Are Human Truth, the Realities of Modern Life, utterly irrelevant to law? Jeremy Forrest Found Guilty of Abducting the Girl who Begged him to Take Her Away—the world seems DOOMED by its own stupidity!


JEREMY FORREST HAS BEEN CONVICTED—All Patriotic Englishmen of Honor should call for the lynching of the prosecutors and police involved, and for the psychiatric examination and possible commitment of the jurors.  

The prosecuting Crown Attorney Richard Barton, who called Jeremy a “Pedofile”, and implied that Megan, like any good slave girl, could only be removed from the country with the permission of her parents, merits some punishment slightly more “cruel and unusual” than mere hanging—I think boiling Mr. Barton in oil would be appropriate and then waxing his boiled corpse and lighting it as a “candle of freedom” for a couple.  

As for this Detective Chief Inspector Mark Ling, I’d be satisfied to see him hanged by the neck until dead.  His offenses against English Freedom and Constitutional Government are much more real that Jeremy Forrest’s offenses against Megan Stammers.  Anyone who calls that girl vulnerable is a ponce, but ponces deserve no worse than to be strung up and forgotten.  As for the Jury—were they bribed?  Or were they merely instructed in the usual manner that they could not question the law.  Less than two hours to deliberate?  To convict ONE of two obviously consensual lovers of running away together and calling it “abduction?”

THE CONVICTION OF JEREMY FORREST PROVES THAT JURIES NEED TO BE INSTRUCTED THAT THEY HAVE THE FULL RIGHT AND POWER TO FIND THE LAW UNJUST, INAPPROPRIATE, AND THE DEFENDANT ACCORDINGLY NOT GUILTY!  No reasonable person could possible find Jeremy Forrest guilty of “abduction”, and how degrading to a teenage girl to treat her as the chattel property of her parents, or more truthfully, the State.  

Deputy Crown Prosecutor (obviously of foreign, non-English Ancestry) Portia Ragouth, who surely deserves nothing more than hanging, stated:

“Nothing detracts from the fact that this was an abduction. The law clearly states that it is an offence to remove a child from the care of their parents or lawful guardian without the adult’s consent.”  http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/teacher-guilty-abducting-girl-182500043.html;_ylt=ArwNrsln5VFIvR7Q0rEYVT_AfMl_;_ylu=X3oDMTJ2NGQyZW84BG1pdANnZW5lcmljIHBsYXlsaXN0IG1vZHVsZQRwa2cDN2E1NjBkMmYtYmViMi0zNWZhLWE0Y2UtNDBmOGNkNjc2MGY0BHBvcwMzBHNlYwNNZWRpYVBsYXlsaXN0QmFy;_ylg=X3oDMTBuOGs5YTgwBGxhbmcDZW4tR0IEdGVzdANGTV9UZXN0;_ylv=3?pb_list=4a2a827f-d6e1-4671-a66a-9d0d8443e2ea

In the tradition of Mark Twain’s Tom Sawyer and Life on the Mississippi, I insist that for a teenager to run away, when s/he is unhappy, is a fundamental right.  It ruins childrens’ lives NOT to permit them to run away.  And if an adult friend helps them to do so, at their request, then the “minor” is all the safer.  But in this day and age, only the Nanny State knows—the slave children must remain their parents’ slaves or become wards of the state itself.  I have seen this happen in California, Louisiana, and Texas.  Children are locked up in juvenile reformatory prisons for running away.   And guess what?  In nine cases out of ten that turns them into hardened criminals.

Abduction means “kidnapping” and, as I recall Charles Whitebread of BAR/BRI explaining many long years ago, to have a kidnapping you need a “kid” and a “napping”—well Megan Stammers was a kid, no two ways about that (but so was Jeremy Forrest, at least by his behavior, every bit of him).  But the “napping” part was not supported by evidence.  

The girl’s own testimony was that she begged Jeremy to take her away and credibly threatened suicide if he did not.  This verdict takes away his life and liberty and hers.  If they were a gay couple or a black or muslim man with a white girl, I am sure the case would have been handled VERY differently.  But the case needs to be handled differently precisely because they are neither gay nor interracial/interfaith/intercultural.  Straight White English Couples need the freedom to love and not be punished, even if they are in some senses irresponsible and foolish, because so is everyone when it comes to love.

The question “what are the meaning and purpose of law” has vexed philosophers, lawyers, and judges at least since the Akkadians of Babylon inscribed the 282 mostly “if, then” statements of the Code of Hammurabi on a stele which has become, with the twin tablets of Moses, a symbol of the origin and most ancient laws of the world. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hammpre.asp andhttp://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp.

Laws articulate norms by which society should live.  But when society has in fact adopted norms incongruent and well-developed patterns of ritual and symbolic behavior incompatible with these norms, do the laws survive?  In other words: when laws attack that behavior which is statistically speaking both predictable and perhaps even “normal”, has the law evaporated?  If laws have evaporated or become incongruent with social reality, should they be enforced?

I have lived parts of my life in California, England, Florida,  Honduras, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mexico, and Texas.  In each of those places, during my lifetime, major debates occasionally come up about laws which have to be repealed or eradicated because they are so completely “out of tune” with the reality people live.

Whatever we may think about gay marriage, or state-licensed marriage of any kind, the reality is that homosexuality has become pretty widely accepted as “normal”—even though when I was a child the profession of psychology was nearly unanimous in considering it “abnormal.”  I was working closely with an openly gay attorney in Austin, Texas, when Lawrence v. Texas was handed down by the Supreme Court in 2003.  Now that attorney was and still is a prominent lawyer in Austin with his own building on San Antonio Street downtown.  

