Jeremy Forrest: Schoolgirl Speaks Of 'Crush'

bb1 wrote:I think Pedro said earlier in the thread that it was 14, but there is a 'grey' area between 14-16, which is eminently sensible.

You do realise that if our runaway schoolgirl HAD got pregnant, she would have been entitled to council housing, state support, hot and cold running social workers, etc?

On The Continent there is a grey area during which parents do have some say in what their child may be allowed to do, but it generally does not include Sex. But as far as I understand it does only include Marriage, or forming a lasting relationship outside of the country. Although Courts do over rule the rights of the parents.

Pedro Silva wrote:about: "What is the age of consent in Portugal", in Portugal, until reach 18, it is considered a minor.

Yes, okay. But what sort of minor? At what age is it deemed legal to have sex?

Not so very long ago in UK you could get married at eighteen with your parent's consent, but not otherwise. But you couldn't vote until you were 21. However, you could go to war at 18 and fight and die for your country.

In Portugal:

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". Since September 2007 the age of consent regardless of sexual behaviour, gender and/or sexual orientation is 14

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

This is a fairly sensible piece;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10132124/Jeremy-Forrest-troubled-teenager-seduced-by-attentions-of-teacher.html

Which raises a lot of questions, as it claims the 'victim' is not living with her mother, but with one of the stepfathers.

Also, I read a report elsewhere that when her mother's statement was being read out outside court, a woman interrupted shouting that her mother had perjured herself in the dock.

Who knows?

But if Forrester gets one day longer than the revolting, genuine child molester Stuart Hall, then the law really will be an ass.

Oh, good God! The 'victim' (whose name I am not going to post despite the fact the entire world knows it) is.....

currently engaged in a slanging match on twitter. You really couldn't make this up

Someone else doesn't think much of the prosecutor. Unfortunately, it's the 'victim', who is making her feelings clear all over the internet.....


The girl — taken away to France last September by married Forrest — has openly revealed her feelings through social media.
When prosecutor Richard Barton QC said in court early on in the case that the couple’s relationship was “not Romeo and Juliet” she branded it “moronic”.
She said: “It’s ‘not Romeo and Juliet’? Of course it’s not!
“That’s a tragedy and they both f****** died. How moronic.”


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4978143/Jeremy-Forrest-girl-still-loves-teacher.html#ixzz2WqD7in75

Oh good God, the 'victim' had to be arrested and forced to give evidence....

THE schoolgirl abducted by Jeremy Forrest was ARRESTED on the second day of the two-week trial — minutes after finishing a GCSE exam.
Police said she had told them she was not going to turn up that afternoon to give evidence against the teacher.
Judge Michael Lawson QC agreed to issue a warrant during a private court session with the press and public excluded.
The girl, 16, was escorted to court with her father.
Sussex Police defended their action. A spokesman said: “After arriving at court she co-operated and even requested to give evidence in person, rather than via videolink.”


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4978143/Jeremy-Forrest-girl-still-loves-teacher.html#ixzz2WqDrZfdT

Hope the jury was told all this?

I am on tenterhooks here, and have been since 5 o'clock this morning.  And then had a horrible thought, since some media pillock mentioned the possibility of further charges.
I have never quite understood why they didn't charge him with "Having Sex with a Minor", as he undoubtedly did.  So I hope they aren't going to rearrest him and charge him with that.
The Police don't like to be found wanting, which they have been, and I wouldn't put anything past their chagrin.

bb1 wrote:Oh good God, the 'victim' had to be arrested and forced to give evidence....

THE schoolgirl abducted by Jeremy Forrest was ARRESTED on the second day of the two-week trial — minutes after finishing a GCSE exam.
Police said she had told them she was not going to turn up that afternoon to give evidence against the teacher.
Judge Michael Lawson QC agreed to issue a warrant during a private court session with the press and public excluded.
The girl, 16, was escorted to court with her father.
Sussex Police defended their action. A spokesman said: “After arriving at court she co-operated and even requested to give evidence in person, rather than via videolink.”


