As I develop my own theory of the Megan Stammers—Jeremy Forrest Case, it is become increasingly obvious to me that the Government’s real intended victim here IS in fact Megan Stammers—as a representative of ALL CHILDREN. Despite the fact that poor old Jeremy Forrest is in jail and may have to stay there for a long while—the Government’s purpose is TO CONTROL CHILDREN and parents and schools. Megan Stammers’ words, her thoughts, her views, her feelings, and her perspectives are as unimportant as if she were a cockroach. She is a child and she must LEARN TO OBEY and ALL CHILDREN LIKE HER MUST LEARN TO OBEY the dictates of the Socialist State. In essence, the violations of Jeremy Forrests rights to life and liberty are COLLATERAL DAMAGE to the main point—and that is for the STATE to keep CHILDREN in their place, so that they will occupy their proper place as adults.
ON this, the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, I realize that my positions make me look like a camel hair & skin wearing, locust-eating madman yet once again, but analyse it for yourself: what is it to ignore a young girl’s feelings and her words? It is to deny her humanity, to say that those two-to-three years that separate her from adulthood are like some sort of magical portal that will transport her to a different world. I was very much who I am when I was 15 (OK, so I seemed mature then and I guess I seem immature now? I couldn’t care less! I know that my basic ideology and mindset was pretty much set by the time I started college (again, I did so early, at age 15, but so what, hey? Megan Stammers showed much more independence of her parents than I had at that stage. I just found middle school pointless and high school boring so I finished them as fast as I could).
In researching this matter I came across an interesting piece of European children from their own perspective. European children feel that no one really listens to them…. that no one takes them seriously, and that they have no input on the decisions that matter to them most…. I would rarely recommend anything published by the European Union, but I do recommend this one, because I think the children prove my point—those who manage their welfare simply have their own agendas, NOT the interests of children at all—and children, especially in this internet and media-dominated age, must have more complete control over their own lives…. So this is all about restoring MEGAN STAMMERS’ civil rights—to the life of her very SOUL—as well as to Jeremy Forrest’s civil rights to life and liberty: European Commission on Justice: Rights-of-the-Child. I strongly recommend that Megan Stammers AND Jeremy Forrest appeal to the European Court of Human Rights…. http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
Jeremy Forrest: child protection experts warn against romanticising case
NSPCC says media must be careful of presenting relationship between teacher and pupil as love story.
- guardian.co.uk, Monday 24 June 2013 11.38 EDT
To glance at some headlines, a reader might think this was a conventional love story: “I still love him“; “He’s wonderful, I’ll fight for him“. But this was, child protection professionals agree, a relationship built around abuse.
Jeremy Forrest, a maths teacher who turns 31 on Tuesday, was jailed for five and a half years last week for beginning a sexual relationship with a pupil shortly after her 15th birthday and escaping to France with the girl when their connection was discovered.
Post-verdict coverage has shone a spotlight on the many ethical and regulatory difficulties of such cases. While newspapers have remained condemnatory of Forrest himself, interviews with the girl, now 16, and with Forrest’s family, traced a distinctly romantic narrative, with talk of her visiting her ex-teacher in prison, sticking by him and even future marriage.
Beyond the unequal basis of their relationship, the court heard that the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is psychologically vulnerable and from a difficult background. Her decision to side with Forrest and his family has seen her cut contact altogether with her own mother.
Stories, primarily in the Sun and Mail titles, detailing her feelings for Forrest, including reprints of emotionally charged letters, were “a concern”, said Jon Brown, who leads on child protection issues for the NSPCC charity. “There’s an awful lot of work that still needs to be done with the media in explaining and, in a sense, educating journalists so they do have a better understanding of the reality of these relationships,” he said.
“In terms of the impact on the young person, there are many parallels between a case like this and sexual abuse involving a younger child. The conceptualising of it as a kind of love affair provokes a lot of public interest, and I’m sure sells more papers. But fundamentally, that’s not what it’s about – that implies a much greater level of equality in the relationship, and of course that wasn’t the case with a relationship where someone’s in a position of trust, like a teacher.”
One issue centres around whether the papers concerned paid for stories. Clause six of the PCC code prohibits payment “for material involving children‘s welfare”, and was invoked in 2009 when several tabloids covered the case of a baby born to a 15-year-old where the father was believed to be an even younger boy, aged 13. The one story in which the girl involved in the Forrest case is quoted does, however, stress that she was not paid.
Also potentially relevant to such stories is clause 16, which precludes payment to criminals or their “associates”, which can include family members. Earlier this year Real Life magazine was chastised by the PCC for paying the sister of a murderer for her story, dismissing the argument that she also counted as a victim.
Finally, clause nine warns about “the potentially vulnerable position of children who witness, or are victims of, crime“.
There is some leeway in the Forrest case in that the broad facts – that the pair had a sexual relationship and remain close – were aired in open court. Also, all these clauses can be circumvented if there is a legitimate public interest defence argument. This must be robust and well-argued, particularly when it comes to stories involving minors, said a source familiar with the workings of the PCC, who asked not to be named.
“The overarching role of the code, which will continue with the new regulator, is to specifically protect the interests of the child,” the source said. “By not naming her [the girl in the Forrest case], this gives them more freedom.
“But then there’s an ethical issue which is broader than the code: are papers talking about this in a responsible way? And this is something where it’s good for newspapers to be challenged, for example by child protection people.”
Such child protection issues should be made clear in cases such as that of Forrest, argued Dr Michael Hymans, an educational psychologist: “The crucial thing here is that this took place in a setting in which the adult was in a position of power. He carried all the trump cards.”
The fact that the girl gave evidence in court in support of Forrest did not diminish this point, he added: “We don’t know the conversations between them. What happens in an abusive relationship is that the abuser will make threats about what might happen if the child tells: ‘If you say anything it could split up your family.’
“It’s like emotional blackmail. He may have asked her to wait for him, planted some of those seeds emotionally, maybe not even consciously.”