Jun-13 13:22:43

it seems to me like the poor victim in all this is setting herself up as being the one to blame. Typical how this happens. Even she believes it is all her fault, even she believes she has to save him at all costs.

Or they decided between themselves while they were hiding in France that this would be the best strategy to take if and when they were caught and he was facing prosecution.

The reports of the girl wanting to come to court in person and then of the two of them smiling at each other makes it seem as though she may still be infatuated with him and is sticking to their pre-agreed story in order to protect him.

DuelingFanjo Wed 19-Jun-13 13:24:18

Oooph - and now his family have arrived and are blaming his actions on his wife and their 'difficult relationship' it beggars belief what people will do to pass the blame.

His wife didn't make him have sex with someone below the age of consent, his wife didn't make him take a child to another country without her parent's permission.

He's still a sex-offender and hopefully will be put on the sex offender's register.

DuelingFanjo Wed 19-Jun-13 13:27:08

"Or they decided between themselves while they were hiding in France that this would be the best strategy to take if and when they were caught and he was facing prosecution"

because he doesn't want to take the blame. nice.

flippinada Wed 19-Jun-13 13:28:17

How grimly predictable - about his family I mean.

5madthings Wed 19-Jun-13 13:29:31

Omg are his family really blaming his wife!!


Catlike Wed 19-Jun-13 13:35:56

I find it quite sickening that his family and friends are minimising and excusing his behaviour. Disgusting of them to blame his wife too.

But why are these glowing character references allowed to be part of the court procedure anyway? How does his sister thinking he's a lovely bloke and his best man worrying about his unhappy marriage have any bearing on whether he did or didn't abduct this young girl?

flippinada Wed 19-Jun-13 13:38:40

It's not unusual in circumstances where there has been "misbehaviour" on the part of the man (trying to use a neutral-ish term here) and a relationship break up.

I dare say many MNers have been on the receiving end of this type of thinking - the horrible ex wife trope - albeit not in such a public way.

DuelingFanjo Wed 19-Jun-13 13:40:53

"It's not unusual in circumstances where there has been "misbehaviour" on the part of the man (trying to use a neutral-ish term here) and a relationship break up."

yet tehre is evidence presented in court that he was loving to his wife before he left and sent loving text-messages. Clearly (From the wife's evidence) their marriage was in trouble but this doesn't mean he should be forgiven for having sex with one of his pupils before taking her out of the country on another person's passport.

I agree that the statements from his family are stupidly pointless given the evidence against him but I suppose they are trying to get him a shorter time in jail.

Catlike Wed 19-Jun-13 13:45:52

It's as if between them, the two females - his wife and the young girl - are being made out to have all the responsibility for what he is supposed to have done.

The wife was such a cow that she made him depressed and she made him behave in a desperate, out of character way. And the young girl practically forced him to go abroad with her and he only did it reluctantly because of his great concern for her welfare.

Between the two of them, what chance did the poor helpless man have? (Sarcasm btw)

flippinada Wed 19-Jun-13 13:48:16

Yes there is.

It's not really surprising they are trying to paint him in a good light.

However that said they can do all that without blaming his wife hmm .

flippinada Wed 19-Jun-13 13:50:09

Quite Catlike.

AnAirOfHope Wed 19-Jun-13 18:12:37

I agree with Catlike and I find it sickening.

Remotecontrolduck Wed 19-Jun-13 19:17:01

Obviously what he's done is vile, he deserves to go to prison etc, but I'm surprised at some of the supposed 'evidence' the prosecution is giving here

Particularly this-
It is interesting to note the woman he chose to marry is a very young-looking, petite woman with her own vulnerabilities

And also I have read the prosecution referring to a comment where Forrest complimented his wife on 'looking young'

He clearly is a very dodgy character, but is it just me that thinks this is incredibly wrong to even use these points in court? Firstly, the 'you look young' is a compliment that a lot of us use to our friends/DP etc, and secondly she er, doesn't look that young. Younger than 32 yes, but not like a child at all, in the slightest. They seem to be trying to convince the jury that based on these facts, this makes him a paedophile.