Francis Wayne Williams-Montenegro and Valorie W. Davenport represented me and defended my freedom of speech and parental rights against the monstrous Judge Michael P. Jergins in Williamson County.  It was perfectly obvious at the time, and remains perfectly obvious to this day, that Lawrence v. Texas stands for the proposition that the family and all personal relationships relating to “domestic life” are and should be absolutely, positively, immune from state regulation EXCEPT to the degree that they ACTUALLY threaten public order and safety.  

It is perfectly clear that Megan Stammers and Jeremy Forrest, by running away, did NOT threaten public order and safety.  There are some cases, Muslim grooming (to which the criminal Crown Attorney Barton most disingenuously tried to compare Jeremy Forrest) is such a case, as are other cases involving intercultural, and some interracial, relationships, in certain contexts miscegenation, as well as all those involving real force or drugs.  NONE of those are relevant here.

I highly recommend the substantive due process analysis of that case, and of many others among Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinions concerning privacy and that sphere of human activity into which the law cannot intrude.  The concept of “minority” applied to Megan Stammers is equally archaic and totally wrong.  Once again, I would advocate reversing the age of consent for girls in the modern world to 13, possibly 12.  

Normal girls who are interested in sex are GOING to have sex in the modern world, and there is no greater crime than putting the men they have sex with in prison and calling them predators.  If you don’t like the norms of the modern world (gay sex, “no fault divorce”, serial monogamy, confiscatory taxation of individual income and property in the name of “redistributing the wealth”, communistic government sponsored central banks which practice and sanction predatory lending to expropriate property as agents of the government), then GET ON YOUR SOAP BOXES AND SPEAK OUT (as I do), GO YE INTO THE WORLD AND PREACH (as I do), but do not try to enforce archaic laws which only injure society at large and make a mockery of the law.

Yes, much to my dismay, the jury deliberated less than two hours before convicting Jeremy Forrest, and the tradition of English liberty and English love seems like a creature on the critically endangered list for sure:

Jeremy Forrest trial: Teacher and schoolgirl mouth ‘I love you’ as he is found guilty of child abduction

20 Jun 2013 14:24

He was labelled a “paedophile” by the prosecution, who said he “groomed” the teenager in a gross breach of trust

Guilty: Jeremy Forrest has been convicted on child abduction
Guilty: Jeremy Forrest has been convicted on child abduction
Adam Gerrard

Runaway teacher Jeremy Forrest and his teenage pupil mouthed ‘I love you’ to each other as he was found guilty of child abduction today.

The schoolgirl, now 16, broke down in tears as Forrest, 30, was convicted by a jury at Lewes Crown Court after less than two hours of deliberating.

The maths teacher and his 15-year-old pupil fled to France after their relationship was about to be exposed in September last year.

Forrest booked a cross-Channel ferry from Dover to Calais with the schoolgirl, from Bishop Bell C of E School in Eastbourne, East Sussex, before spending seven days on the run.

Scots-born Forrest, of Chislehurst Road, Petts Wood, Kent, was convicted by the jury following an eight-day trial at Lewes Crown Court.

He was labelled a “paedophile” by the prosecution, who said he “groomed” the vulnerable teenager and his actions were a gross breach of trust.

Sitting 8ft behind Forrest in the public gallery as the jury filtered into court, Forrest turned to the teenager and mouthed “I love you”.

As the foreman of the jury announced the verdict, the girl put her head in her hands and burst out crying.

He remained stony-faced as the verdict was given, while the schoolgirl mouthed “I love you”.

Forrest then turned and said “I’m ok”, to which she replied “I’m so sorry”.

Jeremy Forrest arriving at Lewes Crown Court in East Sussex
In chains: Forrest arrives at court in handcuffs 

The trial heard that the pair had a sexual relationship. Forrest would pick the girl up in her school uniform and they would have sex in his car, in hotels and at his marital home.

The court heard that the girl told a friend they had sex up to eight times a night.

The girl also sent the defendant topless pictures of herself and he sent a photo of himself with his torso naked and his hands in his underpants.

Richard Barton, prosecuting, said Forrest’s actions were an abuse of trust and he had not acted with the consent of the girl’s parents.

He added that Forrest could be labelled a “paedophile” who had groomed the vulnerable teenager.

Ronald Jaffa, defending, said the girl was “desperate and suicidal” and Forrest went with her to France to prevent her coming to harm.

In a dramatic moment before the hearing got under way this morning, Forrest’s father Jim collapsed in court and was treated by a paramedic before being taken away by ambulance.

The defendant, wearing a grey suit, striped shirt and purple tie, and with cropped hair and glasses, could be seen to be worried and consulted with his family as he took his seat in the dock.

Speaking outside court, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor Portia Ragnouth said: “This case was one where a teacher was in a position of authority over a 15-year-old pupil and abducted her, taking her to another country.

“Not only did he breach the trust and confidence that all the parents at that school had placed in him, he also brought disgrace to his profession who are trusted to look after the children in their care.

“Nothing detracts from the fact that this was an abduction. The law clearly states that it is an offence to remove a child from the care of their parents or lawful guardian without the adult’s consent.

“Add to that the torment and anguish that the victim’s family went through while they were gone.”

Outside court, Detective Chief Inspector Mark Ling, who led the police investigation, said Forrest had “grossly abused” the trust placed in him.

“As a teacher, he was in a position of responsibility, authority and trust of the children in his care, which included this 15-year-old vulnerable victim,” he said.

“His actions caused distress and anxiety amongst parents, family members and the school community.”

In her statement read by Mr Ralph, the girl’s mother added: “To my family and friends, thank you. You have given me overwhelming courage, strength and love, especially during the dark days when the whereabouts of my daughter wasn’t known.”

Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-forrest-trial-teacher-schoolgirl-1970634#ixzz2Wm5YhN00
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

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