Megan Stammers & Jeremy Forrest:

a little less rhetoric, a little more comparative analysis?

Forget the blurred lines of the statutory rape laws. Apply some common sense and history to the case of the Stammers/Forrest elopement.

The Telegraph leads this morning with a proposed new law under which ‘the police could be banned from automatically naming teachers in cases such as that in which Jeremy Forrest fled the country with his pupil, Megan Stammers’. The suggestion underlying the piece  is that Jeremy Forrest is a paedophile. I submit that this is extremely unlikely.

Our current Monarch Queen Elizabeth II met (and was initially courted by) Prince Philip around the 14-15 age mark. Fair enough, I doubt if they were bonking like rabbits from then on – and teachers are placed in a position of trust – but we are talking here about a sexually mature female only months away from being legally able to give consent. If one looks at Europe’s crowned heads over the centuries, many courtiers in earlier times would’ve considered Megan Stammers not just fair game, but if anything slightly over the hill.

I wouldn’t be a teacher today for all the unsold condos in China. Not for nothing did ex-teacher Sting ask his pupils “Don’t stand so close to me”: as much as some of his former profession may well be predators, the Lolita syndrome is also a very real one. I never was a teacher, but I’ve had sex with several girls aged 15. I didn’t know they were at the time, but I wasn’t particularly worried about it – and neither were they. Would it have held me back had I known? I doubt it: I was 19 at the time.

The idea that this is a strain of paedophilia is arrant nonsense, and the law on teenage consent is, frankly, all over the place. At fourteen you have no legal responsibility for your actions, but at 16 the Labour Party would like you to have the vote. At 16 you can decide whether to have sex or not, and at 18 you can legally drink. I don’t think I know a single teenager today aged 15 who hasn’t tried drugs, been drunk, and had sex. I don’t approve of that – on the contrary, I am alarmed by it: but we shouldn’t use a plastic paedophilia cork to put that genie back in the bottle. It just isn’t practical.

Were this to be my problem to solve as an Education and/or Home Office Minister, I would extradite the couple and fire Mr Forrest: he will have a moral turpitude clause in his contract (so he must pay the price for obeying the dictates of the purple helmet) while Miss Stammers is 15 not 18 – and must therefore be returned to the legal control of her parents.

Would I lower the age of consent? No, because as usual we’d be caning the symptom rather than changing the culture. Would I prosecute Jeremy Forrest? No, I’d turn a blind eye to it. That might not satiate a hungry MSM eager for raw meat, but it would be the sensible approach. We have enough laws as it is: Forrest must lose his job, but on a comparative scale he hasn’t committed any serious crime….yet. I doubt very much if he will.

I’ll be interested to see in the coming days what the political class makes of it all. This is, we should remember, the political class which has tolerated an iniquitous and endemic minority ring of devious paedophiles in both our educational and childcare systems for over 30 years now. Were they to bay for Forrest’s blood, it would represent hypocrisy of the highest order.

So I imagine that’s what they’ll do.

Earlier at The Slog: President Gauck signs off the most dictatorial financial body in European history.

80 thoughts on “Megan Stammers & Jeremy Forrest:

    • However we like to think otherwise, humans are still just animals, mostly intelligent but still animals none the less. You only have to go into any city center on a weekend night to see it demonstrated in all its forms.

    • I really do NOT know what all the hooha is about.
      I think it’s probably that, the Olympics having finished – and the few cheap weeks of selling newspapers with no journalists, just loads of big photos, having come to an and end – the MSM are dependent on finding some cheap little story like this one to run and run.
      It’s a story as old as the hills. It happens dozens of times a year. So why is this one special? (Of course – see above.)
      The rules and laws are straightforward and the lines drawn pretty well where they should be I think viz:
      • 16 years for consent.
      • Teachers in loco parentis and
      a) sackable if in breach of their ‘moral turpitude’ clause and
      b) prosecutable when breaching the age of consent.
      In a survey yesterday (no idea of its statistical significance, John) the vast majority of young teenagers -11 to 16 year olds – thought the rules were right and reasonable. Even those who flouted them. And lots do and ever did. I can understand that absolutely. Nearly all of us break the speed limit – but I believe the vast majority of us would like to retain it.
      The teacher in this case knew all the rules and employment clauses. Yet the blood rushed from his head to his dick. The responsibility is entirely his because of a) his age and b) his position.
      The girl is still a ‘victim’ – not quite as much a victim as the poor lasses in Rochdale – but nevertheless a victim because her teacher had a responsibility to say to her – “hang on my love until you are 16, I have transferred to another school and you are no longer under my care.” How difficult is THAT – unless, of course, of that blood transposition.
      Turn a blind eye? Certainly not. He’s broken the law and he’s broken his terms of contract and he’s broken the trust given him. I don’t like being caught speeding – but I pay up with no more than a curse and a shrug when I am.
      Turn a blind eye and you blur the edges of what is a clearly defined line. Such lines may be a tad arbitrary they have to be – but like the lines on a footy pitch, John, you know what happens when you cross them (unless you’ve bribed the ref!)

