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

It's hardly slut shaming, op. She was caught, the man admitted it, she didn't & had to go to court. Had she admitted it, she would have got a caution and this wouldn't even be in the press. The police gave her a choice, she took the most difficult route!

What a load of shite. Why on earth were they arrested?!

Hasn't the woman in the OP been through enough? Yes this thread should be deleted.

This prosecution was not in the public interest.

This kind of thing shouldn't be taking up police and court time.

I don't think it's slut shaming. It's liar shaming.

Victim surcharge is levied on all court cases RJ, regardless of whether there's a direct victim in the specific case. The money goes towards paying for victim services like Victim Support, etc.

Who is the victim here?

Did you see that dogging documentary on C4 ages ago where they were all wearing animal masks? One of the biggest problems seemed to be a shit load of used condom all over dogging sites. I don't know about this case but I do know that carpark was full of shaggers when `i was a teenager 150 years ago and if it still is they might want to stamp it out because some poor bastard from the council will have to be down there every morning with a mop and bucket.

She took it to Court instead of accepting the caution. Would never have been heard publicly and therefore make it into the media if she hadn't.

That's why it's about her.

Why is there a victim surcharge? Who is the victim here?

Maybe I don't understand how these things work.

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

^ this.

If she had just accepted it like he did it probably wouldn't have been in the press.

I can't believe they prosecuted that. Or even that they gave him a caution. I mean, it was midnight in January. It's not like the car park was full of families on daytrips, is it?

OK, she was found guilty, but what a complete waste of resources.

She went to court and he took the caution so that's why it's about her. I know that lighthouse well and the most unbelievable part of the story is the surprise of the police officer, unless they meant they were shocked that they were shagging outside the car rather than inside. You would be able to walk around there in stilettos. It's a great place for rook pooling but there are normal, walkable, paths aplenty so I do think the stilettos are irrelevant. She was obviously lying because she was seen by 2 officers having sex and her underwear was in her handbag, not because she wasn't wearing flats.

Maybe the police would have just given her a caution but she denied they were having sex whilst in what looks like a fairly compromising position. Who knows what was said, but maybe tempers flared up and the police got pissed off. It's hardly unknown. I don't understand why she didn't just admit it and accept a caution. Either they weren't having sex and she was outraged, or she was happy to have it made public. Maybe him being married was a factor in her eyes? Who knows? It does seem like a lot of fuss about nothing though.

Do you really think I should ask MNet to delete this thread

I think this women would rather the whole thing was forgotten about as quickly as possible. The best way to support her would be to request deletion.
It's pretty much a none story, she probably would want it on mumsnet

No. She's already in the northern echo, I don't think an mn thread is going to add much.

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.

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".

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

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

Cross posted with others.

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.

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?

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.

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.