Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the internet...
Since I stopped blathering at the start of August, I've receiving dozens of emails asking me to come back, hundreds more begging me not to and half a dozen accusing me of having run off with Megan Stammers.
Jeremy Forrest could certainly have chosen a better time to disappear with his favourite pupil, than the week new legislation comes in to give teachers anonymity unless they are actually charged with a criminal offence, whenever accusations are made against them.
I've been banging on about this for ages, so I'd like to take some credit for its introduction. Like most things that I have anything to do with however, it is already being heavily criticised
The Guardian rather predictably claims that it might have stopped poor Megan being found, although I'm not quite sure how (It's hardly an accusation when there's cctv footage of them getting on the ferry). The paper also claim that just 15 malicious accusations were made by pupils in the last 'few years' (there's accuracy for you). I've had more made against me in a week.
Anyway, here's a new equation for Mr Forrest to ponder.
15 years + 30 years = 7 years.
6 comments:
Well, according to his French lawyer, Jeremy Forrest claims to have done "nothing wrong except fall in love" (*with a 15-year old schoolgirl but hey - that's just a detail*).
Bad timing though: if he couldn't have curbed his amorous desire until she was 16 and able to leave school, it's a pity he couldn't have waited at least another week. As I understand it, they could have still published his name and photo purely to assist in the search (after all, he'd been reported missing too), but not the fact he was already under investigation by the school and the police, and certainly not the fact he was about to be suspended. That in turn would have probably precluded much of the stuff they've trawled through Facebook and Twitter to find, and also ruled out the "interviews" with pupils from his previous school.
What he is or isn't guilty of is ultimately for a Court to decide, but there's an awful lot of quite prejudicial material still flying around in the media I fear.
"... credit for it's introduction."
it is introduction?
Nice to see you back Frank.
Very nice to hear from you at last.
John Gibson
I was hoping you'd fallen off your bike and got your head stuck in a drain, but I guess it was a vain hope. ;-)
Is a nearly 16yo really all that much less consensual, unpaedo-dreamy and mature than an actual 16 yo? She's a dumb willing little tart who must have known what this would mean to a married teacher (all my Y10+s do).
I haven't got a grain of sympathy for this stupid childish teacher but although there are many perogatorives you can hurl at this post-adolescent, in-yer-dreams, I've-still-got-it, aren't 15 yo springy, firm and willing tosser, I'm still thinking he wasn't actually all that keen on his job, or he wouldn't have billed it so quickly and so certainly. Hither Daily Mail confession.
Post a Comment