Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
A Lesson Not Learnt
Jeremy Forrest mouthing I LOVE YOU in court to the underage pupil he had an affair and absconded to France with shows he either doesn't appreciate what he's done wrong or doesn't care. So IMO he deserves a very long sentence until at the very least he gets it into his thick head why such a relationship is wrong. The fact that the girl apparently responded the same way, also apologising and pledging to wait til he's free is not such a concern as she is an infatuated child. By the time Forrest gets out she may well have moved on, though if she is allowed to visit him in jail that will perpetuate an illicit romance for the Media. I've also been disturbed by glowing references Forrests fellow teachers gave to help his case, which surely condone his actions and therefore also make those teachers unsuitable for their jobs. Surely Forrest should never be allowed anywhere near a school again. what do you think?
Answers
All those trying to mitigate Forrest's actions by blaming the parenting, the school, anyone else or any organisation are shooting themselves in the foot! In doing so they admit this man's grotesque guilt, and they should applaud the court's findings. For an adult man, teacher or not, to "fall in love" with a 14-15 year-old girl is a danger to society if that...
20:05 Fri 21st Jun 2013
jno - "ah, and now it's the school's fault?"
Absolutely not - I have never intentionally inferred thus.
Possibly I was unclear whern I referred to the situation being noted and monitored at its earliest stages - I was referring to Forest himself, not the school. The responsibility lies firstly and entirely with him to assess relationships with pupils and to deal with any and all situations that arise.
Absolutely not - I have never intentionally inferred thus.
Possibly I was unclear whern I referred to the situation being noted and monitored at its earliest stages - I was referring to Forest himself, not the school. The responsibility lies firstly and entirely with him to assess relationships with pupils and to deal with any and all situations that arise.
andy-hughes
/// As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, as a non-professional counsellor, I have encountered exactly the same situation more than once - although only with mature adults. ///
/// My response was always to report the first instance to my immediate superior and if and when I felt it was not managable, I asked to be removed from my role with that particular individual. ///
Then perhaps it was the lack of counselling that was responsible?
/// As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, as a non-professional counsellor, I have encountered exactly the same situation more than once - although only with mature adults. ///
/// My response was always to report the first instance to my immediate superior and if and when I felt it was not managable, I asked to be removed from my role with that particular individual. ///
Then perhaps it was the lack of counselling that was responsible?
I didn't mean you, andy, but others are starting to ask why the school didn't pick up on it.
In fact the school does seem to have a dodgy record with this sort of thing, though it could be just unfortunate coincidence. And the police seem to have been notified as well.
But I don't buy the line "It wasn't my fault because it was somebody else's job to stop me." Forrest will spend time in jail for what he himself did, knowing it to be wrong (he's been there a while already). That seems fine to me; I'm not calling for him to be further punished. I'm also pleased that he won't be allowed to work with kids again, not because I see it as punishment but because children need to be protected from men who can't control themselves.
In fact the school does seem to have a dodgy record with this sort of thing, though it could be just unfortunate coincidence. And the police seem to have been notified as well.
But I don't buy the line "It wasn't my fault because it was somebody else's job to stop me." Forrest will spend time in jail for what he himself did, knowing it to be wrong (he's been there a while already). That seems fine to me; I'm not calling for him to be further punished. I'm also pleased that he won't be allowed to work with kids again, not because I see it as punishment but because children need to be protected from men who can't control themselves.
AOG - my apologies, I do not understand the last point you have made.
When you refer to lack of counselling - do you mean counselling for Forest?
My contention is that the counselling he was offering, not receving, was not appropriate, indeed, judging by the outcome, the 'lack' of counselling was the least of the constributory factors!
When you refer to lack of counselling - do you mean counselling for Forest?
My contention is that the counselling he was offering, not receving, was not appropriate, indeed, judging by the outcome, the 'lack' of counselling was the least of the constributory factors!
That seems extreme - but I've not seen all the evidence
I'd be a bit concerned that the judge is considering her mother and father as the victims - as if she were something stolen from them.
However maybe having evaluated the evidence he felt that this was a manipulative individual
I would have thought 1-2 years would have been more appropriate
This is the sort of sentence more associate with grevious bodilly harm
Compare to a recent attack on a disabled man
Prolonged, merciless attack (walking stick, punching and stamping)
Broken arm, two broken fingers, broken nose, cut requiring eight stitches, laceration. Record of violence. IPP with a minimum of six years following guilty plea upheld.
Are these offences really comparable?
I'd be a bit concerned that the judge is considering her mother and father as the victims - as if she were something stolen from them.
However maybe having evaluated the evidence he felt that this was a manipulative individual
I would have thought 1-2 years would have been more appropriate
This is the sort of sentence more associate with grevious bodilly harm
Compare to a recent attack on a disabled man
Prolonged, merciless attack (walking stick, punching and stamping)
Broken arm, two broken fingers, broken nose, cut requiring eight stitches, laceration. Record of violence. IPP with a minimum of six years following guilty plea upheld.
Are these offences really comparable?
jake, I would have thought the point of an abduction charge is indeed that someone has been stolen from them? If they have legal responsibilities towards her then they have rights too, and it's proper that the law should back them up.
Comparing penalties across different courts and different offences is (regrettably) usually a futile exercise.
Comparing penalties across different courts and different offences is (regrettably) usually a futile exercise.
I didn't follow that, Svejk, but I think they had to be sat on until the abduction charge was dealt with (don't know why). They wouldn't have been sprung on him, though, or his lawyers would have had something to say about it; presumably he'd already said he'd plead guilty to them. FredPuli or someone can probably explain.
Forrest seems like an immature idiot, mouthing I LOVE You while in court. But can he be an idiot or immature - he is in a professional job after all - in a position of authority over children. He took her off to France without her parents knowing - and she is legally a child after all - however mature she is - she is 15. The face that he is already a married man makes the whole thing even worse. I think he was only thinking about himself and what he wanted, and he wanted this 15 year old girl and he made sure he got what he wanted by taking her "on the run". Dreadful.