Mumsnet Logo
My feed

to access all these features


Jeremy Forrest's sister's comments.

239 replies

Jayne3474 · 25/06/2013 10:36

Sorry mail link (!):

aibu to think she has a point about the paedophile bit?

Don't get me wrong, I think what Forrest did was immoral, and took advantage of a vulnerable young woman.

But surely a paedophile is one interested in pre-pubescent children.

AIBU to be annoyed at this term for truly sick perverts being thrown around so casually?

OP posts:

Jayne3474 · 25/06/2013 10:39

Sorry link not working.

OP posts:

noddyholder · 25/06/2013 10:41

He targeted a child and as in a position of trust. His sister is too close to ever be objective. We need to stop all this she was 15 not 11 BS. A line has to be drawn somewhere and it is 16 and that is that.


LilacPeony · 25/06/2013 10:46

His marriage to his wife was never going to work as it is not women of her age that he is attracted to, but underage schoolgirls.


Jayne3474 · 25/06/2013 10:49

I agree that he was in a position of trust which he abused and should be punished for it.

But, the technical definition of a paedophile is one who targets pre-pubescent children It would appear that this girl was sexually mature.

OP posts:

Jayne3474 · 25/06/2013 10:50

I'm not excusing his behaviour at all. What he did was wrong. however, not sure it's helpful to brand every man who has sex with a sexually mature 15-year-old a paedophile.

OP posts:

LilacPeony · 25/06/2013 10:52

Yes there is another name for someone who targets underage girls who are over the age of 12 i think. I can't remember what it is. As it is not a well known name, people use paedophile to mean someone who targets underage girls (like JF) although the correct term is the other name (that i can't remember.)


ifyourehoppyandyouknowit · 25/06/2013 10:53

I agree that the label of paedophile doesn't actually seem to fit, but I don't think skeevy and creepy really cover it and I have to say that after reading what his parents have said, I'm not especially interested in any of the other apologists and their opinions.


twitchycurtains · 25/06/2013 10:54

This gives me the rage, the whole family are a bunch of enablers. Just shut up, shut the fuck up, he groomed a child, alienated her from the people who actually cared about her , has been convicted of abducting her and his family seem to be painting the whole thing as some Romeo and Juliet type star crossed lovers scenario.

Why are they being given airtime and print space. Bringing his poor wife into the equation and implying she is somehow to blame for his actions is beyond low. The coldness in which they talk about her is despicable.


hernow · 25/06/2013 10:54

I feel sorry for the sister. The number doesn't matter. He was interested in one and one is too many. If a burglar burgles your home is caught but you find that the burglar has only burgled the one house and is not interested it repeating it because they do not need to (for whatever reason develops in their life) do you think that's acceptable, that they say they were not interested in repeating the offence it was just one person they went after?

He took it to limits he should not have done. If his feelings were so real for her as a person and not her as a pre-pubescent he should have waited. People do wait for the right time to start a relationship all the time - even as adults. I feel sorry for his sister as she is obviously in denial and/or needs to find an excuse for his choices plus it must be really hard for her to admit and live with.


DontBeFooledByTheRocksThatIGot · 25/06/2013 10:55

When I was 15 I chased a 29 year old man. He wasn't a paedophile, he was a rabbit in the fucking headlights.

Don't buy the crap about this girl's family either - they're a bloody car crash. No, he shouldn't have - he was a teacher. But don't go thinking all 15 year olds are still playing with Barbie!


Littlespeckledowl · 25/06/2013 10:59

Lots of girls go through puberty while still at Primary School. But they are most certainly, in every other sense of the word, still children. Which is why you need a specific age.


wannaBe · 25/06/2013 11:00

he is not a paedophile. That doesn't minimise the fact that he had sex with an under age girl and thus abused his position of trust, but we are at risk of diminnishing what it is that paedophile actually stands for by branding every man who has sex with a minor as one - iyswim.

And it is naïve to suggest that a fifteen year old is essentially the same as an eleven year old - it isn't. Now, nobody is saying that JF wasn't in the wrong - he absolutely was and absolutely needs to be held accountable. But this fifteen year old, while not in a position to consent, is still in a reasonably emotionally mature state to potentially know how she felt and what she was doing. There are in fact mn'ers here who had relationships with men the same age as J when they were similar age and don't regret it. There are mn'ers who have fifteen year old daughters who are told that they should speak to them about safe sex and using contraception rather than suggest that they are vulnerable and about to be exploited.