Not defending him, I hope he gets a good long sentence but that is shoddy from the prosecution in my opinion.

PatPig Wed 19-Jun-13 19:29:36

The prosecution summing up was a bit bizarre tbh

flippinada Wed 19-Jun-13 19:47:43

Well yes..but then look at the way rape victims are cross examined during court cases. If that's allowed then it's not so much of a leap.

Also I would assume (as in all court cases) that there's evidence we are not party to.

Catlike Wed 19-Jun-13 20:13:54

The prosecution's comments about his wife looking young are odd, yes. But no weirder or more dubious IMO than the character references submitted by the defence from his family where they're pretty much saying that he's a gentle, weak willed, kind hearted, easily led character who was driven to allegedly have a sexual relationship with and abduct a vulnerable underage girl that he was in loco parentis for, because he was suffering in an unhappy marriage.

Remotecontrolduck Thu 20-Jun-13 00:38:51

I think this is a very messy case, with some very unsound defence as well like you have mentioned Catlike. Even if he was in the crappiest marriage ever and she was abusive, or he was the best teacher in the universe, it's still not an excuse to take away his 15 year old student.

I don't think a lot of this stuff is at all relevant or helpful for the jury.

I will be very interested to see what his sentence will be!

TigerSwallowTail Thu 20-Jun-13 01:07:58

thesmallestpotato they are kept in prison on remand unless they get bail and can then avoid a prison stay while waiting for the trial. If they commit a crime while on bail though they will appear in front of a judge and may need to go to prison on remand until the court case.

georgedawes Thu 20-Jun-13 14:36:46


PatPig Thu 20-Jun-13 14:37:57
georgedawes Thu 20-Jun-13 14:38:49

Hope he gets a very long sentence.

2rebecca Thu 20-Jun-13 14:59:47

I don't because my taxes will be paying for it and I don't think it will add much to deter him from doing it again. he deserves a custodial sentence but keeping him in for ages helps no-one. he won't work in schools again and when on the sex offenders register will struggle to find any job.
I haven't read much about what exactly went wrong with his marriage but as they'd only been married for a year their marital problems can't have been that longstanding. He'd been staying out alot and drinking heavily from what I'd read.
I hope the young girl doesn't decide to be a romantic heroine and wait for him and finds a teenage boy to hang out with.

Catlike Thu 20-Jun-13 15:07:40

As the jury arrived back in court, Forrest turned to her and said: "I love you."

The girl said to the defendant: "I'm sorry" as he was taken to the cells.

So he still won't let her go, even though he's caused all of this havoc in her life, has caused her to be the subject of nationwide notoriety and has quite possibly fucked up her GCSE year for her. What a selfish, narcissistic prick angry

I hope he gets a decent sentence, ie more than a couple of years and that the young girl has some decent counselling and manages to detach herself from this "relationship" before she wastes too much more of her youth on it.

PatPig Thu 20-Jun-13 15:07:45


I wonder how much their respective behaviour would encourage the judge to make a longer sentence.

PatPig Thu 20-Jun-13 15:08:02
DuelingFanjo Thu 20-Jun-13 15:11:35

Urgh, the comments in the Daily Mail are typical. People trying to say he only got done on a technicality FFS

flippinada Thu 20-Jun-13 15:12:03

Yes, says it all. The purported remorse was clearly a facade.

Very glad the jury saw through his pathetic "defence", which seems to have been boo hoo the mean girls made me do it hmm .

Will be interesting to read the judges comments on sentencing.

flippinada Thu 20-Jun-13 15:15:47

I refuse to read the DM on principle, but I can imagine the kind of thing. There are people on here who think what he did wasn't that big a deal.

PatPig Thu 20-Jun-13 15:22:04

It was a bit more than a technicality, teachers are not allowed to have a relationship with anyone aged under 18.

DuelingFanjo Thu 20-Jun-13 15:27:12

people are saying that it can't be abduction because she willingly went. I think they are taking the word 'abduction' literally rather than legally.

I don't actually have much faith in judges to give an appropriate sentence to be honest.

flippinada Thu 20-Jun-13 15:36:54

By way of comparison, another teacher (at the same school) was found guilty of grooming two pupils several years ago and was given a 7 year sentence.