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4978143/Jeremy-Forrest-girl-still-loves-teacher.html#ixzz2WqDrZfdT

Hope the jury was told all this?

Saw that, Bonny. But much good did it do them, despite gaining a conviction.. I am beginning to suspect that they took on the wrong person.

This is going to make a great book.

I don't think they can - apparently, the ridiculous 'abduction' charge came about because as you said at the time, France wouldn't have acted because they weren't committing any crime in France - or most of Europe - by sleeping together.

I cannot imagine what is going to happen next; rumours are all over the internet that her mother DID know where she was, more or less, and committed perjury when she came out with all that drama about thinking she who must not be named was dead.

I don't think the jury were given the whole picture, frankly.

She who must not be named is all over the internet, speaking out, and it's being repeated in the media.

She's sixteen, she's made it very clear she wants to be with him, so....what's the point of jailing him?

He seems to have been coping well in prison, and is well-regarded by other (rather envious) prisoners, helping them with literacy, etc.

Her mother cannot be called a 'responsible adult' by any stretch of the imagination - the situation seems to be dangerously close to an Aud'n'Dave scenario.

Oh, and the prosecutor who called Forrester a 'paedophile' should go and look up the meaning of the word, instead of bandying it around. He should also consider a new career, as the teenage 'victim' is making him look a bit of a tw@t.

I hope the jury was told that the 'victim' had to be arrested to force her to give evidence?

I am becoming increasingly appalled as it all comes out, not that I wasn't already.

It is very unlikely that he would have been arrested in France, by the French, and then been extradited on a EAW because what he had done is not a crime in France. And what is not widely known is that France did not subscribe to this EAW rubbish, and do not extradite people if what they have done is not a crime in France. So Jeremy Foster must have gone willingly.

This whole thing is an utter disgrace. But she has come out of it all so well. I do most sincerely hope that this farce will be her saving grace. She obviously needed something that she wasn't getting from her family.

PS, Bonny. She trumped the barstards by insisting on giving evidence in person. I am so impressed with this girl.

She's making the prosecution - the whole case - look even more ridiculous than it did already, Sabot. The prosecutor really should be considering a new career.

I assume the judge will read his Mail before sentencing, and no doubt has been spluttering over his cornflakes at what's coming out.

More humiliation for his poor wife, who is the only GENUINE victim in this:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/409174/Jeremy-Forrest-s-marriage-doomed-from-start-claims-friend

And I agree with she-who-must-not-be-named, the prosecutor is a moron. His wife isn't particularly young-looking.

Does anyone know, how can the prosecutor STOP the 'victim' speaking out about this farce? She's going to be 18 in about eighteen months and will be able to do as she pleases.

Not that she isn't already....

I shudder at the possible backlash, Bonny. And what it will ultimately do to The Paedophile Brigade. Nothing of this will serve to protect the real victims.
The Law has finally gone mad.

Calling him a 'paedophile' not only trivialises child abuse, it demonstrates gross ignorance by the prosecutor, IMO.

As does calling this escapade 'child abduction'.

And the 'victim's' publically-expressed contempt for the whole thing plays straight into the hands of those who want the age of consent lowered.

Did Forrester put the lurid details of their sex lives into the public domain, doubtless to the delight of REAL perverts?

No, the prosecutor did.

Did Forrester further humiliate his poor wife?

No, the prosecutor did.

Did Forrester have a teenage girl arrested in the middle of her exams and force her to give evidence?

No, the prosecutor did.

Thankfully, the 'victim' is made of fairly stern stuff and is making a fool of the prosecutor.

What a girl, eh? I don't know what will happen to them, but she has never behaved as badly as some of them, for all of her young years.