  1. Spot on John. I’ve not been following the drama, but from the pictures in the press, the young lady seems more mature than many of the idiots throwing up in town centres of a Friday night.
    The big problem with this hysterical attitude that sex is evil until one minute past twelve on one’s 16th birthday, is that those in focus might be pressed into doing something stupid – like running off to France, or perhaps even more extreme. Wouldn’t it be more grown-up if the law was less rigid, and couples like this could sort the matter out within their own family group?

    • “Wouldn’t it be more grown-up if the law was less rigid, and couples like this could sort the matter out within their own family group?”

      I would agree if we could be certain that those family groups were not morally bankrupt. The law is there to protect the innocent and if you left it to ‘family groups’ to police the morality then you would end up with some horrific situations.

      • Sort of agree Pete, but someone, somewhere has to grasp this PC nettle. I am convinced that there are so many such family groups because the state provides these people with everything they need; housing, money and a Harmanite / Human Rights substitute for decent morals. Going back to a ‘stand on your own feet’ society would cause short-term pain for many, but it needs to be done.
        There will always be deviants and paedophiles in society and it is right that the law should be harsh on them (harsher than it is). However, this case, and many like it, can’t be viewed in the same context as the predatory slimeballs who deliberately ruin so many children’s lives.

  2. It looks as if the French are taking a considerably more adult approach to the matter than the UK.
    No doubt the teacher will be prosecuted as a paedophile when they eventually arrive back on these shores.

      • In Tennessee you can get married at 12, so long as she is your cousin. But the tabloids ran Jerry Lee Lewis out of the country in 1959 when they discovered him living with his ‘underage’ wife here.

  3. http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=370916

    Under the Children Act 1989, teachers have a duty of care towards their pupils, traditionally referred to as ‘in loco parentis’. Legally, while not bound by parental responsibility, teachers must behave as any reasonable parent would do in promoting the welfare and safety of children in their care. The idea dates back to the 19th century when courts were first coming to terms with teachers’ responsibilities. It was during this period that case law established that a teacher should act “as a prudent father”.

  4. I attended a mixed grammar school in the 1950s. Our PE master, a Welshman, developed a fondness for our stat gymnast starting when she was 15. He received 2 years in Oxford jail for ‘having carnal knowledge with a minor’ according to the NOTW and was banned from teaching for life. I would expect a similar ban on Forrest unless he hot foots it to some missionary school in the backwoods of Africa or Asia.

    Our school became all boys shortly thereafter and is still flourishing as a state grammar school.

  5. I think Forrest must have lost his reason. He was newly married and I just can’t understand why a 30 year old would want to run off with a 15 year old. Age of consent may be 15 in France, but under English Law she is still a minor. Forrest is now in rather deep do-do.

    • As the commentator noted yesterday, as a maths teacher he should know 30 doesn’t go into 15 – but 15 goes into 30! A female teacher would also face jail time too.

    • @ Sitc

      It will be interesting to see which age is chosen when the criminal legislation in the Unites States of Europe has to become common to all.

      • If they had waited until she was 16 and had left school they could have had a relationship without breaking the law. He’s obviously too immature to be a teacher, teachers ought to be leaders of the next generation, people you can look up to and respect (and many of them are). How did he get through the teacher training program with the selfish attitude he’s got? And what about his wife? I wonder how long it will be before he decides he’s had enough of Miss Stammers and ditches her as well.

  6. This isn’t paedophilia – which is actually more to do with the victim being pre-pubescent. This is under-age sex.

    Saw a French copper giving an interview on telly. He said they aren’t breaking any law in France and it’s obvious she wasn’t abducted so unless they come to the Gendarmerie’s attention for something else, they won’t be looking.

    • I’d suggest he heads straigt down to the local Ecuadorian embassy and claims assylum (aoc 14) quick smart. If only so they can stick another one up Willies a*se :)

      They’ll throw the book at him because he is the ‘evil white man’ when really they would be better off letting them both know that they can come home and sort things out without judicial interference. Had he not been 30 and had they not run off together, there would be no issue (except the teacher thing). The biggest issue is getting her (especially) back to having those who care about her around.