Given the aggravating factors here I would have thought he'd get similar or maybe even longer.

I guess we'll see soon.

FeegleFion Thu 20-Jun-13 15:39:22

Some people's attitudes about this "relationship" gives me shudders!

If any teacher groomed and sexually assaulted my 14 year old DD, I'd cut the bastard's bollocks off and stick them up his arse take the law into my own hands.

thesmallestpotato Thu 20-Jun-13 15:49:37

Looking through those comments it's amazing how many people seem to think what he did was Ok, like they should have been allowed to have a relationship. The comments on there are quite an eye opener actually.

When I read he told her he loved her as they read the guilty verdict, it made me feel sick!

When does he get sentenced?

flippinada Thu 20-Jun-13 16:01:41

Sentencing is this afternoon potato

PatPig Thu 20-Jun-13 16:02:19

I think he will get 2 years.

Remotecontrolduck Thu 20-Jun-13 16:05:25

I think about two years too PatPig, though I'm prepared to be surprised. Could be a long one to make a public example out of him.

flippinada Thu 20-Jun-13 16:13:19

Sentencing now adjourned until tomorrow morning.

PatPig Thu 20-Jun-13 16:21:54

Also I take it he has not been in prison on remand since his arrest, hence no time served in lieu. Judging from the closing actions of the two, I bet he wished he had.

Remotecontrolduck Thu 20-Jun-13 16:34:49

I think he has been in prison, they couldn't trust him could they (could be wrong though)

silverboy Thu 20-Jun-13 16:56:06

This seems to be a really messy case, I would have hated to have had to judged this. I know of two couples who started their relationships started whilst they were in school ie teacher /student. One couple is still happily married 15 years on , the second couple are no longer together , and the lady in question is a barrister????
Unless the judge is party to more bad behaviour, I am not really that convinced that he is a hard core peadophile. Two years would be about right I think.

FeegleFion Thu 20-Jun-13 17:03:40

Did you really just say that silverboy? shock

Despite you knowing two couples who started off this way, it is morally and legally wrong!

What is wrong with people like you?

DuelingFanjo Thu 20-Jun-13 17:10:10

the charge was not paedophilia was it, it was child abduction.

Will he be put on the sex offender's register anyway?

PatPig Thu 20-Jun-13 17:15:44

I don't think he will be put on the sex offenders register, since child abduction not a sex offence.

I think child abduction commonly involves parents abducting their own children, against the wishes of the other parent, which wouldn't be sexual.

paperlantern Thu 20-Jun-13 17:16:22

I think the prosecution were trying to suggest within the bounds of what they were able to do that this wasn't a star crossed love affair but the case of a man with a specific sexual preference for young looking vulnerable (read easy to manipulate) women

5madthings Thu 20-Jun-13 17:17:46

God the comments on the df link are depressing.

Catlike Thu 20-Jun-13 17:53:54

Unless the judge is party to more bad behaviour, I am not really that convinced that he is a hard core peadophile

He may not be a hardcore paedophile as his preference is obviously for pubescent girls rather than pre-pubescent ones but his behaviour was abusive because it was damaging to the girl, regardless of her consent.

This article explains how these types of relationship are in fact very harmful to the young people involved.

flippinada Thu 20-Jun-13 17:56:00

I think I can say this now without being deleted, as he's been found guilty.

I really hope they throw the book at him.

PatPig Thu 20-Jun-13 18:04:40

Just looked it up and it seems he made no bail application, and has therefore been in prison for the last eight+ months, so potentially depending on the sentence could be freed relatively soon.

flippinada Thu 20-Jun-13 18:06:05

I think you are spot on paperlantern. And he didn't take the stand and left her to defend him. He is both pathetic and despicable.

FeegleFion Thu 20-Jun-13 18:38:51

He's a hardcore sex offender. He groomed and raped a child.

DownstairsMixUp Thu 20-Jun-13 20:20:36

He is a hardcore pedo to me. He responded to sexual interests from a 14 year old. He still won't let it go now even though he has potentially damaged her forever. Scumbag.

