The first question to address is “why?” Why this case? Why *****? After
all, children in the UK go missing every day – each case equally as important. The
simple reason: it is the sort of story the public loves to consume. It had the
lot. It was sordid. It had mystery. There were plenty of witnesses, such as
classmates, neighbours and teaching staff, ready to contribute to the script.
Tabloid journalists were able to invigorate their own dull and predictable
home affairs routine by writing extensively about the case. They enjoyed speculating on what
the pair were getting up to. The most frightening aspects of the teacher’s
lifestyle were given a full and exaggerated analysis.
Voyeuristic readers were able to consume it, and make value judgements
based on what they had read, and anyone who has taken an interest in this story
is equally as guilty. As we absorbed the literature, we were able to morally
justify our own irrelevant interest in a European missing persons case by
criticising the actions of others. Everyone from police officers to staff at
the much-criticised school were blamed for allowing it to happen.
The public, for their part, have at times reacted as rationally as you
would expect. The majority hoped and prayed that both alleged abductor and
abductee would return safe and well. Forrest, 30, has questions to answer. He
is likely to face child abduction charges, and if found guilty is likely to
serve a custodial sentence.
There is no doubt that any such punishment, if convicted, would be
deserved. The lack of regular updates from their daughter would have had
*****’s family in pieces. Media reports of Forrest’s bizarre online interests
adding to fears that the schoolgirl was not in safe hands. At the very least, Forrest’s
apparent selfishness gave no consideration to anyone else. His own parents were also overcome with worry.
For one week of madness, the man has given up his career, his wife and
probably his liberty. He would be considered dangerous, if not so apparently
stupid.
However, there are also irrational debates playing out in the public sphere. Examples of which can be found on this fleet street fox article and this marathon debate on the digitalspy website.
There are (mainly) men trying to justify Forrest’s behaviour. In its
crudest form, some have implied that because the girl in question has a womanly
figure, the relationship is somehow justifiable. Another is regarding the dichotomous
nature of the age of consent, with 16 being acceptable and 15 not. The girl’s
keenness has also been used as a means of justification.
There are two counter-points here. Firstly, the teacher is in a position of
responsibility. The law reflects this, therefore until she is 18, any intimacy
is strictly prohibited between teachers and pupils. Secondly, I ask just one
question to those men who use such justifications: what if it was your
daughter? Cue change of tune.
Another crude justification is that “it’s alright when the roles are
reversed and it’s an older woman and younger lad – look at Caroline Flack and
Harry Styles”. This is actually true and is something that society needs to
debate and address. Caroline Flack, 32, received a lot of, erm, flak, when
dating the young 17 year-old singer from One Direction – mostly from jealous One Direction fans. Meanwhile, wider debate was merely gossipy, with even begrudging
admiration for them. Flack was cast as a ‘cougar’ (the predatory nickname for
women who bag a younger model), and Styles as the young lad living the dream.
Reverse the roles and you get a very different narrative: the story of the
vulnerable and the predator – and not predator in the tongue-in-cheek context
of the cougar either.
The idealism of true love has also been offered as a means of justification.
It is true that anyone can fall in love. Sometimes people fall in love with someone
they should not fall in love with. At 30 years of age, regardless of feelings,
it is a matter of self-discipline to ensure that the relationship is not a
wholly inappropriate one. All things considered, the relationship was
inappropriate and the teacher/pupil context only serves to amplify the fact.
There are some other dangerously extreme writings on the matter, some of
which may well fail the tests of libel at a later stage. Some have already
taken it upon themselves to assume that something sexual has taken place
between the pair. However probable this may be, it goes against any confirmed
facts. More worryingly, another libellous term, beginning with the letter “P”
is being chucked around extremely recklessly to describe Forrest (see the fleetstreetfox article link above). Again, he has
not been convicted of anything, and the “P” word is an exaggeration of whatever
he did do, however appalling his actions may be to us.
This was the hardest thing I have had to write for this blog, but that also
made it a challenge. Hard, because in many ways it is a risky subject to
tackle, and the wrong words can lead to a perception that I am defending the indefensible. These are issues that are not easily addressed by young men. Not
that this blog ever has dealt with easy topics – witness my claim that men
cannot be authentic feminists from a couple of months ago. The key thing to consider is that for about
thirty minutes earlier today, when listening to The Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2, I started to assume the worst
had happened. ***** ******* came home safe and well. For that we can be
thankful.
