Quizzes & Puzzles0 min 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
-- answer removed --
AOG, you and I have been back and forth with out exchange of views for some time on this, but I have to repeat what i feel are the salient points in my argument -
in order for any teacher and pupil to be in a position where either can contemplate loving the other, then a degree of inapporpriate behaviour has to have taken place - and for that, responsibility lies fairly and squarely with the teacher.
His (or indeed hers) is the responsibility to act according to their status and position, and the adult in the relationship, to steer it well away from relationship waters before it ever gets even close. This is done simply by establishing some basic ground rules, and arranging a professional distance between both parties - which the majority of teachers in secondary schools manage to achieve on a daily basis.
The judge - who is party to direct evidence and testimony which we are not, believes without doubt that Forrest was the instigator and driver of this relationship, and that is obviously evident in the fact that he took the child abroad. even if this had been her idea, its execution is entirely down to him, to prevent it, as he should have prevented sexual activity with a girl who was days past her fifteenth birthday.
The issue is not about her maturity, or the depth and reality of their feelings for each other, it is the simple fact that anything other than a standard teacher-pupil relationship was fostered and developed by a mature adult with a vulnerable teenager, and for that, he has received just punishment, and removal from the settting where it could re-occur.
in order for any teacher and pupil to be in a position where either can contemplate loving the other, then a degree of inapporpriate behaviour has to have taken place - and for that, responsibility lies fairly and squarely with the teacher.
His (or indeed hers) is the responsibility to act according to their status and position, and the adult in the relationship, to steer it well away from relationship waters before it ever gets even close. This is done simply by establishing some basic ground rules, and arranging a professional distance between both parties - which the majority of teachers in secondary schools manage to achieve on a daily basis.
The judge - who is party to direct evidence and testimony which we are not, believes without doubt that Forrest was the instigator and driver of this relationship, and that is obviously evident in the fact that he took the child abroad. even if this had been her idea, its execution is entirely down to him, to prevent it, as he should have prevented sexual activity with a girl who was days past her fifteenth birthday.
The issue is not about her maturity, or the depth and reality of their feelings for each other, it is the simple fact that anything other than a standard teacher-pupil relationship was fostered and developed by a mature adult with a vulnerable teenager, and for that, he has received just punishment, and removal from the settting where it could re-occur.
naomi....we both have been on AB a long time and it has been clear that on subjects as this and others, there has been a mad scramble to reach the summit of the "high moral ground"
Quite often justifiably so,but i have now reached the situation whereby i agree in principal to the moral/ amoral aspect that after reading the same blurb,from the same people that i automatically take an opposite view.
Sad i know, but true.
Also the moral view to me is so complicated with diverse explanations that it takes 4 or 5 paragraphs to explain it and unfortunately i suffer from severe attention deficiency syndrome ( I get bored)
Quite often justifiably so,but i have now reached the situation whereby i agree in principal to the moral/ amoral aspect that after reading the same blurb,from the same people that i automatically take an opposite view.
Sad i know, but true.
Also the moral view to me is so complicated with diverse explanations that it takes 4 or 5 paragraphs to explain it and unfortunately i suffer from severe attention deficiency syndrome ( I get bored)
The Law does not bend itself to fit particular circumstance.
The Law says that when you are an adult man, you may not kidnap/run away nor have sexual relationships with a fifteen year old girl.
That these two see themselves as star-crossed lovers is neither here, nor there.
That's not so hard to understand, either, is it?
The Law says that when you are an adult man, you may not kidnap/run away nor have sexual relationships with a fifteen year old girl.
That these two see themselves as star-crossed lovers is neither here, nor there.
That's not so hard to understand, either, is it?
-- answer removed --
Jack, //That these two see themselves as star-crossed lovers is neither here, nor there.
That's not so hard to understand, either, is it?//
No, the way they see themselves patently obvious – which is why charges of paedophilia and abduction are so utterly ridiculous. How easy it is to point the finger.
That's not so hard to understand, either, is it?//
No, the way they see themselves patently obvious – which is why charges of paedophilia and abduction are so utterly ridiculous. How easy it is to point the finger.
child grooming, abduction, having sex with a minor, not a little matter at all
http://
http://
Naomi - He wasn't charged with any offences relating to paedophilia, that is the National Press using emotive terms.
In order for him to have been charged with Kidnapping/Abduction, etc. there has to be such an offence on the Statute Books.......and lo! there is. It fitted his actions and he was tried and convicted under it.
Just because it may not seem to 'fit' the complicated circumstances of this event in the court of Public Opinion rally is of little matter.
In order for him to have been charged with Kidnapping/Abduction, etc. there has to be such an offence on the Statute Books.......and lo! there is. It fitted his actions and he was tried and convicted under it.
Just because it may not seem to 'fit' the complicated circumstances of this event in the court of Public Opinion rally is of little matter.
