Missing girl 15, runs off with Maths teacher.

[BuffetSlayer]

This really is getting side-tracked,

The problem is an adult in a position of care was involved in a relationship with a minor & took her to another country without the consent of her parents.

It doesn't matter who started the relationship, if he was unable to resist the advances of a child then perhaps he picked the wrong profession.

As an adult in a position of authority & care for children he has the potential to abuse that power to manipulate & coerce her - judging by the fact she ran off with a teacher at the age of 15 with no way of sustaining herself indicates she wasn't exactly the most mature or sharpest tool in the box.

Exactly, the law is there to blanket protect minors from the advances and predations of adults. It is irrelevant to say: "Oh well, my daughter is/was savvy and streetwise so they would know better or make their own choices.", because the fact is not all 15-year olds are savvy, they are still children in development and are impressionable, hormonal, and do not think with clarity in these situations when they believe they are in "love". They don't behave rationally.

There is no excuse for the teacher, whatsoever, to have eloped with this girl and caused all of this insane stress to all of their family members. It is grossly unprofesisonal, grossly inconsiderate, and just grossly stupid. If he really loved her THAT much he would have waited until she was of legal age and then sought employment in another school before pursuing a relationship with her. However, clearly the guy has a screw loose and is also not rational.

There really is no arguing against that in any way, shape or form. The laws are clear and there for a reason, and he deserves to go to prison for that, even if only for a year.

I think these two posts pretty much sum it up (no pun intended!).

The FACTS are that Mr Forrest has broken a couple of laws just by allowing this relationship to happen. If there has been sex involved, he has broken another. You do have to ask how someone could allow such things to happen, especially when he is married and in a professional position of trust?

Irrelevant of what we think is right or wrong, the judiciary, law lords and government think it is wrong and they hold the cards. Whether they are right or wrong is a moot point in reality because the law is the law and there is no getting away from that. Also I believe if such crimes went unpunished it would set a dangerous precedent for perhaps more dangerous and predatory individuals to chance their arm when grooming minors, and the outcome may not be as happy.

As a purely philosophical debate, we could discuss the right's and wrongs of this story and applicable laws along with human nature until the cows come home, indeed i tried to cover that angle from my own ponderings a few pages ago. But in reality the aggravating facts remain, and the law and it's representatives are there to decide Mr Forrest's fate.

He did wrong. He must be punished, otherwise it makes a mockery of the law(s) - the law(s) which Mr Forrest knew were in place and chose to break of his own volition. Yes, I know Miss Stammers was probably complicit, but I am pretty sure the law states that a minor cannot be prosecuted as an accessory to their own abduction, nor as an accessory in the case of unlawful sexual intercourse (I'm sure someone will clarify though). Whether we like it or not, Mr Forrest should have done the right thing because he was the 'responsible' party. He didn't so will likely get the book thrown at him. Miss Stammers will likely be 'told off' and free to go on her way, whether she admits any culpability or not. That's just the way of it.

If it is really love, then why didn't they wait? Or go about their business in secret but outwardly present the vision of normality to bystanders? Surely that would have been the intelligent thing to do? Then she could leave school and go to college and they could legally be together even if wider society would probably frown on them.

I am sure that if they really wanted to be together they could have made it work. To me the whole debacle smacks of immaturity from both parties. It really leads me to question the mental state of Mr Forrest because his actions, by definition, are insane.

Cheers

Buff

 

[Raumarik]

Exactly, the law is there to blanket protect minors from the advances and predations of adults. It is irrelevant to say: "Oh well, my daughter is/was savvy and streetwise so they would know better or make their own choices.", because the fact is not all 15-year olds are savvy, they are still children in development and are impressionable, hormonal, and do not think with clarity in these situations when they believe they are in "love". They don't behave rationally.

There is no excuse for the teacher, whatsoever, to have eloped with this girl and caused all of this insane stress to all of their family members. It is grossly unprofesisonal, grossly inconsiderate, and just grossly stupid. If he really loved her THAT much he would have waited until she was of legal age and then sought employment in another school before pursuing a relationship with her. However, clearly the guy has a screw loose and is also not rational.

There really is no arguing against that in any way, shape or form. The laws are clear and there for a reason, and he deserves to go to prison for that, even if only for a year.

+1 and let's not forget it isn't just teachers who should be treated like this, when I worked in a school IT section I was also bound by the same rules - as should any adult working in a school, regardless of age of "how old the kids look".

Breach of trust - go to prison.

 

[Deleted User 234324]

It's not about how bright she is, its that children her age have not yet developed their brains physically or mentally to fully appreciate the consequences of their actions. It's why we do such stupid things when we are young, and why we have the age of consent laws that we do.

But then the human brain isn't fully developed until the early 20's.

 

[Richdog]

But then the human brain isn't fully developed until the early 20's.

Oh come on... people do stupid thing at all ages, the point is that the capacity for making rational adult decisions is much greater than it is at the age of 15.

 

[Em3bbs]

In the Mail today it said she was only 15 in June. The school were only 'aware' about the pair for 7 months, unless they became 'aware' the moment it started we can assume he started the grooming process when she was 14 and maybe even closer to 13 than 15.