YoniRanger Thu 20-Jun-13 20:27:20

I'm not sure it matters where he falls on the paedo scale.

Surely all sexually motivated crimes against children are bad regardless?

MooseBeTimeForSpring Thu 20-Jun-13 20:34:44

Sentencing tariff here

Maximum seven years

PatPig Thu 20-Jun-13 21:17:25

It does look like they have discussed and planned this all out. He stays in prison on remand, she testifies in his defence hopes for a short sentence and they are potentially back together in four months time.

It could count against him if the judge decides to give a long sentence in order to curtail the relationship. But that's not necessarily a valid sentencing criterion.

EasterHoliday Thu 20-Jun-13 22:09:03

why on earth didn't he plead guilty and take the benefit in sentencing? he didn't give evidence / put forward a defence

flippinada Thu 20-Jun-13 22:21:08

What's far more likely is that he planned it all out (he seems to have been big on research after all) and manipulated her into going along with it.

If he was genuine, he would have pled guilty, taken the hit and saved her (and his friends, family and wife) the stressful experience of giving evidence.

FeelingHorse Thu 20-Jun-13 22:28:52

He would be put on "List 99" as he had a relationship with someone in full time eduction. It's not actually called that anymore, it's now an education act or something.

I'm a secondary school teacher, aged 26 years old and find his behaviour outrageous. There is nothing attractive about a pupil ten years younger than me. He had let down the professional IMO.

When teachers are training, we are given a red book called the "Bristol Guide"- it clearly states that you should never overstep the professional teacher/pupil relationship. It couldn't be any clearer...

Saying that though, 3years ago in my current school it was well know that a female teacher was having a sexual relationship with a 15 year old male pupil...Nothing was done by my school.

The female teacher worked in my department and I had to face her every day. It made me sick that she carrie on this relationship and was still allowed to teach. I constantly made complaints to our Safeguarding Officer and even anonymously phones the police....

Turns out his parents didn't care about the relationship and therefore didn't want to press charges....hmm My school did not follow up with any kind of internal investigation. We we told never to mention it again and to carry on as normal...confused

She left, and now works at another local school.

It seems as though schools are more than happy to try and keep these incidents under wraps...

FeelingHorse Thu 20-Jun-13 22:30:18

Apologies for typos...turns out that it still makes me angry!

PatPig Thu 20-Jun-13 23:09:21

I guess his reasoning was:

* he had fucked up with his wife and therefore trying to continue a relationship with a schoolgirl was his only option
* if he did so while on bail, pending on trial, then that would be a very serious matter and would ensure he got a long sentence
* so he was better off in prison on remand, since he didn't really have a life to speak of, what with his wife and job gone, and because if he was convicted he'd get that time off his sentence
* he pleaded not guilty because he thought he might get away with I guess

edam Thu 20-Jun-13 23:15:27

what a grubby, horrible little creep that man is. Sickening that he could exploit a vulnerable child in that way - not just vulnerable by virtue of her age (14 when the grooming started) but also he knew perfectly well was troubled in other ways.

I know he's been on remand for eight months, but I do hope the judge manages to find room in the sentencing guidelines to send a very serious message. Deterrence should be a big factor - making it plain that anyone else tempted to abuse a relationship of authority over vulnerable young people will face very serious consequences.

NicholasTeakozy Fri 21-Jun-13 00:25:18

If he was genuine, he would have pled guilty, taken the hit and saved her (and his friends, family and wife) the stressful experience of giving evidence.

This. Exactly this as put by flippinada.

PatPig Fri 21-Jun-13 00:55:00

"Deterrence should be a big factor - making it plain that anyone else tempted to abuse a relationship of authority over vulnerable young people will face very serious consequences."

Hmm, there was this case, which seems less serious, where the accused got 18 months (albeit for a different offence):

OhDearNigel Fri 21-Jun-13 01:05:10

"Also I take it he has not been in prison on remand since his arrest, hence no time served in lieu"

Yes, he has been remanded in custody since his arrest in France

PatPig Fri 21-Jun-13 12:29:37

Apparently, they charged him with 5 counts of sexual activity with a child today, and he pleaded guilty straight away.