      He would obviously have to lose his job………but by running off together, I would suggest that that is not exactly high on his worry list.

      As things are, his best move will be to leave her somewhere safe and try to get out of Europe quick as he can. As to the family wanting contact……would anyone with an ounze of sense do this now that ‘surveillance’ is all pervading and they’ll track you by any means you try to use ? I wouldn’t (but I wouldn’t do what they have done in the first place !)

  7. I’ll be interested to see in the coming days what the political class makes of it all. This is, we should remember, the political class which has tolerated an iniquitous and endemic minority ring of devious paedophiles in both our educational and childcare systems for over 30 years now. Were they to bay for Forrest’s blood, it would represent hypocrisy of the highest order.

    Your last para sums it up [all bollocks & hypocrisy] If the powers that be put as much effort in the grooming scandal, but could not because of PC, i could go along with it. But there is much greater things they could be doing.

    I am Indian and i hate being lumped with the so called Asian Pedophile Ring. Why can’t the MSM be honest and say, ” A Pakistani Pedophile Ring,” after all when the IRA was planting bombs on the British Mainland, the MSM did not say, “The Europeans are planting bombs?”.

    • I am surprised that a few of the ‘accused by association’ communities do not get up and shout a bit louder……….or take out a few defamation prosecutions to focus the attention of the propagandist organisations :)

    • “Were they to bay for Forrest’s blood, it would represent hypocrisy of the highest order.”

      I am sure that our lords and masters are capable of hypocrisy of orders higher than we could possible imagine!

    • after all when the IRA was planting bombs on the British Mainland, the MSM did not say, “The Europeans are planting bombs?”

      No they said Irish. Which was incorrect as most of them came from Northern Ireland and as a result were actually British. But then again most of what are referred to as Pakistani or Asian are in fact British.

      • So the IRA stands for British Republican Army?

        Granted the Loyalists wanted to be part of Britain but the Republicans wanted to be part of and regarded themselves as part of a United Ireland. Call them anything but Irish and you’d be lucky to make it home in one piece.

        And becoming a British citizen doesn’t wipe out your origins.

      • FStop. The late Bernard Manning, frightfully un-PC comedian, had a view on that. “Just because a dog is born in a stable doesn’t make it a horse.”

    • Lupulco : “I am Indian and i hate being lumped with the so called Asian Pedophile Ring. Why can’t the MSM be honest and say, ” A Pakistani Pedophile Ring,” after all when the IRA was planting bombs on the British Mainland, the MSM did not say, “The Europeans are planting bombs?”.”

      Bloody good point.

  8. Its obvious where they have gone … a country where they can convert to Islam asap.
    More seriously, I agree with the sentiments that Jeremy Forrest is being lynched in the media. I listened to a phone-in on BBC fivelive that prejudiced his right to a fair trial. I also accept the police turning a blind eye to someone 16-19 having sex with a 15 year-old. However, Forrest is 30 years-old, twice her age! The police should charge him with having sex with a minor, were he to have had sex with her.

    • “The police should charge him with having sex with a minor, were he to have had sex with her.”

      And there’s the rub: how would you prove that he has done anything other than take her on a trip to France. She has gone of her own free will and will no doubt deny that she has had ‘carnal relations’ with him. So then do they force her to give cavity swabs just so that charges can be laid? If they do then it becomes a farce, she will be forced into a penetrative encounter (swabbing) which would be tanatamount to rape, in order to prove that she did, or did not, have (presumably consentual) carnal relationships.

      • I understand the point you are making. It is extremely valid and forcing someone to submit to swabs against their wishes would be a greater offence than consensual underage sex.

        Assuming that they did have sexual relations and the relations were consensual, the best outcome would be that the police charged him and that they were unable to obtain the evidence needed to bring a prosecution. There is also the possibility that the couple claim that they had relations in France, where they would be legal, and not the UK.

        What I do not want is that the police have discretion as to which 30 year old they charge for underage sex and which 30 year old they do not charge. If a law is wrong, then change the law. Don’t open up justice even more to the police’s prejudices and greed, otherwise we’ll have paedophile rings operating under the protection of bent coppers. At the school near where I live an underage schoolgirl was impregnated by a man in his mid-40s and the police brought no charges. I don’t know why not.

      • Other points … as I understand it, consensual sex with a minor and non-consensual sex with a minor are considered the same offence. If so, this should be changed. To describe a loving relationship with a minor as rape diminishes the meaning of rape.