When you consider he was blogging about his 'moral dilemma' in May it is more than safe to assume.

http://jeremyayremusic.com/2012/05/19/you-hit-me-just-like-heroin/

 

[BuffetSlayer]

When you consider he was blogging about his 'moral dilemma' in May it is more than safe to assume.

http://jeremyayremusic.com/2012/05/19/you-hit-me-just-like-heroin/

Interesting, it does indeed sound like it could be connected.

But in terms of facts, he could be talking about anything. I find it interesting that if it is related, that he viewed it as a dilemma. Not really the language of a sexual predator is it?

Unless of course he has put it in his blog as a red herring to be referred back to in order to make his character seem more palatable if he got found out.

Also the planning with his CV and fake names show his actions appear to be very well thought about, if not entirely wise. As such I would not put it beyond Mr Forrest to be using double bluffs in such a subtle way.

My overall question though, is if the school suspected something was wrong, surely the first response would be to suspend him forthwith? Yet, reading between the lines (I know I shouldn't!!) they appear to have know something was amiss for seven months without taking action?

I really hope that is just some media spin and not actually true!

I feel for his wife, she must be absolutely heart broken by this and her world turned completely upside down. She must be feeling violated in more ways than one.

Buff

 

[Angilion]

That's a bit of a straw man argument there. You don't have to pass a driving test or get insurance before having a relationship with someone like you do when driving a car. You also can't cause thousands of pounds worth of damage and kill/maim innocent bystanders (unless you're into something really deviant I suppose).

The comparison is flawed, but a point still stands - a younger person is not necessarily experienced enough to be able to make a sound decision about what they're ready to do. I could have used a better analogy for something that is age-limited for a reason, but driving is what popped into my head at the time.

 

[atpbx]

Are you as stupid and deceitful as you're claiming to be, or are you just trolling? Your posts aren't even consistent with each other, let alone with other people's posts or reality. That indicates trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow for the possibility that you're genuinely as bad as you're claiming to be.

So, which is it? Sad liar of limited intelligence or troll?

Yep, you do seem to be just stupid it seems.


You can't understand me explaining to you that although someone has the will and maybe even the maturity to choose or want to do something, that the law restricts your ability to this due to arbitrary age limits.

As has been explained to you already, she could be the most mature 15 year old the world as ever seen, unfortunately for her the law recognises her as a child and she can't make that choice.

The law operates lots of arbitrary age limits and restrictions, she is bound by lots of them for lots of things, and so he is he.

I do genuinely wonder how people get through life sometimes.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Angilion, please explain why you don't think the below is true?
Or is it you don't want it to be true?

You can't understand me explaining to you that although someone has the will and maybe even the maturity to choose or want to do something, that the law restricts your ability to this due to arbitrary age limits.

As has been explained to you already, she could be the most mature 15 year old the world as ever seen, unfortunately for her the law recognises her as a child and she can't make that choice.

The law operates lots of arbitrary age limits and restrictions, she is bound by lots of them for lots of things, and so he is he.

 

[Richie]

I think Angilion's argument involves removing the arbitrary age limit that the law imposes which effectively results in someone being a "moron" and unable to make decisions for themselves at 15 years and 364 days old to suddenly becoming a competent person the following day on their 16th birthday (GD pedants - I am ignoring leap years ).


Do we really think that, on your 16th birthday, someone comes up and flicks a switch to turn a "child" (legally speaking ) into a fully functioning person?


Yes, atpbx is correct that the law states otherwise but I would hope people in here can understand and grasp that the law is black and white whereas real life is not... Can't there be two mutually exclusive yet generally correct opinions?

 

[FoxEye]

Oh come on... people do stupid thing at all ages, the point is that the capacity for making rational adult decisions is much greater than it is at the age of 15.

This is true. And also at 15 you are more capable of making decisions than at 8.

Trouble is the law groups a 15 year old with 8 year olds, and a 16 year old with 48 year olds.

It's rather silly. Even if a 20 year old would be better at making the decision, can we really say comprehensively that a 15 year old isn't *good enough* to make the decision? Can we say that they aren't any better decision makers than they were at 8?

 

[Angilion]

Angilion, please explain why you don't think the below is true?
Or is it you don't want it to be true?

Please explain why you're making things up and claiming I think them. That's a very unpleasant thing to do and not at all like you.

 

[Angilion]

I think Angilion's argument involves removing the arbitrary age limit that the law imposes which effectively results in someone being a "moron" and unable to make decisions for themselves at 15 years and 364 days old to suddenly becoming a competent person the following day on their 16th birthday (GD pedants - I am ignoring leap years ).
[..]

No, it isn't. As I said, a functioning legal system requires clear definitions even if they're not realistic. There needs to be a defined limit in place and age is the simplest practical one. It's arbitrary and inaccurate, but what else can be done? Serious question, but I doubt if anyone will attempt a serious answer. Ravings and false accusations are much easier than answering a difficult question. Burn the witch! Kill the heretic! Same old same old, down the ages.