Not sure if that will make any difference.

Remotecontrolduck Fri 21-Jun-13 12:43:08

I've just heard that too, though how has this cropped up if he was on trial for abduction? Not sex with an under 16?

Obviously I think he should have been charged with it, but how has this been brought in now? I thought they weren't allowed to?

flippinada Fri 21-Jun-13 12:45:40

Just seen that now on the news. I think that it may carry a heavier sentence than child abduction, which is max 7 years.

scaevola Fri 21-Jun-13 12:50:48

He was probably charged some time ago (maybe with reporting restrictions). It's not uncommon to have separate trials for separate offences, and for the latter to be kept quiet to avoid prejudicing the former.

The trial for abduction was concluded yesterday. There was a fresh trial today or these 5 charges to which he has pleaded guilty.

flippinada Fri 21-Jun-13 12:55:40

That's interesting, thanks scaveola

flippinada Fri 21-Jun-13 12:57:38

Oops, I mean scaevola - sorry.

Remotecontrolduck Fri 21-Jun-13 13:03:36

5 1/2 years, thoughts?

scaevola Fri 21-Jun-13 13:03:41

Sentence: 5 1/2 years for sexual activity with a child, plus 1 year for abduction. To run concurrently.

BeauNidle Fri 21-Jun-13 13:06:19

He has already served the first 9 months of that. I think that is how it works?

flippinada Fri 21-Jun-13 13:06:24

Oddly enough, I expected a sentence of around 5 years.

PatPig Fri 21-Jun-13 13:11:56

Apparently the charges were laid this morning, they converted the court into a magistrates court to charge him, and then back into a crown court to sentence him.

I'm not sure if the reason for the abduction charge relates to the original extradition, because that was the grounds for extradition, and maybe they had to go with that or be breaching their extradition treaty. Obviously they knew about the sexual activity for months, so it must have been planned that they would spring this charge as soon as the original trial was over.

I'm not sure if he/his lawyers were aware though, it seems a little dubious if they weren't.

PatPig Fri 21-Jun-13 13:17:36

I mean it just seems bizarre that they would go through all the expensive of a trial with him pleading not guilty to abduction by saying that she went willingly or whatever, if he knew he was going to be charged with sexual activity with a child, to which he had no defence.

PatPig Fri 21-Jun-13 13:17:46

all the expense, even.

Maryz Fri 21-Jun-13 13:19:15

OK, five and a half years. He's done 9 months, he'll be out in about two. So just as the girl gets to age 18.

And the AIBU thread is shocking shock

learnandsay Fri 21-Jun-13 13:19:45

I can't find the judge Mr Michael Lawson QC's sentencing remarks anywhere. Has anybody seen them? (Or did he not make any?)

learnandsay Fri 21-Jun-13 13:22:14

I suspect the word abduction is being used in its technical sense, (rather than in its dramatic sense) hence the short-looking sentence.

scaevola Fri 21-Jun-13 13:25:05

He did make sentencing remarks (BBC mentioned that in passing - I was all happening at time of lunchtime news) but haven't seen/heard proper account of them yet.

georgedawes Fri 21-Jun-13 13:28:51

The guardian says he wasn't charged with the child sex offences until after the abduction trial because of the extradition conditions.

Personally I think the sentence is very light.

PatPig Fri 21-Jun-13 13:28:56

Five-and-a-half-years is quite a long sentence, in British penal terms. You can do some pretty horrific things and get less than that.

It's a clear message that you can't have sex with your pupils, tbh.

georgedawes Fri 21-Jun-13 13:33:06

Well I'm not really interested if other sentences are too low; having sex with a vulnerable child in your care and abducting her by taking her to a foreign country..he'll be out in 2 years. I think that is short and just hope it is enough time for his victim to get out of his clutches.

EasterHoliday Fri 21-Jun-13 13:38:03

5 1/2 years?
stewart hall is busy counting his lucky stars

PatPig Fri 21-Jun-13 13:38:32

He'll only potentially be out in 2 years because he has already served 9 months.

It's longer than other people have served.

georgedawes Fri 21-Jun-13 13:58:41

Stewart Hall sentence was a fucking disgrace.

