• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler | Pissed_and_messed

The People's Court

StoneHappyMonday

StoneHappyMonday

Bluelighter
Joined
May 10, 2001
Messages
18,084
The point of this thread is to comment on court cases, justice and injustice.

I would like to start with "Jeremy Forrest, you decide"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23004956

Forrest got five and a half years for abduction and child sex. I think this sentence is way out of proportion to his crime. At best, his is a crime of passion. At worst, he is guilty of stupidity and naiveity in the extreme. And I don't think you should get five and a half years for being stupid. Else we'd be locking up half the country.

In his defence, he attempted to send the girl home not once but twice from France. She refused to leave him. They were/are, however misguided, in love. In many countries in Europe what he did would not even be a crime. France, where they fled to, for one. So unconcerned were the French that at first they refused to join in a missing person hunt.

So, five and a half years for that? I say no. Feel free to argue. That's what the thread is for. I'm genuinely interested to see if my view is one held by many/any of you or if you all think I'm a paedophile for even daring to defend him.

Thoughts? Debate.
 
Well, my daddy dearest got but five years for raping several of his own children and a coupla other children he took on when he convinced his second wife to marry him. He was clearly robbed :(
 
A shitty horrible experience to have to be reminded of Shammy, but one that I think, in relative (ugh, sorry for the pun) terms supports my sense of injustice for Jeremy Forrest.
 
Hehe. No reminders are ever required cos is all kinda fixed for life, SHM ;)

But ya, I totally agree that sentencing is totally screwed up in this country. Not to mention cashmoney/family/connections/lawyer bias :\

Have at it.
 
Trust me Cornish, his stupidity appalls me. I had a teacher at my school do the EXACT same thing and I thought he was a total idiot. FYI, he "got away with it" and even married the girl when she was old enough.

But you can't give someone five and a half years for idiocy.

And yeah Shammy, add "media show trial" in the context of post-Savilism and you get this abominable sentencing.
 
In his particular case, I completley agree with you: idiocy > paedophilia.
 
he should've quit his job as a teacher if he wanted to bang one of his pupils. A 30 y/o attracted to someone with the mind of a 15y/o girl probably shouldn't be teaching anyway as they are obviously retarded.
 
I'll just reiterate the retarded idiocy of Jeremy Forrest.

And say once more that that is not what this thread is about unless you believe we should jail everyone retarded for five years.

Justice in this country is going down the drain and people aren't even looking. Legal Aid laws are changing so you will on the future be represented by fucking Asda or Group 4, the same people who will lock you up. We have courts operating without the jury system. We gave up a 400 year old right to silence a few years ago.

And we're giving ridiculous American like sentences for retardedness.

Don't worry. It's only paedos. They'll never think of going for druggies.
 
Last edited:
the only thing that gets the british public outraged is sex offenders and muslims.

sentences obviously don't reflect the crimes, they are just reactionary and for show (imo).
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
Don't worry. It's only paedos. They'll never think of going for druggies.
Click to expand...

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Change "communists" to "paedos" or any other easy hate target and the result is identical.

What the Prime Minister seems to forget, is that Human Rights laws are designed to protect the most hated in our society, not least because these people are sometimes amongst the most vulnerable too.

They are supposed to frustrate our gut reaction. They are meant to be inconvenient.
Click to expand...

Why human rights for prisoners and even paedos matter. Short, old article but makes a good point. Obviously I ain't gonna be joining the paedo rights lobby any time soon but I do think that the mob rule, firebombing paediatricians cos some tabloid "outed" them and printer their name and address, mentality has gone waaaaaaaay too far. Such people may be revolting but the measure of any society worth living in is how it treats it's most undesirable citizens.
 
Jeremy was convicted of abduction. But both he and the girl denied this. The prosecution have no right redefining words to suit their own ends. Abduction is to take away forcefully or by coercion. Clearly this did not happen so he has been convicted unjustly. Given what he did and in the light of other convictions, his stay in custody should nave been sufficient.
 
its not a crime of passion. perhaps on her part, but not his. as far as im aware forrest had been together with the girl from age 14 and was sleeping with her a year later. whatever the debate about age of consent, for how long did he have his eye on her? age 12, 13? when does it become right


forrest was in a position of trust. that position has conferred upon it trust by society that they will take the higher moral stance and remain an example to the those that they teach. there is no crime of passion, his punishment is harsh because not only has he broken that position of trust - but he implicitly used it to his own gain. girls that age are flattered by elder male attention - in a similar way that women can fall for their male psychiatrists. the rule is clear, it is a position of trust over vulnerable people & when it is broken it must be punished harshly


the cunt had a poor wife he'd only just married at home. perhaps his loins will have chance to cool in the time he'll spend behind bars
 
The position of trust thing I do agree with. From the bits I've read, though, he wasn't trying to get in her knickers as an even younger young 'un - supposedly she made it clear she fancied him and at some point he decided to go for it. Obviously he shouldn't have done wot he did but it does at least appear to have been consensual. Although whether somebody who is still a child in the eyes of the law and large parts of society can actually give consent is perhaps debatable. To be honest, he just comes over as being a bit sad. Pathetic rather than paedophilic. All in all, the sentence does seem a bit harsh compared to sentences dished out to actual paedos, but I do agree that being her teacher makes enough of a difference that he needed more than a bit of tutting and a few raised eyebrows. Jimmy Saville he ain't though.
 
police are investigating claims forrest contacted the girl pre-trial to get her to change her evidence - which apparently differed from her police interview


he's clearly adept at manipulating her, which isnt surprising really is it
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
In his defence, he attempted to send the girl home not once but twice from France. She refused to leave him.
Click to expand...

why didn't he bring her back to the UK then? He's meant to be an adult, in a very important position of trust as a teacher, this totally undermines all his arguments in his defence.

I would not feel comfortable sending kids to school atall when people like that could be teaching them. The abduction / underage sex part is a seperate issue imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top