All the world loves a lover, according to an essay on love by the American poet Ralph Waldo Emerson; but he died long before today’s bleakly unromantic killjoys got to work on “underage” love. A classic case of the misery merchants’ baleful influence was to be seen in the British courts recently, when maths teacher Jeremy Forrest was sentenced to five and a half years in prison after his relationship with a 15-year-old girl pupil seemed near to discovery and the pair escaped to France.
She went willingly; but the authorities called it abduction, a view supported by the law – which, as everyone knows, is an ass. In this case its asininity is demonstrated by the fact that it is an offence in Britain, regardless of the child’s own views or best interests, to remove a child under 16 “from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child” (Child Abduction Act 1984, Section 2). This offence was enough to put the teacher into the same legal category as those who kidnap kids for purposes of ransom, rape, slavery and murder. The girl was an ardent participant in the pair’s sexual life too (up to eight times a night, the jury were told!), and in the country to which they fled their love-making would not even have been illegal: the age of consent in France is 15. But that did not prevent Forrest’s conviction for “sexual activity with a child”, as well as abduction, after the couple returned voluntarily to England.
As for what the girl’s best interests might have been, had anyone bothered to give them due weight before a monstrously unfair and ill-judged prosecution was launched, they would have discovered remarkable elements of positivity in the relationship. She was from a difficult home background, leading to significant emotional problems including depression and self-harming. Jeremy Forrest helped her slay those demons at a time when no one else was helping. His influence inspired her to take an interest in schoolwork: her grades and attendance records improved significantly under his tutelage. For legal reasons her identity can no longer be revealed. More importantly for our understanding of the case, though, her opinions can no longer be hidden: she has emerged as a young lady with a mind and will of her own, not as the mere puppet of an allegedly “manipulative” adult, as the dogmatists insist must always be the case with adult-child sexual liaisons, regardless of the facts.
These ultimately undeniable facts, facing off competitively against the dogmatists’ version of events, have resulted in a strikingly split narrative across the British media lately, especially in recent post-trial days.
The prosecution version, faithfully echoed across much of the media, was so comprehensively and viciously distorted as to be all but indistinguishable from malicious lies. Forrest was callously chain-sawed in an attack that had all the integrity of illegal logging in Amazonia. His lover was a physically mature 15 but that did not stop him being “a paedophile”; and just in case there is anyone alive who fails to get the message that being a paedo is a bad thing, prosecutor Richard Barton called Forrest a “coward” – not the most convincing insult to hurl against a guy who had the balls to defy the most potent taboo of our times. But that wasn’t all: Forrest had “groomed” the teenager to “satisfy his own carnal lusts” – an outrageous claim that brutally bulldozed out of sight the girl’s active and willing part in the relationship.
After the trial, this pattern of distortion was reinforced by the usual suspects in the usual clichéd way. Dr Michael Hymans, an educational psychologist, said “The crucial thing here is that this took place in a setting in which the adult was in a position of power. He carried all the trump cards.” The NSPCC, meanwhile, was telling the media what to think and say: “the media must be careful of presenting relationship between teacher and pupil as love story”, said a spokesperson . In other words, it was indeed a love story (otherwise why mention such an angle?) but the NSPCC felt this reality should be suppressed.
Fortunately, not all of the media were ready to swallow the in-denial approach taken by an increasingly vituperative abuse industry, whose rhetoric in Britain is now so hysterical it begins to resemble the worst excesses of the “culture wars” in America. In sharp contrast to the unlovely anti-love lobby, several tabloids rejected the NSPCC’s advice: the Romeo and Juliet angle caught their imagination when, after the trial, the couple were still defiantly sticking together: Forrest had blown a kiss at his girlfriend in court before he was taken to jail, mouthing “I love you”. They have marriage plans. The girl’s father approves. He has been quoted as saying he would like to shake the teacher’s hand and thank him for protecting his daughter, adding “I’d be proud to walk her down the aisle.”
