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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Maybe I don't understand how these things work.

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.

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.

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.

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

This prosecution was not in the public interest.

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

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

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

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!

I've asked for it to be deleted

I hope it becomes a training issue for the police. What a waste of time and resources.

I think that is wise. Ironically you have done more of a disservice to the woman by fervently attempting to find sexism in a sad little local news item.

I think that is wise. Ironically you have done more of a disservice to the woman by fervently attempting to find sexism in a sad little local news item

Indeed. Had OP bothered to read the item she would see the woman could have got away with a caution.

I don't know the location but having sex in public is an offence and I don't have a problem with the police stopping it. I doubt the police are wasting time scouring the deepest, darkest off the beaten track spots looking for couples so the couple involved could have gone somewhere else.

PC Carr said: “I turned to my colleague and said, ‘are they having sex?’

“I said that out of shock, really, disbelief at what I was witnessing.”

Either it was PC Carr's first day on the job or he's a liar. He finds a car in a remote car park at midnight and is surprised that people are having sex in it? Rubbish.

Her clothes were relevant due to her excuses. The only newsworthy, non-sensationalist bit of the story is that the police bothered to prosecute either person.

The only newsworthy, non-sensationalist bit of the story is that the police bothered to prosecute either person

The police didn't prosecute either of them. The police cautioned him and that was the end of the matter. She refused to accept a cautiob so her details would have been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service which makes the decision to take matters further.

I hope it becomes a training issue for the police. What a waste of time and resources.

It was the woman's refusal to accept the caution that wasted the time and resources.

It is illegal to have sex in a public place. The police were just doing their job.

"It is illegal to have sex in a public place. The police were just doing their job."

If the police arrested everyone they saw doing something illegal then the system would grind to a halt.h

Apparently hundreds of these cases are prosecuted every year

You know, that man's wife might not have even known about it. Till all this publicity.

You know, that man's wife might not have even known about it. Till all this publicity

That did cross my mind actually. And even if the wife knows about the caution, her DH's name has been splashed across the local paper and MN. I think she's the real victim in all this.