Jeremy forest was in the wrong. He abused his position of trust and should pay the price for that. But the girl may well have known full well what she was doing, and if it had been a sixteen year old she had run away from nobody would be branding her as vulnerable and not in control of her thoughts and feelings.


ecclesvet · 25/06/2013 11:02


LilacPeony · 25/06/2013 11:02

I looked it up and it says ephebophilia is defined as a sexual preference for mid-to-late pubescent aged individuals aged 14 to 16 (for girls)


ScrambledSmegs · 25/06/2013 11:04

Hebephilia - sexual interest in early pubescents ie from age 10-14
Ephebophilia - sexual interest in mid to late pubescents ie roughly 15-19

Obviously there is some overlap, and with paedophilia. Does it matter what the technical term is though? He was in a position of trust. He abused it. Groomed a vulnerable person into a sexual relationship. Vile man.


StuntGirl · 25/06/2013 11:07

Personally I like plain old abuser. Sums it up nicely for me.


FrankellyMyDearIDontGiveADamn · 25/06/2013 11:08

Whether she was 14, 15 or even 16 in this case is irrelevant as it is illegal for a teacher to have a sexual relationship with a pupil (defined as attending the school/college they work at, not necessarily that they personally teach) under the age of 18. It is an abuse of power/trust.


LilacPeony · 25/06/2013 11:10

Yes abuser too as he acted on his preference.


Peetle · 25/06/2013 11:13

The law states that teachers must avoid relationships with pupils under the age of 18 in the same school, whether they teach them or not. It used to be 16 - the age of consent - but teachers have a responsibility and a position of power they should not abuse.

Of course he will never teach again.

I'm still not convinced that what he did was more than four times worse than what Stuart Hall was sent down for (15 months vs 5.5 years), though I appreciate the sentencing rules.


EldritchCleavage · 25/06/2013 11:14

They're really glossing over what we now know post-trial. He has previously imposed his attentions on a 13 year old, and his interest in the present victim began when she was 14. Who knows where his actual interest lies or would have gone had he not been caught this time?

I agree that is not paedophilia, but his family are just trying to wriggle out from under the (justified) stigma his behaviour has attracted in a way that I find revolting.

He is a hebephile/ephebophile, but as others have said the technical terms don't matter-he is a predatory selfish man with a sexual interest in schoolchildren.

And for God's sake, 'he really loves her' IS NOT AN EXCUSE. There are plenty of men who target even younger children who would probably say this, and many would even believe it. So bloody what?


Remotecontrolduck · 25/06/2013 11:14

He isn't a paedo (based on the details we know at least)

He is however an abuser, sex offender, predator. Any one of those.

What on earth is his sister doing? She isn't making the situation any better, she's just humiliating herself. She needs to be quiet now.


frissonpink · 25/06/2013 11:19

He's not a paedo.

He's just an idiot for acting on his emotions.

I think there's a whole heap of difference between what he did, and the disgusting likes of Stuart Hall abusing unwilling 9 yr old children.

However he should not have abused his position, however tempting the girl was being!

Friend of mine got together with a teacher at our school Shock. This was 30 odd years ago, so there were a lot of raised eyebrows, but that was it. She was 15 at the time. He was about 28. They're still together now. I don't see him as a paedo, but personally, at the time, I was like ewwww he's a dirty old man! However, it's lasted!


LessMissAbs · 25/06/2013 11:20

I cannot believe some of the posts on here. By analogy you are saying that if an 11 or 12 year old girl has gone through puberty, a man having sex with her would not be a paedophile!

Obviously, as a civilised society, we protect all children from under age sex. It is the people who enable this criminal in his life that are often at fault as well. Bringing up a son as a little emperor who can do no wrong has produced a liar with no regard for the law who indulges his every whim at the expense of others.

The evidence suggested that he targetted other pupils at the school, not just this one. He used his position as a teacher to manipulate children going through hormonal changes which made them vulnerable.

To suggest that he was the victim if some lolita he lacked the power to withstand is ridiculous, as are his sister's comments which implicitly blame his wife, who was lied to and cheated upon.

I have no doubt that the way his family brought him up contributed to his appalling beahaviour.


FobblyWoof · 25/06/2013 11:22

A line has to be drawn though. How do we define pre-pubescent? It's different for every girl.

I started puberty very young and by the time I was ten I was five foot three, had had my periods for a year and had very developed breasts. To be honest, looking back at pictures I'm sure I only looked a bit younger than the girl in this case. But no one can argue that if he'd done those things with a ten year old he would be a paedophile. Obviously I understand emotional maturity comes into play too, but simply saying paedophiles target pre-pubescent girls/boys won't work because where do you draw the line? The line has been drawn by the laws of the country.

I also find it really odd that the family have had no contact with the wife.


noddyholder · 25/06/2013 11:22

Agree with twitchy what is going on with the never ending media circus? It somehow dilutes the seriousness

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Sign up to continue reading

Mumsnet's better when you're logged in. You can customise your experience and access way more features like messaging, watch and hide threads, voting and much more.

Already signed up?