It was the girl’s mother, not her father, who had given her a tough time. The youngster went into the witness box and testified that she got little attention at home. Her mother was divorcing her stepfather and was pregnant with her new boyfriend’s child, her fifth. Forrest was the only person who could deal with her mood swings, she said. He was the first person to show an interest in her problems and she took great comfort in being able to confide in him about her troubled relationship with her mother, her depression, self harming and an eating disorder. She said she felt safer with Jeremy than with anyone.
None of this counted for much in the eyes of Judge Michael Lawson QC, who implied that her statement did not reflect her real views, saying she had been coached as to what to say – an allegation totally belied by the couple’s declared intention to marry.
Another excellent riposte to this and other denunciations of the relationship came in a superb article by another woman who, as a child, had been in a relationship with a teacher. This was Don’t tell me my affair with a teacher was abusive – I’ll be the judge of that, in The Guardian. This piece is so good I can do no better than urge everyone to read it. Among a host of interesting points, the author is very clear on the need for professional rules governing teacher-pupil relationships. Jeremy Forrest broke those sensible rules and should be held to account for that.
But the issue of good professional conduct is a hugely different matter to criminal sanctions. It might be pointed out, briefly, that even in a university setting, where the students are all adults, affairs between students and academic staff are generally frowned upon, and with good reason: if a student is given high grades by a professor she is sleeping with, it can often lead to suspicions of favouritism and indeed the reality of corruption: the victims in such cases are not the student in the sexual or romantic relationship, but all the other students who are not in bed with the prof and not lucky enough to benefit from special treatment! So perhaps there should be a rule that if a teacher has sex with one of his pupils he must, in fairness, then offer similar opportunities to the rest if the class!
A small personal footnote: I see that Jeremy Forrest has been sent to Lewes Prison, where I served time in 1981 for an offence of “conspiracy to corrupt public morals”. I can’t say I recommend the place, but it should be better than the London prisons where I served the greater part of my sentence, HMP Wormwood Scrubs and HMP Wandsworth: in those far off days they were hell holes. Jeremy should also have an easier time than I did when he emerges as a free man: while not everyone loves a lover of young(ish) girls, they do love a love story that ends in marriage.
Remember the American teacher Mary Kay Letourneau? The one who had an affair with a 13-year-old boy pupil? They married after she had done her time inside, and the couple won over many hearts. They co-authored a book about their relationship, which was published in France as Only One Crime, Love (French: Un seul crime, l’amour). It has never been published in the United States. However, Letourneau’s story is recounted in the 2000 TV movie All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story.
[…] processes to right egregious wrongs. Jed submitted a detailed comment this week in response to All the world loves a lover?, Heretic TOC’s blog on the Jeremy Forrest case. He plainly has fire in his belly. This case of a […]
This is an amended and edited version of my first message. [The edited parts appear in these brackets, except where I have changed the name of the dissident who cannot be named to X.] The notes beneath this message did not appear in the original version.
18th July 2013
Jeremy Forrest sentence
Please note: I intend to copy the following [into] this message:
Jeremy Forrest
Julie Forrest
Carrie Hanspaul
X, the dissident who cannot be named
Dear Sir
I write as one of your client’s supporters who are anxious to do anything we can to assist your efforts to improve his situation. We have several ideas for maintaining his (and X’s) public profiles at their current high level, if this is what you need.
We are baffled by many aspects of this case and would very much appreciate any answers to the following questions that you and your client are at liberty and willing to share.
There appears to be some confusion over the time Jeremy is likely to serve in prison? He was remanded on the charge of abduction alone and the time he has served already might not be discountable from the other 4.5 years of his sentence? 3 months are at stake? Authoritative clarification of this issue is required?
Do you consider that there are sufficient grounds for an appeal against his sentence? To a lay person, it certainly appears that there should be. We read about several other recent cases of teacher-pupil sexual relationships, of suspended sentences and prison terms far lower than you client’s 4.5 years for this. Jeremy’s sentence seems excessive even when the factors that the judge inferred as aggravating (all of which are highly contestable) are taken into account.
[More accurately, I should have said, there are factors which mitigate each aggravating factor. Jeremy’s breach of trust as a teacher is not by itself contestable but, by X’s account, the outcomes of their relationship were positive, and at least some of these are objectively verifiable: e.g. her improved school attendance and performance, the cessation of her eating disorder and self-harming.]