As I said Patpig, just because others have had sentences that are low does not make me think this was reasonabe; more that theirs were far too low.

I don't think this country takes abuse against the vulnerable seriously enough.

learnandsay Fri 21-Jun-13 14:02:44

If the Oxford 7 get eye-watering sentences, which I'm hoping for, then I'll reserve judgement on how seriously abuse is taken here.

learnandsay Fri 21-Jun-13 15:21:24

Judge's comments

Spot on I'd say, exactly what I was hoping for. I'd say the sentence length is a significant disappointment; it could have comfortably been double that. But it's a step in the right direction.

Mugofteaforme Fri 21-Jun-13 15:29:37

Five and a half is too much, sorry. Compare for instance the storey below, longer I know, but.....

learnandsay Fri 21-Jun-13 15:53:59

Mugo, that's a totally different type of offence. I'd be happy to see paedophile teachers locked up for ever, frankly.

TheHuffAndPuffALot Fri 21-Jun-13 21:18:42

I may well have missed this bit of info somewhere but in the second Mail article Op linked to (where they have just gone missing), why is there no mention of him being a teacher? In the article he's supposedly a 'family friend'.

And I'm also surprised that,with his criminal record, he would have been allowed to teach anyway.

So was he actually teaching when the relationship developed (not necessarily her)?

MooseBeTimeForSpring Fri 21-Jun-13 21:30:42

So, had abduction been the only offence and he got a one year sentence for that, he would have been released taking into account time already served.

edam Fri 21-Jun-13 22:10:51

Thehuf - that may have been a request from the police, who believed it would help their investigation, or that specifying the exact nature of their relationship would harm it.

Sadly the teacher's history fits into a long story of child abuse scandals at Bishop Bell school with previous teachers and the Chair of Governors. Despite all that, the head and senior leaders turned a blind eye to Forrest's grooming of this girl, even when children and teachers were warning about it. I don't know why those in charge at that school are so happy to allow children in their charge to be sexually exploited again and again.

flippinada Fri 21-Jun-13 22:40:31

I think there are definitely questions to be asked about Bishop Bell. Two serious offences by teachers in 3 years...?

KRITIQ Fri 21-Jun-13 22:59:25

Appears this may not be the only time he has groomed a child for sex.

KRITIQ Fri 21-Jun-13 23:03:43
EvenEducatedFleasDoIt Fri 21-Jun-13 23:16:41

Yes, he tried to groom me as well.not really. It was awful. The pain has only been lightened by the large cheque a DM reporter just handed me.

DuelingFanjo Fri 21-Jun-13 23:27:41

If he or his family/friends did put pressure on the girl to present her story a certain way then that just adds to the catAlogue of attempts to conceal/groom/manipulate and lie. How anyone can defend him is beyond me.

EvenEducatedFleasDoIt Fri 21-Jun-13 23:32:28

I'd also like to express shock at thinking the DM would publish a photograph of me wearing a figure-hugging black and red outfit they paid for on the front page, the very day after Jez was convicted. I need to consult my agent.

PatPig Sat 22-Jun-13 02:10:56

Tomorrow's Daily Mail in full:

Page 1- 'Paedo filth groomed young girl'
complete with foot-high picture of said girl in tight dress, just in case anyone was confused what a girl looks like.
Page 6 - 'My hasn't she grown - star's 15 year old sister is busting out all over' - exclusive photo
Page 11 - Editorial - 'It is absolutely disgusting and wrong that grown men are sexually attracted to schoolgirls, and it is right that a strong message is sent out to those who have lustful thoughts about young girls, by locking them up for 5 1/2 years'
Page 13 - Sun shines in UK for first time in a week - here are some photos we caught of schoolgirls on the beach in bikinis, just in case you don't believe us

SusieSusieSheep Sat 22-Jun-13 11:22:43

I thought his sentence seemed a bit harsh but when I read the judge's statement it kind of made sense. Some judges do seem to go quite light on things like murder, in comparison, though.

Thuka trendy You can buy a single bed and then another one later with the bunking kit.

Gah! Sorry wrong thread

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now