Not to understand societies values?

[PrettyPaperweight]

The schoolgirl abducted by Jeremy Forrest is deemed in law to be 'too young' to have 'chosen' to leave the country with him. Forrest was convicted of abduction because she is considered unable, by reason of age, to consent to accompanying him.

Yet, she would be considered Gillick Competent in law should she choose to refuse medical treatment, and that competency judgement is extended in family court to include her 'right' to reject a relative or select her own living arrangements.

Surely the fact that she would be considered, in law, to be able to understand the consequences of decisions she makes means that she cannot be abducted unless by force? If she is deemed capable of declining life saving medical treatment, is she not capable of choosing a travelling companion?

My own opinion is that many 14/15/16 year olds are not truly Gillick Competent, but that is a legal precedent that is well established, and if that is the case, then isn't it time other laws reflected this?

Paper weight, we allow a young person some autonomy and we take into account the Human Rights Act.

Running away to have sex with an underage girl, isn't a Human Right.

Need, once again, we are not telling a 15 year old what they cannot do, we are making it clear what we expect of adults and those in power/professional positions.

If that wasn't the case then all any adult that comes into contact with teens has to do, is wait until after their 14th Birthday, after having two years to work on that child.

Just like any abuser does, they start off as the nicest/charming people in the world. Adult women do not recognise red flags, how does a 14 year old?

Can I just ask, if they had waited until she was 16, which she is now, would it have been classed as abduction?

In certain circumstances.

As an example, 27 year old X, targetted young person when they were 13. YP is now 16, X is 30. Even though YP is over the age of consent, X is being prosecuted as the grooming started at 13. Even though YP persistently contacts X, goes to meet X, passes messages through 3rd parties, etc, X is expected to ignore messages/refuse to meet, so is always considered at fault at the moment due to YP's vulnerability

Yes, if he had shown no interest in her before 16, then that would have been different.

He would still of had to leave his job etc.

If you loved a teen, you want them to achieve, so stay living at home, stay in education, not put themselves at risk (underage sex is a risk to health etc), have peer friendships. Men such as JF, don't do that.