The latest statement from Megan Stammers is a mere reaffirmation that she loves Jeremy Forrest—what a shock, right? (see article copied below and original at) : http://uk.news.yahoo.com/teacher-guilty-abducting-girl-015659048.html#BosaHOx
I have no idea what course of action the attorneys for the Forrest or Stammers families might be planning in England. And quite honestly I have no practical experience in U.K. Civil Rights/Civil Liberties law whatsoever, knowing only that “the mother country” has no inalterable Bill of Rights.
To lack a written constitution as Britain does means that all of the rights established by the Anglo-American world’s FIRST expressly-denominated Bill of Rights (from the Glorious Revolution of William & Mary in 1689) are alterable at the merest whim of Parliament without any “Constitutional” objection. I first saw the effects of this Parliamentary derogation process as a teenager during the 1970s when I secretly harbored sympathies for the Irish Republicans even when they were most actively bombing and subverting the peace.
My Galveston, Texas-born grandfather had all sorts of friends and relations in high places in England, some of whom were targeted by the IRA, so he was a staunch Tory when it came to all things English vs. Irish. Even after he died in 1980, I think my grandmother would have been appalled and horrified if she had known that my Irish-American girlfriend of long-standing (of whom she kept a favorite picture on her dresser because “she looks like a silent-pictures movie star from the ’20s”) had an elder brother who “tithed” to the Irish Republican Army/Sein Fein and kept a picture of Eamon de Valera and other Republican heroes in his accounting office.
But I vividly remember when I first read that the U.K. Parliament had expressly changed the rule, after almost three hundred years, that a Defendant’s silence could not be used against him in a criminal trial, to allow Crown Prosecutors and Judges to argue and instruct juries that silence was confession. I don’t know whether this particular procedure was used against Jeremy Forrest or not, although he did not take the stand on his own behalf. The Lewes, East Sussex, Court also appears to have convicted Forrest of crimes of which he was not expressly or initially charged in the indictment. That seems to be the origin of the now repeated PAEDOPHILE label attached to Forrest in the Media (either that or the Media is complicit in the smear campaign, but given English libel laws I suspect it is the courts who have done this.).
So in essence, my analysis of the Civil Rights Violations against Megan Stammers and Jeremy Forrest, which I begin today with a mere outline list, is going to be an American, U.S.-based list rather than a genuine U.K. legal analysis. If anyone in the U.K. reads this, I’d be pleased to know how applicable, if at all, they thing my analysis might be. My analysis will focus and rely primarily on Megan’s First and Fourth Amendment rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of association, Jeremy’s Fifth Amendment due process rights to be free from prosecutions under statutes which are void for vagueness as applied to him, and Jeremy’s right to a true common law jury trial.
My initial list of U.S. Constitutional and Civil Rights Violations implicated by the Forrest-Stammers case is as follows:
(1) Invasion of Megan Stammers’ privacy—even a minor has the right to privacy, and Megan Stammers obviously valued hers. The initial investigation was “all about Megan’s conduct” even though Jeremy was the only possible legal target (until yesterday when they started floating the possibility of some sort of “witness tampering” or “corruption of justice” charge against the girl for her highly supportive testimony in favor of Forrest (see latest article below, she still loves him–what a shock—a teenage girl loyal to her convicted PAEDOPHILE lover—I’ll bet that whole notion upsets their apple cart a little bit in the Crown Prosecutor’s Office).
(2) Infringement of Megan Stammers’ right to freedom of expression and to chose her associates. Whether she was smart or stupid, I see not one iota of evidence to support the PAEDOPHILE (I use the capitalization that the Mirror and Telegraph seem to be regularly using now) charge or idea that Jeremy Forrest “groomed” or manipulated or coerced the 14-15 year old girl in any way that took advantage of his status, her age, or any special vulnerability such as a mental disorder or psychological problem (other than mere loneliness and lack of interest in boys of her own age). I should mention that I do totally believe in and support the death penalty for genuine forcible rapists, including men who take advantage of mentally retarded women. (By this standard, of course, about half of the Red Army that invaded Germany in 1945 should have been executed but that it is a totally separate issue and topic.) But there’s just NONE OF THAT KIND OF EVIDENCE here. There’s not even any suggestion that Megan engaged in underage drinking, took psychoactive medication, or used illicit drugs with Jeremy, at least so far as I’ve seen. It sounds like they were just two people engaged in raunchy sex, and one of them happened to be a married teacher and the other was under 16. Neither have any place in a Sunday school lesson on “living right.
(3) Unconstitutional construction of the charge of “child abduction” to the case of Stammers and Forrest—while valid “on its face”, this charge becomes utterly meaningless and really and truly “void for vagueness” when applied to the facts of this case. If intelligent consent is no defense to abduction then the concept entirely loses its meaning as a legal offense. Strict liability for a crime of passion is basically a contradiction in terms, from the logical layman’s standpoint, but even from the legal sophisticate’s jaded viewpoint, Megan Stammers’ well-articulated love and defense of Jeremy Forrest should have had a MAJOR impact on sentencing. Even if the law were completely constitutional, I would have argued for a sentence on the order of a fine or misdemeanor jail term (under 1 year—with credit for time served, Jeremy should now be free).
(4) Likewise the charge of statutory rape, “PAEDOPHILIA”, and sex with a minor against Jeremy Forrest for being with Megan Stammers just smacks of the teachings of a lunatic asylum school of law that ONLY Socialist Statists could love. “Age of Consent” is way out of touch with the modern cultural realities of the hypersexualised-media-shaped culture. You simply cannot drown an entire population in sexual images, styles, icons, putting the trashiest of whores like Kim Kardashian on every news rack in every grocery store, chemist’s/pharmacy, (and turning such cash-hungry sluts into cultural icons, no less, to the point of giving ordinary street-walkers a bad name because they are literally “too cheap”) and expect people NOT to feel inspire to have sex with absolutely anyone and that their right to do so is slightly more fundamental than their right to breathe.
