Jeremy Forrest's sister's comments.

[Jayne3474]

Sorry mail link (!):

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2347879/My-brother-paedophile-loves-girl-abducted-Jeremy-Forrests-sister-says-family-support-couple-asked-looked-jailed.html

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?

No one is denying that, merrymouse There is no evidence that he is a paedophile though because she was post-pubescent.

In what way was she willing Jayne?

She appeared to be a willing partner in the matter.

Note: This is not the same as legal consent.

Then again, anybody who blindly accepts that legal consent ALWAYS correlates with moral consent is a fool.

I mean do we say a 15-year-old girl who has willing sex with a 16-year-old boy has not given moral consent albeit not legal consent?

Sometimes, you've just got to look at the individual case.

I do not see him as a paedophile whilst he has broken the law. Isn,t the age of consent 15 and lower in many countries. Yes a line is drawn but it is one we make up. It was wrong of him to abuse his position of power but I do think that there are 15 year old mature enough to enter into an adult relationship. I recall at least 50 per cent of girls at my school by year ten were in sexual relationships, and I was at a so called good school.

Does it change anything if in 5 years when he is released he marries the girl?

I don't think it puts his family in a favourable light that they're being pedantic over whether he is referred to as a paedophile or a sex offender.

But he shouldn't have had any kind of relationship with her beyond:

"Can I have that maths homework by Tuesday"

and

"I can see you are having a tough time. I will refer you to a counsellor".

People seem to be confusing this with a normal relationship.

exactly merrymouse Even saying he should have waited is immaterial as he shouldn't be looking at a pupil in that way.

You can't use "the law" as an infalliable guide to the morality of a given situation.

Forrest undoubtedly abused his position. I absolutely agree that teachers should not be having sex with their pupils - although I'd have to think more about university students and tutors I suppose.

However, those who are using the fact that it is illegal to form a moral judgement have a weak argument I think. The law has said all sorts of things about the age of consent - in 1275 it was 12, and was 10 by 1576 and was 13 in 1863 but raised to 16 in 1885. In Canada it was 14 until 2008, when it became 16. In America it depends on which state you live in. In Mexico it is 12.

So 'the law' is a flawed guide to what is and isn't moral.

I think his behaviour was immoral because of his authority over her, not because of her age per se, although that is a factor in his authority. It would also have been immoral if she were 25 and he was her parole officer, for example, or if she was 50 with a mental age of 12. Her age is a factor, but it's not the key factor - he was wrong because of their relative positions, not simply because of her age. I think the law needs to protect younger people - and should (and does) protect students from their teachers - but the idea that having sex with a physically mature 15 year old who is a consenting partner makes you evil is a difficult one to codify. Would it be immoral for a 16 year old boy to have had sex with her the day before her 16th birthday? What about a 17 year old? Where is the line? And why? (and please don't forget the bits about a teacher - pupil relationship always being wrong before you reply)

It would seem highly likely Jayne that she has been coached into being willing. If she gave consent without actually having free will, then she did not give consent.

Yes, I tend to agree, Arthur. Tho' Merry's reference to his having groomed her for four years casts a different light on it. Where did you read that, Merry?

But the teacher/pupil thing should be a very powerful taboo. A teacher I knew said the idea of a relationship with a pupil felt like incest and there was no temptation at all for him. I think Forrest was ambivalent about his role as a teacher, wanted to be down with the kids, the rebel against the establishment and that this blurred his boundaries.

I think incest could be considered pretty evil.

Apparently he had already reached the stage of pretending he had separated from his wife and inviting her back to his house to 'share a bed' when she was 14. (Evidence she gave in court). He would have known that a sexual relationship would not be legal until she was 18.

Oh, I see, Merry. I thought you were implying he'd been targeting her since she was 11.

But if he or she had changed schools, the relationship would have been legal at 16. Tbh, I think they both felt they were above the law. (Not victim blaming. She was under his influence from the beginning, however she saw the situation.)

oops no sorry - another newspaper report says she was 15 when he started taking her back to the marital home. He kissed her in his classroom when she was 14. Either way, I think saying "oh but he wasn't a paedophile because she was over 12!" does not make him look any better.

As far as I know he was prosecuted for having sex with a child, not "being a paedophile".

Arthur. Of course the legal age of consent is relevant, because that is the law in this country. law and morals are unusually correlated, thats why some men go to Thailand for under age sex.

You have written a ver long draft trying to downplay this crime. Instead of being embarrassed by your snogging of a child when you are an adult, like any normal person, you have continually crowed about it. Even though the unfeasibly coincidental set of circumstances that apparently enabled it are not in point with the Forest case. And you appear to enjoy other posters describing your conduct as sickening and repulsive.

Hmmm.

I think anything about the victim's so called willingness has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. He had been grooming her since she was 14.

I have teenagers, they can be very easily manipulated.

Dont forget that as a teacher the critical age was 18 not 16.

Forrest will have known this perfectly well.

It is not as though he was unaware of her age. As a pupil himself at school, as a student, as a trainee teacher, he would have known a teacher-pupil liaison was breaking the law - but he chose her, he singled her out, he is an adult who was in a position of trust and didn't proposition an adult colleague or neighbour, he picked a pupil.

Saying that someone isn't a paedophile because they don't fit the actual definition of being one is not being an apologist! It does not mean that you approve or even tolerate what he did either.

But who, apart from journalists, is calling him a paedophile anyway?

You cannot compare a married teacher kissing a 14 year old in a classroom to the same 14 year old kissing somebody in the 6th form.

skeevy? sexually dysfunctional? cheater? fraud? Would these be better ways to describe him. He broke the law and went to prison for the crimes he committed.

Jeremy Forrest is a convicted sex offender and that point is not up for debate.

All this discussion over the age of consent is a load of flannel. So the girl involved was 15. That does not make what he did 'not that bad'.

Look, a vulnerable child is a vulnerable child. And for anyone who wants to argue that case, it's been widely reported that she was self harming and suffered from an eating disorder and also had a troubled home life. Instead of protecting and helping this girl he took advantage.

You (general you) can argue semantics as much as you like but a young teen in those circumstances is vulnerable - maybe not in the physical sense but emotionally, very much so. Are young teenagers supposed to be invulnerable to predatory adults just because they are more physically developed? I don't think so.

From the relative sophistication of 30 years old, manipulating a vulnerable young person is the proverbial piece of piss.

The prosecuting counsel called him a paedophile, tho' I notice that the judge avoided the term.

Btw, there's an interesting article in today's Guardian Online by Hadley Freeman. (Sorry, can't do link.) She is making a distinction between Forrest and Savile/Glitter.

They may have called him a paedophile, but that was not what he was convicted for.

Maybe his family can sue the prosecution for defamation of character? Or perhaps they could lie low and stop providing fodder for newspapers and TV.

I think his family should shut up, yes.

Of course they will want to defend him but giving interviews to downmarket rags blaming everybody except him for what happened tends to give them impression that, at best, they are in denial about what he's done and at worse are enablers who are actively colluding with him.

Given that they've set up a fan page on which they invite underage girls to write to him, quoting his parents address I tend to the latter view.

Isn't there an investigation into who allegedly might have 'coached' the witness?