        The age at which a person is permitted to choose to work as a prostitute should also be higher than the general age of consent, as it is in France. A 16- or 17-year-old is vulnerable to coercion by parents or carers and needs that extra protection from the law.

  9. An american friend seriously doubts the plausibility of the premise for McEwan’s “Chesil Beach”, i.e., that 40-odd years ago many Brits were sexually ignorant/inexperienced even unto their twenties/wedding day. But it was certainly often the case, with the other extreme such as yourself JW being the minority.
    Social mores have since moved with the times, but our laws…..

      • It didn’t change the fact that men still get blamed for unwanted pregnancies or more to the point, unintended children.

  10. Whether or not actual sexual relations have taken place in this case, the idea that what amounts to grooming becomes courting at one minute past midnight on your sixteenth birthday is always going to be controversial. The same would apply if the age was 15, or 14 and so on. Sexual offences are a complicated area for good reason. But is that really the issue?

    In England ( I can’t speak with regard to the rest of the UK ) the authorities on occasion do not prosecute where criminal underage sex has taken place, where it is adjudged to consist of more or less consenting young people of the same age, and therefore not in the ‘victims’ or public interest. There are exceptions where for example there is some indication of predatory behaviour and other factors such as relative maturity.

    But what separates this one out from the Law’s perspective is of course the ‘duty of care relationship’. I don’t see how that can be argued against on any grounds. We are all compelled to submit to committing our children into the State schooling system on the understanding that they won’t come to serious harm at the hands of adults that our children and we must trust, whilst doing so. One reason for the need of this covenant is that young people develop physically and mentally at different rates.

    The breach of trust thing makes it inexcusable regardless of whether sexual relations have taken place and whether if they had it would have ceased to be a sexual offence had it happened a few months later.

  11. If she were 15 years old and in care would there be a greater outcry?The number of girls in care and having the Implanton implant,contraceptive,is very high.The age of the implanting has been as young as 12 years old,outside the product licence,so have Social Services acted as a reasonable father?

    • @ M d S

      It has been 20 years since I had anything to do with various of the so called ‘Care Facilities’ in England but back then two things always struck me as obvious:

      1) The Carers, even if actually looking older than their charges, rarely had a maturity which one could relate to adult versus young persons.
      2) There was an assumption that sexual relations had already taken, would continue to take place and if they hadn’t would soon anyway. In respect of particularly vulnerable young people this was upped from assumption to certainty.

      It was always profoundly depressing because you began to feel as though you didn’t even belong to the same dimension. Care? Don’t make me laugh.

  12. Well it has been a standing outrage here in Europe, the teenage pregnancy rates in the UK.

    There are various figures, this from the Economist* is on the low side, showing only 4-5x as much as NL. The figure I usually quote is 8 – some studies showed rates in the UK as being 12x as high as NL, but were older (1996).

    The US has an even worse set of figures. The situation in Anglo-Saxon cultures is frankly appalling.

    I am not looking it up now, however, there seems an inverse correlation between spending on education and teenage pregnancy rates. The Anglo-Saxon cultures are notorious for not spending on education. This chimes in with what the author says about being a teacher in the UK.

    *http://www.economist.com/node/28647

    • When you say teenage pregancy rates are you on about teenagers who get pregnant? or are you on about underage teenagers who get pregnant? Or teenagers that get pregnant and are not in a stable relationship? Because the three are entirely separate. You can marry at 16 in the UK (as my mother did in the fifties and as was perfectly normal back then), so are you saying that a 19 year old married woman with 3 kids is somehow a problem?

      • Stephen Ros

        I included the link so that people could show their lack of ignorance by reading it first and answering for themselves the questions you put.

        The point made in those statistics is that all teenage pregnancies are around 10x that of mainland Europe.

        Given that the figures from Europe are so much less, it is entirely possible to assume that the majority of the British ones are unwanted. Either that or they are a way of getting the sort of social housing that is readily available to young women without children here.

        I have no problem with young women having babies. I had two kids by the age of 23 myself. That was young enough!

  13. JW, I agree it’s not paedophilia BUT a teacher has a position of authority. They were holding hands 7 months ago, this relationship may have started when she was 14.

    As a former chair of a school governing body, I think the school and County council have many more questions to answer BUT what Mr Forrest has done is not something which should simply be brushed under the carpet. He has abused his position of authority and, potentially undermined any trust parents will have in that school, and if your view becomes the wider public view then trust in the entire secondary eductation system could come into question.

