dosxuk Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Anyone who has accused him of paedophilia must be confused as to the age of the girl involved, there is no suggestion that she is prepubescent. Depends if you apply the tabloid journalist definition of paedophile or the dictionary one If we hadn't already heard about this case when he ran off with the girl, there'd be plenty of newspapers branding him as a paedo, probably also while trotting out the "she probably asked for it" line at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Total Chaos Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 There would as he was still in a position of authority. Had she been 16 and he not her teacher, then there'd be no case and no story. True,but apparently she instigated it all.But yeah,he could have said no because of his duty of care and just waited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210971/Megan-Stammers-Jeremy-Forrest-devastated-love-story-brought-brutal-end.html It's obviously a big temptation when there's an attractive young lass throwing herself at him, but for a teacher it's part of the job. He should have told her not to be silly and find someone her own age. Even so, I don't know how they can do him for abduction. According to my dictionary abduction involves taking away by force, which clearly was not the case here. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abduction Whatever the court decides his career's over! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 He took her out of the country without parental consent and she was a minor... What would you call it if not abduction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 It was all mutual,plus the girl knew exactly what she was doing,she was not vulnerable at all.If she had been 16 and not 15 their would be no story.The thread about it when it 1st happened, was a 50-50 mixed feelings about it. I'm going on the court reports where several witnesses described her as being vulnerable. I guess we have different standards about right and wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Also, remember that: a. rape victims' anonymity applies, no matter the age or gender of the victim; and b. a person <16 cannot give lawful consent to sexual intercourse (so it's rape, if proven). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H Damnation Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 It's abit stupid because her name is still on all the old news reports from last year when she went missing. So when all those idiots were posting photos of someone alleged to be Jon Venables all over the internet, the world wide ban on publishing the photos should then be lifted because a few reactionaries had already posted pics on facebook? The law doesn't work like that (thank god!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 I know, someone was entrusted to look after a vulnerable child, and he ended up having sex with her, and then rather than face the consequences he abducted her to a foreign country. What are the Police thinking about prosecuting him? That's funny, I thought that's what he's charged with. What's the point of a trial? They should have consulted you first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Also, remember that: a. rape victims' anonymity applies, no matter the age or gender of the victim; and b. a person <16 cannot give lawful consent to sexual intercourse (so it's rape, if proven). Technically that's incorrect isn't it. Between 14 and 16 the crime is unlawful intercourse, below 14 it's rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Technically that's incorrect isn't it. Between 14 and 16 the crime is unlawful intercourse, below 14 it's rape. No. See the first few sections of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents The principle remains the same, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.