Jeremy Forrest verdict - aibu to be confused?

[noddyboulder]

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?

I couldn't find a report button for the page on FB though.

Kinky- "invading his families privacy on FB"

Maybe they shouldn't have a PUBLIC FB page then?

Nobody is invading privacy the 'fan page' is an open page where the family have posted their address and asked people, including minors to write and supportjeremy. They have also illegally named the girl and encouraged minors to lie about their age. It has been reported to fb and the police. That's not a witch hunt, its making sure the page is dealt with appropriately.

Additionally you are potentially breaking the law by seeking out her name when papers and other media sources have been barred in naming her. She has a right to privacy and some of you are bordering on breeching this.

Why were you on FB searching his name then?

Nobody is seeking out the girls name - there would be no point add it's well known, it just can't be reported.

If you are concerned about breech of privacy then report the posts to MN and ask then to investigate, although I would point out that public FB pages are not private.

I haven't searched his name out a link was posted and I haven't searched the girls name either but have reported that it is on fb. Its in the newspaper today saying several social media sites are breaking the law by naming her. Its a public fan page, fgs which has lists encouraging girls to break the law. So I and others reported it as such.

Yes the girl has a right to privacy, not that the papers care, nor jeremys family orher own dad who have both sold stories to the papers, supporting him of course and further encouraging 'fans' its sickening, hence reporting it.

My point is that some of you have been looking up his and his family's FB account. You would have to have searched his name in FB to find it. Additionally, some of you are being defamatory about his family members. Just takes one person to send this thread to his family and the lot of you including MN could be potentially responsible for defamation/liable. So yes, will report this thread as I think it has got out of hand.

That's fine - even if the thread is deleted, a screenshot of the page has been taken and sent to the police so if a crime has been committed then it will be investigated. If not they won't take any action.

Why defamatory?

As for privacy - I'd see your point if it was their private FB pages and people had sent friend requests to gain access to what they're posting. The linked pages are however public, designed to be public and to be shared.

Its all on a public fb. The family have courted publicity themselves in the media . There is no law to say you cant look peopld up on fb. Perhaps if they dont want that done they will make the fan page private, as it is they are using it to appeal for support including appealing to minors and giving an address fof them to write to so letters will be passed on to him!!

Why did he get 5 1/2 years and Stuart Hall got weeks for multiple assaults

Yes, if you put up a public page on FB or any other social networking site then people are free to come and look at it.

That is a very good point noddy. Personally I think Hall should have got longer but I expect his age and health was taken into account when sentencing.

noddy

Hall's and Forrest's cases are not comparable as tried under different conditions. Not saying that I believe it's fair that Hall got off lightly, but judge had to base sentences on guidelines valid at time of when he offended. If he had been sentenced under today's sentencing guidelines, as I understand it, he would have got much more.

Also, because one offender only got very lenient sentence that shouldn't be an argument for letting another one get off lightly, too.

They are comparable in the assault/sexual conduct with a minor. He should have been tried according to current guidelines as the victims have suffered all those years and he should pay for that. The tabloids full of stories from the various family members etc is such a sign of the times.

That would explain why the sentence was so light. My personal opinion is he got off lightly but I understand that the the judge has to act within the law.

To be clear (just in case it's not), I don't think JF's sentence is unfair.

Nor do I

It appears The Wright Stuff will be discussing 'Can we help who we fall in love with' and 'Five and Half years too harsh' on Monday. Their facebook page is open for comments. I know, i know, its The Wright Stuff, but there is less chance that comments not supporting this sex offender will be deleted.

I mean SH got off lightly, just to avoid misunderstanding.

noddy that's not how the law works. You need to take the legal situation of the time when something has been committed into account.

I'm by no means defending Hall, or try to minimise what he's done, just trying to explain how the rules work.

To quote Legally Blonde Aristotle: Law is reason without passion.

I understand that widow just seems so lenient. So the law at the time didn't consider sexual assault to be that bad?

noddyholder - yep, that seems to be the case, and that's the reason why the sentencing guidelines subsequently have been reviewed.
It's quite shocking how sexual offences had been seen in the not so distant past.