I understand that the judge applied sentencing guidelines – for sentencing a sexual ‘predator’ who had ‘groomed’ his victim, not Jeremy Forrest. I don’t downplay the gravity of his offences any more than you or indeed he does. But why was the ‘victim’ statement that X submitted to the Court not considered in mitigation as any fair-minded person would expect?
Judge Lawson said, “To urge this argument is to ignore the rationale for the age of consent rules” (X was underage, therefore her actual consent is irrelevant), but to urge Lawson’s argument is to ignore the victim and treat her as though she doesn’t exist as an individual who was distinctly impacted by the offences ‘against’ her.
[See the notes below this message]
A judge who refuses to recognize the difference between a victim with a complaint against an offender and a ‘victim’ with no such complaint insults and fails to deliver justice to both of them. Both offenders would receive the same sentence and both victims would expect a sentencing differential.
In reality (it seems to me), however, the prosecution has it both ways: when negative or aggravating factors are in play, young victims are given ample opportunity to spell out the negative impact and help to justify a higher sentence. Underage people are apparently considered sufficiently mature to understand why they shouldn’t have [consented], but not considered mature enough to report that they have no regrets and [extol] the redeeming virtues of the older person with whom they had sex.
If the ‘rules’ to which the judge referred are sentencing rules, then he can fall back on them – or choose not to? – and this case illustrates powerfully that they ought to be relaxed, and emphasize that judges are expected to apply justice to sentencing.
[I have since read the sentencing guidelines which already expect this of judges. They are required by statute to apply the sentencing guidelines unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice.]
And what if the ‘rules’ are in conflict with European law?
How many times since the introduction of victim impact statements in this country has a statement been dismissed and ignored by the judge? X’s statement would have operated in mitigation but surely her fundamental right to be heard, even as a child, let alone a young adult, remains the same? Even if the judge was allowed to exercise his discretion in this matter, and in deciding to showcase her mother as the victim instead, and even if he followed correct procedure, was not X’s right to be heard violated nonetheless?
In both the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 24) and the CPS guidelines for impact statements by child victims, the right of the child to be heard is conditional upon her “age and level of maturity”. On what credible evidence did the judge rely to support his assertion that X was too young and immature to speak on her own behalf in the form of an impact statement? She submitted her statement at the age of 15, and told the judge (presumably in his chambers) on the second day of the trial, at the age of 16, that she stood by it.
Judge Brown was replaced by Judge Lawson during the intervening period. Can whoever took this decision confirm that no pressure was applied from any external source?
The inference by the judge that your client ‘groomed’ his ‘victim’ is grave and the consequences for X have been devastating. One (being a lay person) would have thought this should have been proven or established by due process before it was factored into Jeremy’s sentence or used to deny X’s right of self-determination that a 16-year-old would otherwise possess.
Given that X has repeatedly, consistently, and publicly denied that she was ‘groomed’, and still denies it, if her standpoint becomes operable before Justices of Appeal, as it arguably should have been before Judge Lawson, this ought to be a ‘game changer’ for Jeremy? She has remained loyal to him in adversity and has earned the right to be taken seriously.
What mystifies many of us most of all, however, is that Jeremy was advised to waive his rights under the extradition agreement and plead guilty to charges of ‘sexual activity with a child’. He is now officially branded an evil monster alongside Roy Whiting and Ian Huntly, in Orwellian terms, an ‘unperson’ stripped of his former public identity, and disqualified from teaching children, for the rest of his life. Was this necessary?
The judge was grudging in his praise for this; yet more evidence of the bias and vindictiveness he displayed throughout the trial and before the trial began. Is this not grounds for appeal?
In his summing up before the jury retired to consider its verdict, did the judge correct the inflammatory lie of the prosecuting counsel who called your client a paedophile?
If the latest charge (attempting to pervert the course of justice) fails through lack of evidence, will this not suggest further victimisation and harassment of your client by the judge?
