Jeremy Forrest: Schoolgirl Speaks Of 'Crush'

My friends, this was taken from Sky News:

http://news.sky.com/story/1102304/jeremy-forrest-schoolgirl-speaks-of-crush

I am a teensy bit concerned about this one as she certainly didn't look only fifteen.  But he did know how old she was, so I suspect he will be found guilty, and possibly rightly so as he was her teacher.
But it will be interesting to see what sort of sentence he gets

I´m not creating neither excuses about the teacher nor condemn him, but, the schoolgirl is also responsible, because she was the one who started with this.

something is not right:

she told:

"Nothing had happened but I remember being quite excited that he was going to be on the trip. I think I made it obvious that I liked him more than other teachers." , but, she stressed "They started a sexual relationship during the summer holidays last year, she explained.", weird, suspicious behaviour from her, it seems that she had a purpose to act like the way she did, curiosity or with another desire.

Pedro Silva wrote:something is not right:

she told:

"Nothing had happened but I remember being quite excited that he was going to be on the trip. I think I made it obvious that I liked him more than other teachers." , but, she stressed "They started a sexual relationship during the summer holidays last year, she explained.", weird, suspicious behaviour from her, it seems that she had a purpose to act like the way she did, curiosity or with another desire.

I am sure that she did, Pedro.  But she was under the legal age of consent.  I am also sure that she was a willing party, and in Spain where the age of consent is 13, it would not have been illegal as such.
It's a difficult one, and I do feel some sympathy for him if she was throwing herself at him.  Was she a virgin before she got involved with him?  Although I don't suppose they will be allowed to ask her that.
I can't see him being found Not Guilty, but the sentence will reflect what is thought of this.  But that could go either way
Personally, I am a little tired of promiscuous under aged girls behaving in this fashion, and then being labelled "Victims".  She has nothing to lose, while he has everything at stake.  Silly, silly man, but hardly a criminal.

More here-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2340148/Jeremy-Forrest-Schoolgirl-kissed-married-teacher-30-classroom-just-14.html

What's this?

Scots-born Forrest, of Petts Wood, Kent, denies child abduction. The trial continues.


How on earth is this 'child abduction'? I sometimes think the courts are Hell-bent on trivializing heinous crimes with rubbish like this.

I'd better shut up as the case is ongoing.

of course this is no abduction, she decided to follow him, she was not forced to anything.

bb1 wrote:More here-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2340148/Jeremy-Forrest-Schoolgirl-kissed-married-teacher-30-classroom-just-14.html

What's this?

Scots-born Forrest, of Petts Wood, Kent, denies child abduction. The trial continues.


How on earth is this 'child abduction'? I sometimes think the courts are Hell-bent on trivializing heinous crimes with rubbish like this.

I'd better shut up as the case is ongoing.

Absolutely, Bonny.  She was not abducted, although you could twist it into Legal Abduction, or even Legal Rape I suppose.  This will do that girl's well being no good whatsoever, and raise colossal support for him.  In fact, she will likely run off with him at the first opportunity.

In my for once, humble opinion.

I agree with you bb1.

I could see it if he had been charged with corrupting a minor, or whatever being a sleazebag is called these days.

But one of the most serious crimes short of murder? It's mocking genuine child abductions, IMO.

Yes, I'd better shut up again.

Yes Sabot, I understand your words: "she was under the legal age of consent.  I am also sure that she was a willing party, and in Spain where the age of consent is 13, it would not have been illegal as such.
It's a difficult one, and I do feel some sympathy for him if she was throwing herself at him.  Was she a virgin before she got involved with him?  Although I don't suppose they will be allowed to ask her that.", even under the legal age of consent, she can have decisions of her own, which she did.

about being a virgin or not before got involved, there are tests who can prove it, although not saying who did it, but even if it did, because she was involved with boys before him, she will know, it´s just a matter of her being properly questioned about it.

Again, Im´not making excuses, but I´m also not condemn him entirely (actually I don´t have the right to condemn him), she, on the other hand, it is more guilty than him, because she was the one who started with this issue,  because she is also guilt, more tham him.

using your words: "She has nothing to lose, while he has everything at stake.  Silly, silly man, but hardly a criminal", so, in my opinion, I don´t see the need of handcuffs.

bb1 wrote:I could see it if he had been charged with corrupting a minor, or whatever being a sleazebag is called these days.