The Prosecutor totally disgusts me, and has come out of it all sounding much more like a pervert than Jeremy Forrest would ever know how to be.
These Prosecutors do have choice, you know. He totally trashed the reputation of that girl, and her family. Although I suspect that her family deserved it.
What did he think he was doing?

Playing to the gallery, IMO, Sabot - the very thing I DETEST prosecutors doing, when facts and hard evidence should speak for themselves.

I am relieved to see it's backfired so spectacularly, if the Wail comments are anything to go by.

What on earth.....

http://news.sky.com/story/1106611/jeremy-forrest-admits-child-sex-charges

Jeremy Forrest Admits Child Sex Charges
Jeremy Forrest, who was yesterday convicted of abducting a teenage pupil, admits five charges of sexual activity with a child.


Did we even know he'd been charged with that? No - we just had a discussion about how that couldn't be used as it wasn't a crime in France.

He quite undeniably did, so why was abduction added to the charges? WTF is the prosecutor playing at?

Jeremy Forrest, who was convicted by a jury of abducting the schoolgirl, pleaded guilty to the additional charges as he returned to Lewes Court Court.

Have these been tacked on?

Yep, those two have loads of support on the Daily Wail. In fact, The Daily Wail is probably upping the anti as we speak. Although I suspect that The Sun might pay more. And personally, I don't much care where I read it.

But the whole thing is so dreadfully damaging to real victims.

Look now, I cannot get frightfully upset about young girls being targetted by a bunch of bunch of bleeding foreigners when our Law Enforcement does nothing to protect them. And then makes capital out of something that is not even comparable. Law Enforcement insult us all.

Makes a mockery of all that, Giving victims a voice, stuff doesn't it?

When this particular 'victim' is shouting loud and clear that she isn't a victim, and the prosecutor is a moron.

This smacks of vindictiveness, IMO.

There was no doubt about the underage sex charges, he admitted them, and it should all have been over and done with, without lurid headlines.

No prurient details, no further humiliation for his wife, no teenagers arrested mid-exam.

Maybe that didn't suit a prosecutor who thought he could make a name for himself?

Possibly just done to get that one out of the way, so they can't come back and hit him with it later, when they don't get quite the severe sentence that they hope for. And probably on the advice of his Barrister.
It was always the only thing that could not be denied, and in fact, what he should have been charged with.

Jesus H. Christ, I don't believe it!

http://news.sky.com/story/1106611/jeremy-forrest-jailed-for-five-and-a-half-years

Jeremy Forrest Jailed For Five And A Half Years
Jeremy Forrest, who was convicted of abducting a 15-year-old pupil, admitted five counts of sexual activity with a child.

That's a disgrace. The law really is an ass.

That filthy, REAL paedophile Hall got a slap on the wrist for admitted offences including assaulting a nine-year-old child - in comparison to this, with a very vocal non-victim?

1. I hope they appeal.

2. I hope he gets his divorce sorted out and he and the 'victim' marry in prison - sticking two fingers up to the court and the prosecutor, who sounded far more like a pervert than Forrest.

Oh My. We can't dig up Jimmy Savile and hang, draw and quarter him, so let's go for some silly man who broke The Law of what is currently considered to be the age of consent.

That's about the size of it, IMO. This is one of the rare occasions when I agree with what is being said on Icke, sample:

The law is an ass. If Forrest got 51/2 years, then Graham Ovenden and Stuart Hall and the other pervert who said that a seven year old girl he sexually assaulted had "come on to him", should all get double that. We know why the judges were soft in the other cases. Forrest isn't in their little club.

The court seems to have forgotten that most basic rule about the punishment fitting the crime....

I doubt if we have heard the last of this - the 'victim' will doubtless will be all over the media and on every daytime telly sofa that will have her.

Not to mention the rumours about her mother committing perjury.

Ah well, if he carries on teaching other prisoners literacy, philosophy, etc., he'll be out in a couple of years, by which time the 'victim' can do as she pleases.