    Try looking at it from the parents point of view. They have a legal duty of care for their daughter, she is a minor, a a 30 year old teacher has run off with her.

    Generally, the law is fairly relaxed about marginally underage relationships, especially if the age difference is only a few years BUT it is stricter when teachers or policemen abuse their position.

    You are old enough to be fully aware that it is fairly simple for a 30 year old to manipulate a 15 year old, as you have been both in your time.

    I think that this article is just a rather distubing variant of the stupid “She was up for it and therefore it is OK.” defence.

      • That’s a bit of a reach.

        This is a pair of consenting people (one underage) who have struck up a relationship which is a little inappropriate. Certainly not depraved, barely worth comment from anyone other than those involved.

        The Muslim case was certainly not consenting and involved one girl being passed around multiple men, against her will, like a piece of meat.

    • “Pair who were found ‘strolling hand-in-hand’ have been split up and Megan has been taken into protection”

      Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear……………lets hope the French care system does not have the same values and idea’s as Rotherhams (and others) care systems obviously do, or she’ll be let out to roam some of the more culturally diverse areas of Paris for a few nights :)

  14. There appears to be much confusion re Megan’s principle male role models. She must be very impressionable.

    No doubt the truth will be manipulated dishonestly.
    I heard on the news that the French have ways and means by virtue of telephone tapping etc.
    That is how the couple were found.

    Heaven help everybody concerned.
    Our sons and daughters are very precious to us all.

      • @ T_B

        That’s a really interesting take on it. So what your saying is that because her parents divorced, both her natural father and step father put her feelings last and Forrest has eloped with her at her behest, regardless of the personal cost to himself.

        I don’t know enough about them to say whether you are right or wrong but I’d be interested in seeing what response that got if it had been put forward by a male contributor for instance.

        Certainly a different slant T_B.

  15. “Megan found, safe and well”

    Why the hell wouldn’t she be safe and well? Cue the vilification of the guy.

    His crime was running away with an under-age girl, very inappropriate and it was an unfortunate but probably, in his eyes, unavoidable abuse of his position. Yet now he’ll be a pervert child molester as far as the MSM trial will seek to portray him. And the vast majority of people will buy that description and not seek a more thorough answer.

    F***ing yawn. Can we please get on with the crash and ensuing revolution. My trigger finger is very itchy and the target list is only getting longer…

  16. For what it is worth, even if the young lady had been 16 , he still commits a criminal offence if he has sex with her, as the law is different in relation to teachers and people in a position of trust over children- the young person must be 18 . If she had been at a school down the road from his, it would be OK if she were 16, for obvious reasons. If anyone cannot see why this law is fair and common sense, then they should not be in charge of children in the first place. Of course she is sexually mature, but she is emotionally very immature, as her behaviour has shown- what has she put her poor family through, not to mention the wife of Mr Forrest.
    A relationship between a 15 year old and a 17 year old say, is totally different, and then the law is likely to be interpreted rather loosely, prosecution extremely unlikely, unless a third party maliciously asks for it , as sometimes happens. Whilst there is a law of consent at a certain age, any person having sex below that age cannot legally give consent, so the crime has to be statutory rape. This may seem unfair to the male ( who incidentally can be charged with rape even if he is under age too I believe), but it is difficult to see what alternative there could be, and protect underage girls adequately.

  17. Yes, the issue of ‘age of consent’ is a grey area. It doesn’t alter the fact that, according to the law almost everywhere in Europe, teachers are understood to stand in loco parentis.

    Bishop Bell C of E School doesn’t come out of this very well. Apparently they had already been alerted to the relationship between Megan Stammers and Forrest (which appears to have begun not long after he had married). In 2009 Robert Healy, a PE supply teacher at the school, was jailed for having sex with teenage girls after grooming them on a social networking site. A retired C of E priest, Canon Gordon Rideout, was allowed to remain as a governor until November 2011 despite child sex allegations against him, and being suspended from the church following a CRB check. His case comes up on 19 October.

    One such instance might be considered the sort of miserable exception which could afflict even a vigilant school. But three in as many years?

  18. I find it amazing that BBC news headlines have twice begun with this item. There is something else much more important that our minds are being deflected from.

  19. Pingback: THE PAEDOFILE: The worst case of deliberate distraction yet, and a criminal miscarriage of justice | The Slog. 3-D bollocks deconstruction

  20. Pingback: John Ward – The Paedofile : The Worst Case Of Deliberate Distraction Yet, And A Criminal Miscarriage Of Justice – 21 June 2013 | Lucas 2012 Infos

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s