But one of the most serious crimes short of murder? It's mocking genuine child abductions, IMO.

Yes, I'd better shut up again.

Of course it is making a mockery of genuine child abduction.  But that seems to be the modus operandi these days.  Chase up the minor offenders and make a song and dance about it while the really bad boys get away with it.
I am almost beginning to hope he gets acquitted.

The Handcuffs are the final insult, Pedro.  This is not going to end well.  She will either run off with him or be left with a massive great guilt complex.

yes, I hope that too: "I am almost beginning to hope he gets acquitted.",

because, for me, he did not committed any crime, she willingly followed him,

she willingly decided to act like she did.

she was not forced to anything.

She's a minor by English law, Pedro, so there was a crime committed at some point.

But abducted? I don't think so....IMO, it's more like those love-struck idiots who used to run off to Gretna Green to get 'married'.

It's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, IMO. I would have thought the sheer embarrassment of their romantic escapades being all over the tabloids would have been punishment enough.

I just checked your country's laws on this, Pedro-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

Since September 2007, the age of consent laws of Portugal states 14, regardless of sexual behaviour, gender and/or sexual orientation, as a result of the constitutional court of Portugal ruling on constitutional protection that explicitly includes "sexual orientation", formally into the Constitution of Portugal back in 2004. Since September 2007, the age of consent was formally equalised as part of the Penal Code of September 2007. Although the age of consent is stipulated at 14 in Portugal, the legality of sexual acts with a minor between 14 and 16 is open to legal interpretation since the law states that it is illegal to perform a sexual act with an adolescent between 14 and 16 years old "by taking advantage of their inexperience".[50]

-----
Now, that sounds sensible.

Yes bb1: "She's a minor by English law, so there was a crime committed at some point.

But abducted? I don't think so....IMO, it's more like those love-struck idiots who used to run off to Gretna Green to get 'married'.

It's using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, IMO. I would have thought the sheer embarrassment of their romantic escapades being all over the tabloids would have been punishment enough., but is not a severe crime, it had not caused the loss of life, that it required the use of handcuffs for example, so, I agree: "I would have thought the sheer embarrassment of their romantic escapades being all over the tabloids would have been punishment enough, end the trial, because surely the embarrassment of being exposed in the tabloids are punished enough.

In UK:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#United_Kingdom_.28and_dependencies.29

Yes bb1, I agree: "that sounds sensible."

I should think the young lady who was 'abducted' is in more danger from slavering tabloids, who will no doubt be dribbling over, and distorting, every word she says in court, than she ever was from her rather nerdy teacher.

And those very same tabloids will be shoving ghastly slappers like Rihanna in readers' faces, as some kind of role model for girls who want to be successful.

I´m just waiting to see if the Leveson Inquiry issue will be used in this case.

I would like to know how her mother didn't know where she was half of the time, and how she managed to spend nights in a hotel at the age of 15.  How old did the hotel receptionist think she was?
And why she was allowed to tart around showing her cleavage to all and sundry.  Okay, call me old fashioned.  I can safely say that I have never done this, or ever felt remotely tempted.  But it does give these young girls the wrong idea of who and what they are, and consequently, the men they associate with.
The stupid pillock was obviously in love with her, or possibly youth.

I blame Rihanna and co for the tarting around, and the media for pushing that as desirable behaviour for girls who wish to succeed in life.

The Sun and Mail are never done shrieking in outrage, all the while displaying acres of young female flesh. Double standards or what?

your words are mine: 

"I would like to know how her mother didn't know where she was half of the time, and how she managed to spend nights in a hotel at the age of 15.  How old did the hotel receptionist think she was?
And why she was allowed to tart around showing her cleavage to all and sundry.

Perhaps someone can explain to me how on earth the police and justice system think they are helping the 'victim' by having her go through every detail of consensual sex in court, which is being eagerly repeated in the media, no doubt so the media can pretend to be outraged?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2340148/Jeremy-Forrest-Schoolgirl-kissed-married-teacher-30-classroom-just-14.html

Mind you, the 'victim' sounds a good bit more grown-up and sensible than the 'child protection officers' who set this all off to begin with. But I could cheerfully live without knowing that they always used condoms.

TOO MUCH INFORMATION!!!!!