The judge told your client: “You are still manipulating her.” Given what X has endured since Jeremy’s arrest, and what he has risked and sacrificed for her, does not this squalid, cynical, pernicious misrepresentaiton of the truth further betray the judge’s prejudice against him?
Did anyone else besides X witness the judge high fiving and backslapping the prosecution team when the jury was out of sight? Is this appropriate conduct for a judge during a trial, even when the Court is in recess? Such gloating in the presence of people with a high stake in the outcome is more commonly associated with the attitude that psychopathic killers display towards their victims’ families.
I would also be interested to know how much money would need to be raised to enable Jeremy to ‘do a Lord McAlpine’ and sue people who have defamed him, and I hope he has recourse for the defamatory media coverage.
To coin a phrase, some things are worth fighting for. I hope you agree!
Best regards
Jed Jones
Notes for lay people who read this message:
Source: http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk
I am not sure what the judge meant by the ‘rules’. If he was referring to the law itself and the sentencing guidelines, these are indeed clear that a person cannot legally consent to sex on the day before her 16th birthday but can do so the next day.
Please note the following, however.
(1) Both the law and the guidelines recognize ‘ostensible consent’; indeed this is a separate category with a whole dedicated set of sentencing guidelines and statutory sentencing ranges, which are different from those that apply in cases where a person aged 13-15 did not ostensibly consent.
(2) ‘Breach of trust’ is both an aggravating factor within the offences to which Jeremy pleaded guilty, and a separate offence in its own right, if the ostensibly consenting victim is aged 16 or 17. If the offender is 18 or over, the statutory sentencing range for penetrative sex with someone aged 16 or 17 where there is breach of trust is 1-2.5 years’ custody; if the victim is 13-15, the range is 3-7 years; for the rape of an adult with no aggravating features, the range is 4-8 years with a starting point of 5 years.
This means Jeremy, whose sentence was 4.5 years for his sexual offences, would probably have received 1.5 years had X been 16, and 5 years if he had raped an adult on a single occasion, instead. The yawning chasm between the first and second outcomes, and the close comparability of the second and third, are predetermined by statute and to this extent the hands of the judge were tied.
(3) Mathematically, therefore, the custodial sentence for these offences cannot be reduced on appeal to less than 3 years (the statutory minimum), and even this requires the Justices of Appeal to conclude that all the mitigating factors override all the aggravating factors.
There are no specific sentencing guidelines for abduction; therefore the general guidelines apply. Given that there was a trial and the ‘abduction’ was obviously planned (an aggravating factor), I can’t see the sentence for this being reduced to less than 6 months on appeal.
Applying the principle of ‘totality’, neither can I realistically foresee the total sentence being reduced to less than 4 years. With continued good behaviour, this translates to a reduction in the time Jeremy serves in prison of approximately 9 months.
(4) X’s legal incapacity to consent to sex at 15 does not render her incapable of reporting specific facts which ought to weigh in mitigation. e.g. Jeremy never instigated or pressured her into sex; he always used condoms; he insisted that she use the safest available means of contraception; he was intially reluctant and she pressured him; the reasons she felt safer with him than in her own home or anywhere else; and so on.
None of this undermines or ignores the rationale (whatever that may be) for the age of consent at 16. By dismissing X’s statement in its entirety, the judge effectively threw the baby out with the bathwater. This was a gross error which ought to constitute grounds for appeal against the sentence.
(5) I noticed this paragraph in the sentencing guidelines for the offence of ‘breach of trust’:
“Some relationships caught within these offences, although unlawful, will be wholly consensual. The length of time over which the relationship has been sustained and the proximity in age between the parties could point to a relationship born out of genuine affection. Each case must be considered carefully on its own facts.”
Note also that the statutory requirement for all sentencing guidelines is that the judge must apply them unless to do so would be contrary to the interests of justice.
Given the circumstances of this case, if due consideration and weight are given to X’s statement on appeal, there seems a reasonable argument here that the relationship between Jeremy and X was born out of genuine affection, despite (or, arguably, because of) their respective ages, and this principle should apply to this case in the interests of justice.
