So 30 year old Maths teacher Jeremy Forrest got five and a half years. Whilst we probably agree that what he did was wrong, should he really spend more time in prison than a mugger, a burglar who attacked a woman in her own home, or a robber who almost killed his victim?
9 comments:
Given the degree of apparent complicity on the part of the girl, as revealed by her testimony in Court, it does seem excessively harsh - especially as he (presumably) got the standard discount for his guilty pleas.
And when you look at the mere 15 months meted out reecently to Stuart Hall, a couple of whose victims were only primary school age.... I really don't see the justice or logic of it at all.
My first reaction to this was that the sentence seemed excessive. That said, there seems to be some indication in the papers today that there was a history of grooming other girls, but as far as I can tell, that wasn't in the trial evidence, so it doesn't have any bearing on the sentencing. It does perhaps cast a different light on things - if it is true.
The worrying thing is that we seem to be obsessed with all the safeguarding protocols, and the CRB paperwork, but so often when there are real warning signs (as I think there was here) it seems to be brushed under the carpet - reminded me of this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/07/how-tried-report-sexual-predator
Apples and oranges.
Most of us do not need deterrents from mugging, murder etc.
Perhaps the courts consider abuse of trust wiuth regard to children to be more serious than the other crimes. If the sentence deters another teacher from doing the same, perhaps it's justified.
|There is a real argument for saying that the sentence is completely over the top. Would I have sent him down if I were sitting? No way.
Great blog, thank you.
Check out my blog,about my own personal struggles, as a. Senior teacher with mental health issues
http://itsoddbeingme.blogspot.com/
He was being punished for the betrayal of the trust put in him to look after the children he is supposed to teach. He used the time when he was 'in loco parentis' to take the actions which led to his own gratification.
I feel very sorry for Miss S. She went on a quiet break in France with her boyfriend and then finds all hell has been let loose. She is having a walk on the streets of Bordeaux when she is seized and restrained by a group of plain clothed officers whom she initially thought to be muggers. The problem could have been solved in a couple of minutes at that stage. The officers only had to ask Miss S if she was in Bordeaux of her own freewill and when she said yes the pair could have been released without further problems. The French could have gone back to the UK for further instructions as the girl is not a kidnap victim and Mr Forrest has not abducted her.
Instead the girl is arrested and if the media is correct was made to submit to a Medical examination even if she objected. That in itself seems to contravene the United Nations convention on the rights of the child to which both the UK and France are signatories. To that extent it appears Miss S was abused and assaulted by the authorities.
As a UK and EU citizen Miss S had a right to be in France. What were the reasons for her arrest? What had she done that called for her to be subjected to a medical examination? Has the Foreign Office protested to the French about the unlawful detention of a British citizen?
There are many things about this case that call for an answers by our legal authorities
The sentence given, was way way over the top.
Post a Comment