Eight times a night

[cromwell]

I can't help but feel a twinge of sympathy for the man. His marriage was unhappy and he was pursued by what seems to have been a determined young lady; yes he should have resisted, but sometimes the flesh is weak. She can walk away whistling; he is going to jail.
Don't agree with the judge's summing up either, implying that he is a paedophile. Falling for sexually mature young women is NOT paedophilia.

[Kaz]

He's not a paedophile, I agree with that, but I'm afraid I have no sympathy Teachers are in loco parentis, in a position of trust, even with slightly older pupils it is just plain wrong......

Sorry for the SOH bypass but it's something I feel strongly about

[Workingman]

I can't help but think that the prosecution has 'groomed' the girl to say all the right things to send him to jail and to save herself.

If memory serves: she went quite willingly, never made any attempt to escape and was quite supportive of him on their return.

I agree with what you are saying Kaz, his actions were despicable and well below what parents have a right to expect from teachers, but it takes two to Tango.

[pederito1]

I think the abduction if indeed there was any was probably the other way around. Anyway of course he should have resisted some way or other being in a position that he knew perfectly well where his relationship with pupils must start and finish.

[cromwell]

I know it's splitting hairs but - Child "Abduction"? Surely not. He didn't put the girl in a sack, sling her over his shoulder and head for the hills. She went more than willingly - probably more willingly than he did.

[pederito1]

That`s primeval persuasion Ollie. Nothing funny in this saga really but I cannot help a chuckle at the delicate euphemism in some cases used by the prosecution of "Inappropriate touching" Why can`t they call a spade a spade?

[Rodo]

He has been found guilty, as expected. Now remains to be seen whether he is sent to prison. The victim in all this is of course his poor wife.

[cromwell]

He's got five and a half years! Strewth!
He isn't a paedophile - paedophiles are interested in pre-pubescent children, this girl was fifteen.
Stuart Hall (amongst other things) indecently assaulted a nine year old girl, and got less than two years!
The BBC has just been on, harrumphing away at how this teacher "sexually assaulted" the girl after "abducting" her. No, no, no. That language is just so wrong. She was willing, she wasn't "sexually assaulted" and no way was she abducted.
Jeremy Forrest does not strike me as being a likeable person, there is something about his face that would say he isn't, but the language used to describe him and the sentence he has received are both ridiculous and excessive.

[Workingman]

He has been hung out to dry by the media and the Judge and jury fell for it.

Yes, we all know that he was a teacher and she his pupil, we know about 'in loco parentis', we know he was stupid and we know what he did was wrong; but he is not a paedophile and he has not carried out a sexual assault.

There was an interview with the bar owner in Bordeaux where he tried to get a job. She said that they acted like a normal couple and that the girl did not look under stress: she looked happy. The defence should have called her as a witness and also scoured France for other similar witnesses.

Finally. Their words across the courtroom to each other: his "I love you" and her reply of "I'm sorry" are not those of an abuser and his victim.

[Diflower]

5 1/2 years is ridiculous!
She wasn't a child; he's not and has never been a paedophile.
A teacher yes, in a position of trust, but blimey, compare this to other sentences?!