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?

I believe so LineRunner

I haven't "repeatedly crowed about" snogging a 14 year old whilst believing her (with good reason) to be 18. I have had to explain it several times though... It was originally mentioned to demonstrate the point that we cannot even say JF is a ephebophile with any certainty because none of us know him. We can speculate - but my point was that one instance doesn't make for a preference - and to suggest that things are not always cleat cut - although obviously in the case of teacher who knows full well how old his pupils are that doesn't apply.

He may well be a ephebophile. My point was we don't know.

But you do know that Forrest knew the age of his pupil when she was 14, so why is your experience relevant to how someone would view Forrest?

I don't think he's a paedo either and I agree with the person upthread who was comparing the Stuart Hall case. However, he was her teacher, and twice her age so he should have a jail term. Just maybe half the term.
Also, ALL the families are fuck-ups and all seem terribly keen on the limelight. What a bunch. Really.

Last time. Sit up, concentrate and make notes

1. there is no evidence his is a paedophile (no sexual appraoch to pre-pubescents that we know of)

2. there is evidence to suggest he may be a ephebophile but no proof that we know of because the definition says it has to be a marked preference, or something like that. My point was if all you knew about me was that one incident you might consider me to a ephebophile, but the rest of my 'history' shows this not to be the case.

At no point have I defended him.

I don't think the girls mum is - she gave a victim impact statement which has been widely (and unfairly imo) criticised but that's it. The rest of them are bloody awful.

Last time. Sit up, concentrate and make notes

Last time of the mansplaining?

Somehow, I doubt it.

As I've said before, people are very quick to tear apart the mother, the wife and the girlfriend.

But God forbid you call the 30 year old man who had unprotected sex with a 15 year old girl in the back of a car in a public place a pervert / child sex abuser.

Is anyone actually defending his actions here? I haven't seen anyone doing that - just people saying that he shouldn't be labelled as a paedophile - because he isn't (see Arthur's posts)

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

I think StuntGirl has hit the nail on the head here.

Does it really matter whether he was an 'ephebophile' or just a bit sleazy? As a maths teacher I think we can safely assume that he can count and he was telling a 14/15 year old girl that he loved her, kissing her in his classroom and having sex with her.

He was correctly convicted of a sexual offence.

This is not comparable to 17 and 15 year olds or 20 and 35 year olds.

I can't help but feel the sister's focus on the terminology helps her deny the seriousness of his actions.

I also find it strange that they haven't been in contact with his wife at all. Not even to say they're sorry she's going through this.

'Not comparable to 17 and 15 yr olds....'

In her Guardian article, Hadley Freeman argues that it's not comparable to Savile and Glitter, either.

'Jeremy Forrest is no Romeo. But neither is he a 'pervert'.

She's quite clear that he should go to jail and not work in a school again but says lumping him in with paedophiles skews the picture because it blinds us to how common this sort of behaviour may be. And we need to see it as it is in order to put in measures to prevent it.

Sorry I can't do the link. Perhaps someone else can?

ArthurSixpence if you had had sex with the girl from the nightclub then you would have had sex with a minor. You could claim in your defence that you believed her to be 18 because it was a licenced club and she was ordering a beer. If, however, it could be shown that you were aware that the club was frequented by under-age girls then that defence might have been rather less secure.

In Forrest's case he knew the age of his victim. The prosecution were only able to show that the grooming started from when his victim was 14. As posters on the Relationships thread know, adulterers and as in this case abusers, only admit to what they cannot deny. So, is it possible the grooming started earlier?

IMO Forrest has been very conscious of ages, ticking off magic numbers as they were passed. If it could have been shown that the grooming had started earlier then I think that the consequences would have been even more severe for him and he knew it.

However you try to dress it up a 28 year old grooming a 14 year old is a pervert.

She is a vulnerable child who required guidance and support from trained and caring professionals working in her best interest.

Instead she was groomed by her abuser, a now convicted sex offender.

There is no ambiguity to this.

Maybe his sister was saying shit on tv to gain some sort of favour with their parents. He is obvs "Golden Child" Maybe she is "Scapegoat Child"

Arthur - you keep getting it wrong because your judgement is skewed. Forest has been convicted of a sex offence, where he had sex with an under age girl who had entered puberty. That is proof beyond reasonable doubt that he is sexually attracted to that age group.

Don't try to dress it up in your mangled, suit-yourself nonsense. It is nonsense because you have made up a definition to suit yourself, whereas it is the legal definition of the crime that is relevant, not that of some random man who has picked up an equally random dictionary. There simply is no law which compels the use of certain behaviours to include duplicate offending, and I suspect any defamation action would be barred on public policy grounds and by court privilege.

The tone of your posts to those who are more intelligent and better educated than yourself only alienates and makes you obsessive. But you're getting a kick out of exploring the boundaries of what is legal and moral.

I'm afraid its all too obvious.

Less, you are confusing a legal definition - a child equals under 16 - with a medical one, which takes into account the difference between, say, a 3 yr old and a 15 yr old. Different purposes.

It was another poster who talked about defamation suits.

Nothing wrong with 'exploring the boundaries of what is legal and moral'.

'More intelligent and better educated than yourself'?

First, stop apologising for the daily mail link. A lot of people on here read it, they just think it is the MN way to slag it off. If you were really sorry for linking there you would find another link.

I saw some of her interview and I think she was disgraceful. She appeared to be smiling a lot of the time and the way they have dropped his wife and not been a friend to her is cruel. Maybe the wife wanted that but I feel they should not discuss her.

We either have a law or we don't. This man broke the law, used his status as a teacher to get his hands on a school girl - he has form for doing it before - and it seems to me they are more worried about their reputation - sister of a paedophile - than the fact the law has been broken.

I am also appalled that the girl's absent father has come out of the woodwork to say he would shake the ex teacher's hand and would be proud to walk her down the aisle. The girl is now living with her step father after losing her father and her relationship with her mother breaking down and I feel she needs a whole lot of support - and not from Forrest's family - that she probably will not get.

I'm not confused in the slightest Thymeout. I am choosing the legal definition of the crime we are discussing on this thread. The definition used in court for a sex offender, which has secured the conviction.

Anything else is just fudging the issue, because some posters appear to have a personal agenda to push that is at odds with the law and which makes sex with children not quite so bad in their eyes. And legally, Forest's victim was a child.

I can tell Arthur isn't that well educated because he uses random definitions and doesn't recognise formal sources, and he cannot construct an argument properly.

Miss strawberry, re the victim's father's comments about walking her down the aisle.

there is still a sector of society that sees marrying off girls as the be all and end all, which somehow overlooks the bigger picture that they are being manipulated by a sex offender, as 'getting a man' (no matter the quality) is more important than education, personal freedom, future prospects, etc..

You can also see it in the attitude of some posters on this thread.

When he started the relationship she was a pupil in school uniform. There was no question of her looking older. He is a pervert.

LessMissAbs

Yes to everything you have said, the voice of sanity on this thread.

Greylady - look at some of the girls coming out of your local secondary school. Their version of school uniform might just as well be on sale in Ann Summers.

My interest in this subject is not to be an apologist for JF or a victim blamer, but what should we say to our teenage girls to keep them safe?

Calling the cool young teacher a pervert or a paedophile simply doesn't cut any ice with them.