If X’s account of events, and this argument, are accepted on appeal, there are no grounds for concluding that Jeremy poses any threat to children or society. Under these circumstances, it would seem reasonable to apply for him to be transferred to an open prison with occasional weekend leave on licence. Admittedly, this is made more difficult by the fact he has been convicted for ‘doing a runner’ but there are additional options, such as, confiscating his passport, electronic tagging, and supervision.
(6) Finally, this case points to a need to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to close the status gap between the ages of 15 and 16. For example, the minimum sentence could be reduced below the custody threshhold where ostensibly consenting victims are aged 13-15 (and the minimum sentence for ‘breach of trust’ reduced commensurately). Then the courts could apply discretion in sentencing, taking into account the circumstances of each case and the age and level of maturity of the victim.
I suppose we could name the new law after X, if she is willing to spearhead the campaign for reform, just as (to take a purely random example) Megan’s Law in the United States is named after someone called Megan.
These are the two e-mail messages I have sent to Phil Smith, Jeremy’s solicitor. I am still waiting for a reply to the first one which I sent 7 days ago. I have done some research which I hope you will find helpful.
25th July 2013
Re: Jeremy Forrest
Dear Sir,
Sorry I didn’t raise this in my first message but I have since become aware of grave concerns raised by several people over the circumstances in which Jeremy’s guilty pleas to the sexual offences were extracted.
Can you confirm that no unlawful pressure (threats, intimidation or blackmail from any source) was applied against your client?
Are you satisfied that the unconventional and rushed process which involved the guilty pleas was procedurally correct and does not render the convictions for the sexual offences unsafe? I thought there needed to be a comittal hearing in a Magistrates Court to hear the defendant’s plea and confirm the indictment?
Do you have any idea why the judge decided against deferring sentencing for at least another week, to allow the probation service time to submit a pre-sentencing report?
Please be aware that I have decided to place an edited and amended version of my previous message, and this one, in the public domain, for the following reasons:
(1) the continued distress and suffering of an innocent person at the hands of the State and judicial system is offensive to the whole of civilised society. This is a matter of legitimate and profound public interest;
(2) the dismissal and effective censorship of the ‘victim impact’ statement submitted by X to the Court, in which she challenges the ideology of the child abuse industry, raises legitimate and grave concerns over the abuse of judicial power and a reasonable suspicion of state interference in the independence of the judiciary.
The excessive and dangerous levels of power of the child abuse industry and the prison industrial complex, and abuse thereof, which may have been, and still be, in play in this case, pose a potentially fatal threat to the integrity of due process and fundamental liberty. This is a matter of urgent and critical public interest.
Regards,
Jed Jones
What needs to be fully investigated is the fact that after the jury delivered their verdict, and while awaiting sentencing by the judge, the crown court temporarily converted into a magistrates court. Forrest then waived his immunity from prosecution for the under age offences. This could be a strong basis for the convictions to be overturned on the grounds of undue process. It could be argued that since Forrest was awaiting sentencing by a judge who had already exposed himself as hostile, that Forrest would have feared that retaining his immunity might have angered the judge hence resulting in a lengthier sentence for the trumped up abduction charge. Forrest should not have been put in that situation and I doubt if it was legal. The question remains as to why Forrest waived his immunity. It strikes me that he was tricked, and trickery should play no part in a fair judicial system. It also strikes me that the authorities were bold enough to pull this stunt in the belief that by vilifying Forrest and branding him as a paedophile that everybody would be too scared to speak out on his behalf, for fear of also being branded as a paedophile. I think a good lawyer could make a lot of noise about this court room pantomime. I have never before heard of a crown court momentarily converting into a magistrates court, and the fact that this was allowed to happen points to collusion between the judge and the prosecution.
Do we have a British lawyer among us? I suppose that switching to and fro between crown and magistrates’ courts is a procedural issue that ought to be governed somewhere in the Criminal Procedure Rules:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/rulesmenu
@Aztec, I posted your query here: http://www.insidetime.org/articleview.asp?a=1521&c=how_did_you_plead
It might be worth watching the comments in case someone posts an answer?
