Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Jeremy Forrest verdict - aibu to be confused?

999 replies

noddyboulder · 20/06/2013 14:54

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?

OP posts:
LittlePeaPod · 23/06/2013 16:52

Plinky report this if you are unhappy. But as you can see from the latest response from the police this MN page has been viewed by one of them to get the link to the FB page to send to CID and nothing has been said about we have have put...

*Thanks -, I found it by scrolling down the mumsnet 'posts' ! I will speak to supervision about the reporting issue with Facebook and pass this on to the CID team that have been handling this case.

Thanks again ,

A----

A-- Gal-

Police Contact Centre Communications Investigator
Telephone 101

www.sussex.police.uk
Sussex Police - Serving Sussex

Noddy I agree Hall should have got a much tougher sentence. It's a disgrace that he didn't...

WidowWadman · 23/06/2013 16:55

noddy - the sentencing remarks explain it better.

noddyholder · 23/06/2013 16:55

Thanks widow always good to learn something new Smile

runningforthebusinheels · 23/06/2013 16:57

The news broke a few days ago that the Attorney General is to review Stuart Hall's sentence for being too lenient.

Because that's the problem - Hall's sentence is too lenient rather than Forrest's being too harsh.

flippinada · 23/06/2013 17:00

Good news running

MrsDeVere · 23/06/2013 18:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DuelingFanjo · 23/06/2013 18:03

Just wanted to say, I was google searching HIS name for news and the FB page came up. I was looking for news on the case as I wanted to see if any more had been discovered or said about him being in contact with his victim. I was not searching her name.

higgle · 23/06/2013 18:08

I'm afraid if you google his name hers comes up with it - Google need to do somethingabout this.

DuelingFanjo · 23/06/2013 18:08

And I did not put his or her name into FB, it came up in a google search.

LittlePeaPod · 23/06/2013 18:15

Dueling I really wouldn't worry about it... If anyone googles him or the case all these pages come up.. IMO you haven't done anything that requires explanation. Like MrsDeVere said we are discussing a case that has been trialed, statements made in the national press and FB pages that are public pages...

MrsDeVere · 23/06/2013 18:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DuelingFanjo · 23/06/2013 18:37

Thanks, I'm not at all concerned that I have done something wrong but just are umbridge at the idea that the only way I could have come across the page is by stalking his family on Facebook!

flippinada · 23/06/2013 19:07

I must admit to feeling rather bemused by the suggestion that anyone coming across this information, which is freely available to anyone who can read and has internet access, must have done so by stalking the Forrest family.

BasilBabyEater · 23/06/2013 21:58

This reply has been deleted

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

flippinada · 23/06/2013 22:12

The facebook page linked to earlier is still up, by the way. Just noting that as a matter of interest.

Bobyan · 23/06/2013 22:14

This reply has been deleted

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

EldritchCleavage · 23/06/2013 22:52

maybe should have been taken into account how close to the AOC she was

Yes they should, as an aggravating factor. True love waits, etc.

And the prospects of any defamation case over accurate reports of the family's ill-advised remarks and Facebook page: not going to happen.

sashh · 24/06/2013 03:12

They are comparable in the assault/sexual conduct with a minor.

No, and I am not defending Hall or what he did, and I think he should have either been given longer or the sentences run one after the other (can't remember which word it is ?Consecutive).

There is a difference between touching a girl on her thigh and having penetrative sex.

Hall pleaded guilty, not at the first opportunity, but none of his victims had to give evidence and be cross examined. Forrest didn't.

Hall stopped his activities 20 years ago because he knew it was wrong. Forrest is apparently trying to continue / sees nothing wrong.

Hall could only be sentenced using the tariff of the time.

Hall did not abduct any children.

These are a few of the differences, so you can't really compare the two.

Pseudonym99 · 24/06/2013 05:01

I would have thought, that as this was originally a missing persons case, that her picture and name would have been published in the past by the police anyway, so more than likely would still be freely available on the internet? Otherwise how would the cafe owner in France have recognised them? I haven't looked myself, though...

larrygrylls · 24/06/2013 09:10

Sash,

There is also a HUGE difference between 9 and 15, and consent (in the English rather than legal definition) and plain old fashioned assault.

I think Libby Purves writes very well about this case in the Times today. He has broken the law and should pay a penalty. On the other hand, the girl has to take some responsibility for her actions, she is not an innocent child. Maturity is a spectrum, it does not suddenly begin at 16 or 18, it develops from puberty onwards, as does responsibility for one's actions. And the girl's mother, in talking about missing important events such as "dressing her daughter for her prom", is infantilising her own child and treating her like a doll. And, as for failing to support her now, it is terribly sad.

Jeremy Forrest is immature and abused his position. He should go to jail and not be allowed to be in a position responsibility with children again. As for the sentence, it seems quite harsh to me. But to declare he is a paedophile is wrong technically (isn't the word "ephebophile") and morally.

SomeDizzyWhore1804 · 24/06/2013 09:30

On the suggestion of another poster I have started a thread in relationships for survivors of student/teacher abuse.

I know that this news story has been massively triggering for some of us so please come and share your stories or just have a rant. I hope it will be a safe space for us to talk about what we have been through.

LittlePeaPod · 24/06/2013 09:32

Larry I disagree with you and the Times article. Are you actually saying that you would take that position if this creepy perverted little man had done this to your daughter. FGS, a 30 year old man started grooming a 14 yer old child with emotional issues whom he taught... And you think there is some partial justification because the girl was 15 when he abducted her. That sentence is not harsh, it's right and every adult that thinks it is acceptable to groom their way into a sexual relationship with a child should take note.

I am really shocked and disgusted about the number of so called intellegent adults that are coming up with excuses for this grown man who knew the consequences of his action his own research shows and should have known better and got that girl some help/support/counciling rather than talking us way into her pants....

What is wrong with people??

Lazyjaney · 24/06/2013 09:38

"I think Libby Purves writes very well about this case in the Times today"

This debate is being held with far more reason and nuance nearly everywhere outside of MN.

Here the discussion has been taken over by a small number of repetitive posters who hector anyone who doesn't fall into their fairly narrow black/white view.

WhitegoldWielder · 24/06/2013 09:39

Little Pea Pod - I agree with you.

Larry do you understand the concept of grooming?

Would you feel the same if a male 30 year old teacher groomed your son when he's 14? Somehow I don't think you will say your son has to take some responsibility?

larrygrylls · 24/06/2013 09:39

LittlePea,

I find it amazing the amount of grown adults who are only capable of thinking in black and white, especially about this kind of thing. And most of us coming up with "excuses" are making mitigation rather than defence arguments (assuming you can tell the difference). I don't think anyone on this thread has said that he acted correctly, nor that he should have evaded punishment. It is an argument about sentencing and degree of criminality.

With two boys below 5, I cannot really say what I would want or do should it happen to my hypothetical daughter. However, one thing that I am determined to do is teach my children right from wrong and that they have to take responsibility for their life decisions. That does not mean that I would not want the teacher to be punished, nor that I would support my child in an inappropriate relationship. On the other hand, I would certainly offer continuing support to my child regardless of how I viewed their choice of relationships and would never say they were "dead to me" because they fell in love with the wrong person.

As I said, it is a spectrum. On the other hand there was a thread where a 23 year old fell in love with a 69 year old and a lot of posters were claiming the man "groomed" the 23 year old and was disgusting. For some, responsibility starts way beyond adulthood.