Before today, it was all so simple. A suspected child abuser
would take his place in the dock, have the charges read out, then would either
plead guilty or watch his defence decimated in court. We then collectively
rejoice at the warm feeling of justice being done, putting our pitchforks away
for another day. Then along came Jeremy Forrest, who fled to France with his
school pupil – Lady X – and plunged how we respond to child abuse cases into
confusion once again.
A lot of absolute nonsense has been written in the press and
on social media, ranging from complete misplaced sympathy towards Forrest (and
Forrest/Lady X as a pair) to sensational ‘paedophile’ headlines. Here, we aim
to settle some of the questions surrounding Forrest.
Was it fair that he
was sentenced to five and a half years in prison, when serial child molester
Stuart Hall received 15 months, with his sentences running concurrently?
It is not fair, but I feel that it says more about the
leniency of Hall’s sentence, rather than the stiffness of Forrest’s.
There is no reasonable defence for the actions of Jeremy
Forrest. His behaviour was despicable, and by any standard he is a villain. The
decision to run off with his 15-year old pupil when the authorities were
closing in on him was an act of gross selfishness, which caused immeasurable
distress to her mother (more so than any revelation of sexual activity between
the pair). Many questions would have been spinning around her head at that
time. “Is my daughter safe? Will I ever see her again? Is she even still alive?”
Having been convicted of child abduction on Thursday (20th
June), the only acceptable outcome was a custodial sentence. The maximum
sentence for child abduction is 7 years, but around 2 years ought to have been sufficient
for an abduction involving a passenger seat rather than the car boot.
He was subsequently charged with five counts of sexual
activity with a minor, each of which he pleaded guilty. I predicted the
upgrading of the offences would mean the sentence passed would be between 5 and
7 years. In the end he was given 5 and a half years (or just over 4 “Stuart
Halls” in pervert currency).
The press are describing
Forrest as a ‘paedophile’. Is that harsh?
It depends on how you base your judgement. In the strictest
of terms, Forrest is a paedophile. Within the framework of the law, he would be
defined as such. If you want it in more domestic terms, consider it from
another angle: if an adult gets on a bus with his or her partner, who in turn
buys a child’s ticket, should they really be together? How would you feel if
your child started dating someone twice their age?
One lady caller to a daytime radio programme told presenter
Jeremy Vine that she was uncomfortable with Forrest being described as a paedophile.
She did add however that she would be livid if a Jeremy Forrest entered into a
relationship with her 14-year old daughter.
Others still see the situation as an unfortunate love story.
Many young people took to Twitter to send their support to the “couple” – yes,
you read that correctly.
Overall, rather than widespread disgust, the vast
majority of posts on my own news feed merely stressed the Forrest/Hall
sentencing distinction. I guess many felt that considering how many pupils and
teachers there are in Britain, and how much time they spend in the vicinity of
each other, this scenario is inevitable from time to time and the difference in
sentencing is unjust.
In sum, while there is cause for huge discomfort in this
case, I would refrain from using the toolbox of ‘P’ words to describe him,
pending further evidence that suggests otherwise.
What other evidence
would be needed to confirm that Forrest is unquestionably depraved?
We need to be sure that this case is an unfortunate
one-off and not a snapshot of more dedicated and prolific paedophilic behaviour.
No evidence was presented at the trial that he had a stash
of child pornography anywhere – the standard way of removing any remaining
doubt of the defendant’s guilt in this Internet age.
At present, there is also no evidence that Forrest has
abused or assaulted any other children. At least one woman has made a further
allegation against Forrest, but so far she has only taken it to a tabloid
newspaper rather than the legal authorities. Until she does that, the
allegation must be treated with caution.
If any more evidence emerges, things could promptly change.
What is the
difference between Jeremy Forrest and Jimmy Savile then? They’ve both exploited
young people, after all.
Ultimately, Jeremy Forrest laid everything on the line for a
girl. Logic suggests there must have been some love involved, even if it was misplaced.
He risked (and lost) his career. He risked (and lost) his marriage. He risked
(and lost) his liberty.
In contrast, Jimmy Savile risked nothing. Every predatory
manoeuvre was risk-assessed in his paedophilic mind. He targeted the most
absolutely vulnerable. He used his TV programmes, his status and his charity
veneer to fill his sleazy boots at every turn. His scheming ensured he did not
face justice during his lifetime.
The lack of distinction between the Saviles and the Forrests
provide a crisis for the otherwise priceless child protection movement. At
present, paedophilia is treated as something dichotomous, something that people
either are or are not. There is no scale. In the minds of the most dedicated
campaigners, Forrest now joins Savile and Hall in the hall of shame. To
illustrate this further, the press could not resist the occasional gleeful use
of various words beginning with the letter ‘P’ (most of which have already been
used above) as adjectives to describe Forrest.
As this article has tried to demonstrate, Jeremy Forrest’s
behaviour was unacceptable and apparently predatory, but to join the Premier
League of perverts, more evidence against him would be required.
Did the crime warrant
the level of coverage it received in the media, then?
Not ordinarily, but the level of public interest when the
pair first went missing meant that the trial was also going to receive
unprecedented coverage. This again demonstrates the selfishness of Jeremy
Forrest’s actions, rather than taking responsibility from day one.
The outcome is a girl has been left in confused and in
pieces, while he has received a custodial punishment that went far beyond what
he would have received had he not gone through that tunnel.
One day, Lady X will realise that she was dragged to France,
dragged through the media, and then dragged through the courts by a man trying
to save himself.
Summary
Forrest was a teacher. Lady X was his pupil. He was in a
position of responsibility and should have resisted, however tempting she was
to him. He was a professional and should have acted as such. When parents send
their children to school, they do not expect them to enter a relationship with
Sir or Miss.
Both will require care now to ensure that their mental health does not suffer long-term.
Both will require care now to ensure that their mental health does not suffer long-term.
Though I resist casting him in the very harshest of terms,
it was only right that Forrest was given some time in the slammer to reflect on
what he has done.
