Please tell me what you think of this piece of slut shaming journalism

[FrameyMcFrame]

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/mum-caught-having-sex-whitley-12433861#ICID=sharebar_facebook
Where is the photo shaming the man, or does he get a penis pass?

[StealthPolarBear]

He's not from tbe north east. If I was being kind I'd assume that was the reason

[twinklefoot]

Blimey that is unbelievable!

[StealthPolarBear]

In fact I do think that's the reason. However I doubt there is a similar story in a Yorkshire newspaper focusing on him

[FrameyMcFrame]

But why is it necessary to mention what she was wearing for instance? So the fact that she had stilettos on is relevant because that makes her more slutty or what?

[Sukitakeitoff]

The police officer's faux shock at finding a couple (shock horror) having sex in a car is too.

I feel sorry for the couple involved, who don't appear to have done an awful lot wrong and certainly don't deserve to be named and shamed in the press. The description of the woman's clothing is completely irrelevant and gratuitous.

[StealthPolarBear]

Very true

[StealthPolarBear]

He did a lot wrong imo

[whattheseithakasmean]

The relevance of the dress and the stilettos is that she claimed to be out for a walk to the lighthouse - so what she was wearing is actually relevant in the context of this story as she was not in walking clothes.

Just a silly little local story, I don't think it is fair to link to it and bring it to national attention. I think you should ask Mumsnet to remove the link.

[Datun]

Weren't they mentioning what she was wearing to discredit their story? They said they were going for a walk but the judge didn't believe them because she was wearing high heels.

[FlappyRose]

Maybe because he admitted it and was cautioned, whereas she denied it and there was a court hearing.

[Datun]

Yes, he pleaded guilty so was cautioned, but she didn't so it had to go to court.

[UptheAnty]

From what I gather from newspapers .. the woman is the focus because when they were caught the man accepted the caution but she refused. Apparently the female refused to admit what they were so obviously doing and gave the officers no option. That's why she's in court and the focus.
She should have just accepted the caution- she was in the wrong and is not above the law.

[Sukitakeitoff]

Have just reread and seen that the man is married with kids, so clearly what he did is morally wrong.

But they sound as if they were in a fairly secluded spot, at midnight, in January. Not much chance of being seen by members of the public, and just bad luck they were caught by a patrol car. I'm surprised it was worth spending court time on the. Couldn't they just have been asked to move on? Or possibly cautioned at the most?

[TheHiphopopotamus]

The article is mainly about her, I presume, because she's denied it and it's gone to court. He admitted it and was cautioned at the police station.

[Sukitakeitoff]

Ah cross-posted.

[WhenSheWasBadSheWasHorrid]

They mentioned the stilettos because it seemed to contradict her story that they had gone there for a walk.

Maybe she's being slut shamed but the main thing I took from the article was that she was denying the incident too place whereas he admitted it.

Seems like a big fuss about nothing in my opinion. Can't believe the the police officer said he was shocked by what he saw.
I know a few police officers, some of the shit they have to deal with is awful. This wouldn't be a shocking situation to them.

[Sixisthemagicnumber]

Rhanrticke seems to focus on her because the court case was about her. The man didn't go to trial because he admitted outraging public decency at the police station and was fined. The bit about stilettos becomes relevant when she said she was just there to go for a late night walk as her shoes were not appropriate for that. The prosecution would have used that excuse to discredit her story, hence the stilettos being relevant. Had they both been on trial we might have heard more about the man.

[NotLadyPrickshit]

In all honesty I'm completely shocked that the police did anything other than chuckle & ask them to move on...

public indecency??? Was the lighthouse exceptionally busy with tourists in the early hours of a freezing cold January morning?

[GirlOverboard]

Well of course she's the focus of the article, she's the one who's on trial after all.

Maybe if she'd admitted it like him she wouldn't have her face splashed across the papers and she'd have saved the public a lot of money. I'm struggling to find any sympathy for her.

[Sixisthemagicnumber]

Cross posted with others.

[StealthPolarBear]

It does seem a bit ridiculous. Who was the victim here.

[StealthPolarBear]

And that is a long way to drive for lighthouse sex.

[Finola1step]

He admitted it, took the caution. She lied, went to court and her story unravelled because of what she was wearing at that time of year. So yes, she gets the press attention because not only is she a woman (a mother no less!) but she made up a stupid story, lied, got found out and has been convicted. So there is more to this than "slut shaming".

[QuiltedAloeVera]

She told some ridiculous lies and refused to accept the caution, which is why it went to court.

Car parks along that stretch of coast seem to be something of a focus for anti-social/criminal behaviour - the police absolutely should be checking them out. They were probably looking for drug-related stuff and found those two instead.

[FrameyMcFrame]

Maybe if slut shaming like this didn't happen she would've felt she could admit it.
People can go for walks in stilettos, if they'd been on a night out why shouldn't they? Or should she have gone home to change into her walking boots??
I linked to the article because I thought it was wrong and I'd like to show my support to this woman, who has done nothing to hurt anyone and yet had her face splashed across the newspapers
Do you really think I should ask MNet to delete this thread?