My argument was against atpbx's ludicrous and grossly offensive classification of huge numbers of people as inanimate objects, utterly mindless things.

 

[Angilion]

[..]

You can't understand me explaining to you that although someone has the will and maybe even the maturity to choose or want to do something, that the law restricts your ability to this due to arbitrary age limits.

[..]

That isn't what you wrote and I argued against. You are lying, simple as that.

 

[Gogl]

That isn't what you wrote and I argued against. You are lying, simple as that.

Easy tiger, I don't think atpbx meant anything other than her rights to act on her impulses under law, it doesn't matter whether she's Brain's love child or a cabbage, the decision is not hers to make. I very much doubt questioning her ability directly was ever a consideration, I didn't read it as such.

Although you weren't the only one to find it ambiguous and some seem to think you are arguing against the law which isn't helping your mood I would imagine, in case they missed it:

But how would you make law on that basis? You have to have clearly defined laws or else they will be abused.

I felt ready to race cars when I was about 10. I wanted to race cars and I thought I'd be good at it. Preferably a Jaguar E-type in British Racing Green. In retrospect, I'm pretty sure I wasn't competent to do so.

I'm not too hot on the response to that though:

That's a bit of a straw man argument there. You don't have to pass a driving test or get insurance before having a relationship with someone like you do when driving a car. You also can't cause thousands of pounds worth of damage and kill/maim innocent bystanders (unless you're into something really deviant I suppose).

Bad experiences in relationships, especially with someone much older and in a position of authority can cause great harm to adolescent development, it can leave scars that may never fully heal and it is for that reason society tries to protect people at this vulnerable stage in their lives.

The rules put in place to protect people deals in absolutes, if one out of one thousand of these relationships have a happy ending it is not reason to dissolve them nor the appearance that this may be one such case (which is not something that I would agree with) reason to waive them. Some may point to a rare example of happily ever after, but even then that person will never have the choice to have matured and chosen to consent to the relationship from that position and I would question how genuine the relationship is.

I don't see how this risk isn't worth legislating to protect against simply because it isn't either killing someone or racking up a large insurance bill.

 

[Angilion]

Easy tiger, I don't think atpbx meant anything other than her rights to act on her impulses under law, it doesn't matter whether she's Brain's love child or a cabbage, the decision is not hers to make. I very much doubt questioning her ability directly was ever a consideration, I didn't read it as such.

It was explicitly and clearly stated as such. atpbx stated exactly that, unequivocally. Not that her decision doesn't carry any legal weight, but that she is utterly incapable of making any decision. That literally objectifies her. Only an inanimate object is incapable of making decisions. A dog can make decisions. Even a goldfish can make decisions!

Although you weren't the only one to find it ambiguous and some seem to think you are arguing against the law which isn't helping your mood I would imagine, in case they missed it:

Nice of you to try, but reality doesn't generally matter when it comes to witch hunting.

I spoke in favour of an age of consent right from my first post in this thread and I said it repeatedly. I said it in every post I made in this thread that contained my views (i.e. not just answering someone else's posts about me) but that hasn't stopped atpbx and Dimple (and maybe others) claiming I'm opposed to it. What can you do when people go that far to make untrue statements about you? Quoting things I actually wrote isn't likely to help - these people obviously don't give a damn what I actually wrote. Although maybe it'll reduce the spread of the slander. There are people who are willing to read what the witch actually wrote and not just assume the hunters are telling the truth.

 

[Kamwah]

Well they're questioning a 46yo now.

 

[Gogl]

It was explicitly and clearly stated as such. atpbx stated exactly that, unequivocally. Not that her decision doesn't carry any legal weight, but that she is utterly incapable of making any decision. That literally objectifies her. Only an inanimate object is incapable of making decisions. A dog can make decisions. Even a goldfish can make decisions!

Perhaps I didn't read far back enough, what I did read made no mention of being capable or incapable, often when it is said that someone cannot make a decision it implies a lack of authority rather than ability, but I'll leave it there, I'm just saying how I read it.

As for the rest of it, yeah I'd be getting a bit steamed too, just wanted to say 'take a deep breath', didn't want to see it escalate beyond the point of no return. Not that I'd ever be one to take my own advice.

Well they're questioning a 46yo now.

Say what? Oh you mean for the five year-old that went missing. Yeah, I'm surprised some of the crackpots from this thread haven't been saying "Well it does say she went of her own free will".

 

[atpbx]

Perhaps I didn't read far back enough, what I did read made no mention of being capable or incapable, often when it is said that someone cannot make a decision it implies a lack of authority rather than ability, but I'll leave it there, I'm just saying how I read it.

Simple enough to understand isnt it?

This incident is almost as bad as the detailing thread in motors a couple of weeks ago, panned out almost exactly the same as well.

Its a shame.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Please explain why you're making things up and claiming I think them. That's a very unpleasant thing to do and not at all like you.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I'm reading your replies as though you don't accept the law no matter how much of a brain this 15 year old has got.
The law treats 15 year olds (and younger) as though they are brainless.