(If you don’t see my question, it’s still awaiting moderation but it should appear tomorrow.)
Apparently, “Ms. Rooney’s” very own cognition, and memories of how the relationship took place, are not good enough for the majority of commentators.
Many of them have their cliches, their stubborn thought patterns, and their rigid social models, all ready to go at a moments notice.
…I get disappointed, all the more…as I virtually never encounter even just an original take, or viewpoint…It’s a mental wasteland…those sorts of comments sections…recycling the same old, well trained “slogans” of disgust and horror…from minds, with no use for objectivity, or empathy. They are “right”, because they say “they are right”…and they are legion.
One thing I’ve noted more in recent times…is the extreme discomfort many people exhibit, wherever “a victim” comes forward to say that what they experienced was not bad…or “worse still”, was even good.
It’s like, the majority of people have decided…that the branded “victim” has no right to their own cognition.
It reminds me of a YouTube video out there, where this male is talking about his experience growing up around BoyLovers…He even admits to having “had experiences with them”…and he outright says, he was not harmed by it.
Of the comments, most are from people simply arguing with him…telling him he is wrong, and “he is a victim” no matter what he says or thinks, or how these relationships even happened. Literally, they were trying to deny this guy his own voice…because they just don’t care, about the objective facts surrounding his experiences with BoyLovers.
“No matter what, we’re going to call you a victim…No matter what, we’re going to call it abuse…No matter what, we’re going to extract severe consequences.”
…What do you even say, to people who think and act like that? There is no common ground…They’ve marginalized others [commonly “us”], right out of the discussion.
I sometimes wonder with some people, if they are literally incapable…of being better than they presently are…or of evolving into something more, than what they are currently limited to.
One would think, the voices of those actually involved in the relationship in question would trump with authority, the voices of others…and especially of those, who had no personal involvement or knowledge of said relationship…
…But in cases like that of “Ms. Rooney”…the masses have deemed her inconvenient cognition “inferior” to their own…Heck, isn’t their own “right” to impose assumptions, what is most important of all?…[an extremely cynical question, yes.]
As things stand…any ignorant fool can lecture the rest of us on a public stage, regarding “just how wrong we are”, because our experiences and opinions don’t line up perfectly, with those [often uncritical, and uneducated] of the majority.
– Steve Diamond
“One would think, the voices of those actually involved in the relationship in question would trump with authority, the voices of others…”
Precisely, Steve! Perhaps I should just make it clear the quotes around Ms. Rooney are to indicate that this is a notional name, not the real one, for the young lady in question. A court order was made preventing the name being published, supposedly in order to protect the “victim” in question. Here sceptical quote marks are in order, but she really is a victim of the law and the prosecution in this case, as is Jeremy Forrest. While the protection of victims is good in principle, in this case the the main function of the girl’s anonymity is to protect not her but the system that has so abused her privacy and brought trauma into her life.
Anonymity will help send her back into obscurity, making it harder for her voice to be heard. We hear endlessly that the victims’ voices must be heard, but the hypocrites play a very different tune when those voices are turned against themselves.
‘Edmund’ Orwell Rocks ! Day Is Night, Black Is White, Wrong Is Right – The Clock Is Striking 13. Anglo Sex-Fascist Masses Lost Their Minds. CuntryCousins: U ptight S exual Assholes / dysfUnKtion jUnKtion.
CopyRights&Wrongs, TruthTerrorTina, 2013: StreetWize Preteen/Teen Tee-Hee Shirts – ByeBye BuyNow, ButBuy By WeSayUPayPal – 8 Times A Night/9 Days A Week. “Young man, have U slept with my underage daughter ?!” “No sir. Not a wink !!”
RancidRecordsRetroReissues, Dame Vera Linnet, Seedy Songs on CeeDee or DumbedDownLoad:
‘Buzzards Over Brown Cliffs Of Dover (Wake Up Smell The Bullshit)’
‘We’ll BullShit Again’
Bonus Track From ForthCUMing OverStructed PipSqueakyBum Staged Musical For The AllAngloShallowIgnorantMasses: ‘No Sense Please We’re Brits !’