(4A)—Hypersexualization of culture is part of the “Brave New World”; I don’t happen to like it at all; but to deny it is insane. Aldous Huxley correctly envisioned this in his brilliantly prophetic 1931 work of that name. The Socialist State wants teens and adults to be sexual satiated so that they don’t think so that they are “sexually intoxicated” and as a consequence can’t think too much or get very angry about the general oppression and corruption of their government. The Socialist State also, however, wants to retain and enforce arbitrary and capricious laws so that they can randomly trap people and make everyone feel very humbly compliant with every stupid regulation. As a consequence, I have noticed in cases from both the U.S., the U.K., and Canada, that the prosecutors’ willingness (anxiousness) to use and apply statutes in a manner which can only be called so arbitrary and capricious as to be void for vagueness, and the willingness of the courts to allow such prosecutions and convictions to continue (with the conventional Defense Bar hardly ever daring to raise a constitutional objection to anything anymore), have all become EPIDEMIC.
(5) Denial of Jeremy Stammers’ right to a fully-informed Jury. This is a VERY controversial point, but if EVER a case cried out for Jury nullification, it is this one. As I have repeatedly stated during the past week, Jeremy Stammers, like Ralph Rackstraw in HMS Pinafore, should have been fully entitled to the defense “For he is an Englishman.” To fall in love with an attractive and (physically and emotionally, if not chronologically) mature girl and to be with her is every Englishman’s right. It is part of the traditional culture of the Anglo-American world and, sorry to tell you, but if every man who had sex with a 14-15 year old girl were to be wiped from English history—the history of the Island of Great Britain would probably be about one quarter its current length. It is also relevant that the synchronous Stuart Hall trial raised much more valid issues of actual consent and rape without the passionate defenses of devotion, and with a lot of women, too, but the sentence was nugatory by comparison. And as cited on these very pages, British women, female barristers in fact, have endorsed lowering the age of consent to 13 in the U.K., in recognition of cultural reality. It is this cultural reality, above all, which the jury should have been allowed to consider, and to throw out the charges as inappropriate under the circumstances: to adjudge the laws void for vagueness as applied to Forrest, even if they are facially valid. It should be noted that while the U.S. Constitution 6th Amendment secures the right to trial-by-jury in criminal cases, it is the application of the 7th Amendment right to have all common law issues decided by a jury which secures the right of CRIMINAL defendants to jury review of the underlying law under which criminal violations are alleged and prosecuted.
(6) The line between Civil and Criminal infractions and offenses has been blurred. I do not ignore the fact that Jeremy Forrest was morally deficient and spiritually deponent—he had a wife whom he left behind who is all but ignored in these proceedings. His poor wife, like Forrest’s school, and perhaps Megan’s parents, had and may still have legitimate CIVIL claims against him. It may be objected that a Maths teacher at a marginal girls’ school probably has no money with which to pay any civil damages. But whether that is true or not, the equities of the situation are that Jeremy could should have been tried for reckless and irresponsible dereliction of duty as a teacher, reckless and irresponsible disregard for the feelings of Megan’s parents (and he might have beaten the WHOLE abduction rap if he had met with them even once and they had approved, or tolerated, however grudgingly, his association with their daughter, which I’m sure their daughter could have convinced or coerced them to give), and of course his wife has among the most devastating of divorce charges against him. He’s not rich—that’a problem for all civil claimants—but to insist on criminal prosecution rather than civil suit because of a man’s financial status? Well, that would be imply that his financial “status” is a crime in itself, and that would be very embarrassing, I think, to the IngSoc State of Oceania (I mean the Socialist State of the United Kingdom). CIVIL RIGHTS ANALYSIS TO BE CONTINUED ON THESE PAGES AFTER A BIT MORE HARD RESEARCH.
(7) Even though I know about Parliament having modified the “right to silence” part of the English Bill of Rights which eventually became part of the U.S. Fifth Amendment, I think that this is a major violation of fundamental rights which are traditionally English and Jeremy should have had an instruction on no presumption of guilt for failure to take the witness stand.
The schoolgirl abducted by paedophile teacher Jeremy Forrest told how she still loves him and said she had been old enough to make decisions for herself.
Forrest, 30, was jailed for five and a half years for child abduction and five charges of sexual activity with a child.
The girl apologised for fleeing with him to France when she was 15, but said her feelings towards Forrest had not changed.
She told The Sun: “I would like to make it clear that despite the outcome of the trial, my feelings towards Jeremy remain the same, and regardless of unfair and inaccurate speculation, those feelings will not change.
“I am very sorry to those who have been profoundly affected by the things that I have instigated and the consequences of my actions.”
The girl thanked her friends and family for their support and for respecting “the decisions that I have made throughout this process, of which they know I was fully capable of making”.
During the eight-day trial at Lewes Crown Court the jury was told that Forrest groomed the schoolgirl into having sex with him before taking her to France as he attempted to avoid being caught.
The girl’s mother told the court “the (daughter) I knew is dead and it upsets me beyond words”.
In a statement she said: “I feel completely useless most of the time. I feel like I have failed as a parent as I cannot understand how someone could do this to my child and I had no idea.”
She continued: “I feel like the worst mother in the world, whatever anyone else says it doesn’t matter. Someone has got my child and I never saw it coming and never saw it as it was happening. I feel like part of (her) childhood has been robbed from me – the last day at school, dressing her up in a party dress for the school prom, all taken from us.”