The Jeremy Forrest sentence

[TheOstrich]

5 and a half years. Is this too harsh, too lenient, or about right - what do you think?

I believe one of the troubles with the UK justice system is that it looks purely at "the facts" and not enough at the emotion or the intent, both of which can be mitigating. If I'd been on the jury, in my heart, to be honest, I'd not have convicted him of abduction as I think the girl was a willing partner and just as complicit. And at the age of 15, you have to take some responsibility for what you do. But the "facts", the "head decision" if you like, decrees he must have been guilty ......

Interesting to see the general consensus of the DM comments on their article was that the sentence was too harsh. And interesting to see the DM also being castigated for calling him a paedo .....

[Osc]

Well, up till a few minutes ago, I might have completely agreed with you Ossie, but I've just read in the DM that he appears to have form. However, there is no doubt that he appears to be an immature person, and the girl was more than complicit, if she had been not very much older there would have been no case to answer.

[Osc]

Mind you, when I worked in London, I was astonished to meet many young women who had left school at 15, moved into flats and were working fulltime..........

[Workingman]

Here is what I said on the Cafe thread.

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.

I now that he did not give evidence in court, but imo his defence team did him no favours. Was if a FACT that he "groomed" her as the prosecution claimed? Was it a FACT that he abducted her? There is plenty of evidence she went willingly. Is it a FACT , as the Judge stated, that he IS a paedophile when there no evidence other than the Judge's pronouncement? Did he get a FAIR trial with all the media coverage the case was given? I very much doubt it.

If I was a betting man I would put a few bob on there being grounds for an appeal and a reduction in the sentence.

[TheOstrich]

Well, up till a few minutes ago, I might have completely agreed with you Ossie, but I've just read in the DM that he appears to have form. .

Yes, Osc, I went on from starting this thread to visit the DM site - and read their latest revelations .....

If it is proved that he had form, then I have to concede, like with the Stuart Hall case, all bets are off .....

[Workingman]

A search for Me gan Stam mers on your favourite search engine (we can't name her directly) you will find details of the case as it unfolded.... There is no mention of the woodworm, Chloe Queen, not one: ever. Strange how she now remembers being "groomed". Fifteen minutes of fame and a few bob from the DM eh? Hmmmm.

[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.

That's what I posted on cafe.
I think there has been a concerted campaign to villify him, to paint him blacker than he is.
The word for an adult male who fancies teenage girls is Ephebophile, not paedophile.
He isn't a paedohile, she wasn't assaulted and she sure wasn't abducted.
As for her mum, weeping and wailing and creating, sure she must be upset but maybe she should be looking at herself a bt more as to why her girl went off the rails.

[pederito1]

Paedophilia is the sexual attraction by an adult, usually male for a child of either sex usually but not necessarily pre-pubescent, So I suppose the judge was right in calling him one. Actual sexual activity with a child is of course illegal in this country and he had to be jailed for it as he well knew. Maybe they should have gone to Pakistan and got married there? Abduction requires a degree of forceful removal which he was certainly not guilty of even if "force" can imply mental force. If grooming or seduction was involved then possibly she pulled a cunning stunt on him. Please lay your bets now on whether she will wait.

[Workingman]

In English law there is no clear definition of a paedophile/paedophilia except to say sexual activity by an adult (a18) over a child (a16) - SOA 1997. That was questioned in the Lords in 1999 to which Lord Bassam replied: "it is not clear whether there would be any merit in importing the use of the word “paedophile" into English law and attempting to define it."

There is, however, the law stating that a person under 13 cannot give consent and that any sexual activity is rape.

Medical definitions are all over the place as well. Pre-pubescent does not have an age limit. Girls reach puberty at different ages.

There is not even a consensus in society.... though we all know what a paedophile is.

It is interesting to note that the French were not initially interested as the age of consent there is 15. They would only look into Megan as a missing person, but if she gave them reassurances they would go no further. It was only when the UK pushed for abduction, for which there wasn't a shred of evidence, and still isn't, that the French acted.

The whole thing has been a media charade.

[Rodo]

They are going to get married.