Misquote From Wot-A-State In A State-Prison Lewes O’ Carroll’s StreetWize Alice to Anglo Fascist Neo-Victorian Queens Of Old Farts: ” Ur nothing but a pack o’ faceless face-cards ! Time to grow up, own up, pay up, stand up – and shut the fuck up !! ”
All Stand! All Anglo NaZty US/UK NeCONmen & Wimmin – Case Proven.
Bring on the next AllAnglo bent-mainsteam Mind Raped (nut)Case NaZty NeoCONs for Judgement At The Hapsburg Empire please.
(All seats standing room only, snogging, fingering, sucking optional, no copulating in the back row. Willful sex-keen-kids go free from PrisonStatesOfMind , if accompanied by nice non-victim nonces)
________________________________
Thanks, Edmund, not least for your interesting further information and thoughts on the extradition issue.
Usually when people are convicted of fully consensual and mutually loving sex with a child, the child’s feelings are sufficiently little known that it is easy for the prosecution to disguise them and repackage the case as something much more sinister. As a result, my revulsion with the brutality and injustice of the law and the masses who enthusiastically support it is tempered by the understanding that they have to at least some extent misunderstood.
This case, like the Letourneau one you mentioned, is far more horrifying. It is so high-profile and the facts of the girl’s passionate love for Jeremy Forrest so well-known that I cannot see any difference between Judge Lawson and Roland Freisler, the President of the Third Reich’s People’s Court, set up especially to try and condemn people for offences against the ideology of the day. Reading Lawson’s opening remarks before passing monstrous sentence, it is clear he shared Freisler’s passionate adherence to newthought and his eloquence in redefining good as bad, as well as his cruelty. Equally, it has become difficult to see any moral difference between today’s man in the street who approves of this and the German masses who enthused over the Night of Broken Glass. The unanswerable question of how deeply they believe that white is black is what has always made the Third Reich for me an endlessly fascinating topic.
Tom, you seem to have missed the details of the extradition issue. Not only could Forrest not be extradited for the sex, but having been extradited for abduction alone, the British were restricted by the terms of the extradition treaty to trying him on that charge alone. It was only on the last day, after Freisler Lawson had pronounced him guilty of abduction, that Forrest waived his rights of immunity to the sexual charge and pleaded guilty to it. Considering he was given only one year for abduction and four and a half for underage sex, this dramatic twist was most unfortunate. I have not seen it adequately explained, but it looks as though he was intimidated with the possibility that the British might somehow get this restriction lifted at the European level and condemn him to a new trial later.
Edmund, author of Alexander’s Choice, an Eton boy’s love story.
Nice post, Tom. I really get depressed sometimes listening to the same old hysterical sound bites that are all one hears on the subject in the US. It is encouraging the the father supported the couple. Also, I will look up the article you mention that is in the Guardian. England still isn’t quite as bad as the US. Its working on it, but we got a head start.
jim
Classic O’Carroll–entertaining, witty and wise. And pretty much the first piece of common sense I’ve read about the Jeremy Forrest affair.
Just one small error of fact, if I may point it out: the couple didn’t return to England “voluntarily” – they were arrested by the French police after a bar owner recognized them and set a trap for them. The girl, described by eye-witnesses as “in floods of tears” was then put on a plane the following day in the company of child protection officers who’d been flown out to bring her back, so I can’t imagine she got any say in the matter.
Jeremy Forrest was extradited the following week by a Bordeaux Court under the European Arrest Warrant issued by the Sussex police. He elected not to contest it, however, his French lawyer being quoted as saying he “wants to be closer to the one he loves”.
Thanks, Don, I stand corrected. What I had in mind as the voluntary bit was that there was no legal battle against extradition. Usually, for an opposed extradition to be successful the alleged offence has to be an offence in both the country making the application and the country to which the application is made. As the age of consent in France is 15, it seemed to me that there could well be grounds for opposing extradition, although the abduction element might have given the EAW more force. I very much take your point, as well, that the girl’s return to the UK was not in the least bit voluntary.