A paedophile who repeatedly raped an eleven year old child was today described by the main steam media as having ‘had a fling‘ with the child. The url leading to the story describes the rapes as ‘romps’. Items given to the child were described as a ‘reward’. In other media outlets, the repeated rape is described as ‘a ten month affair‘.

There is a double standard being applied here by a media which normally delights in using words like ‘lure’ or ‘groomed’, ’sexually abused’ and definitely ‘rape’ – which is the legal term where the child is under 13 years of age and the perpetrator over 18.

The reason for the double standards appears to be that in this case the perpetrator was a woman, and the victim an eleven year old boy. I can only assume that for some in the media, this fulfils a fantasy that they have not lost since their childhood – that of the ‘obliging’ older woman.

Reports gloat over the fact that the offence was committed almost 200 times – you can almost hear the beery, leery glee of the journalists as they chuckle ‘lucky beggar’ – and ‘he got a pair of trainers thrown in too’.

Reporting such as this is part of the demonisation of the white English male – the rape of children is against the law, is morally wrong; it doesn’t vary in its repugnance depending on whether it is carried out by men or women.

36-year old Angela Sullivan was jailed today for nine years – a considerably lower sentence than the 18 years given to Martyn Palmer who was sentenced last month for attempting to groom a 15 year old girl.

From which we must deduce that if you are a woman, raping a child 200 times is only half as bad as a man attempting to persuade a girl to have sex a few months before her 16th birthday.

The hypocrisy behind these double standards does nothing to protect children.

1
Old Slaughter February 26, 2010 at 14:03

There is indeed a double standard here. I for one though an unable to condemn it entirely though (the double standard not the act).

Although 12 is especially young and I would agree this women requires prosecuting, and would not suggest my response would be the same as the male figures in your piece, I still am not convinced that there is no difference between a male adult/female junior and vice versa.

Perhaps this is some inbuilt ’sexism’ on my part, becuase as I write I am unable to provide a logical reason as to why I think this. But, put simply, news of a 30 year old female teacher engaging in nudey prod with a 15 year old boy would not anger or shock me in the same way a 30 year old male teacher and 15 year old girl would.

It has certainly got me thinking though.

2
Old Slaughter February 26, 2010 at 14:09

I think that is the most illiterate comment I have ever written… and it has some stiff competition. Hopefully you know what I mean.

3
jailhouselawyer February 26, 2010 at 14:29

I think she was mean only to reward him with a pair of trainers upon reaching 100 sexual encounters!

4
Anna Raccoon February 26, 2010 at 14:38

Know what you mean about the stiff competition?????

I do, I do……..

5
JohnRS February 26, 2010 at 14:43

Welcome to the world of Harriet Harm-man.

6
Thaddeus J. Wilson February 26, 2010 at 15:06

All this talk about stiff competition in these hard times is most upsetting.

7
Alan February 26, 2010 at 15:37

“Reports gloat over the fact that the offence was committed almost 200 times – you can almost hear the beery, leery glee of the journalists as they chuckle ‘lucky beggar’ – and ‘he got a pair of trainers thrown in too’.”

Any journos thinking that want their eyes testing.

8
Bugger (the Panda) February 26, 2010 at 15:58

Wow

Just saw the photograph of the female lecher.

It is wonder that she didn’t squash the poor wee sod to death.

I bet he has nightmares for years to come. I a having some daymares right now, along the lines of a small jockey and large overweight mare carthorse.

I am not sure if the 16 years sentence for the male in the the other case to too much or not, bearing in mind some of the “Jail Bait” that “adolescent” girls are. I depends on when and how often and any other circumstances, of which we are unaware.

9
Blink February 26, 2010 at 17:06

I could go on at length about the injustices meeted out to men in the area of family, family breakdown and children and young people. I could rant for hours about the the fear men carry at having anything to do with children for fear of being accused by someone of abuse or rape.

Some years ago I had a nice little home and lived alone. Being new to the neighbourhood I didn’t know anybody. It was not long before I found two little girls, about 7 and 9 maybe, looking through my lounge window. I didn’t know who they were or where they lived. I ignored it the first time. The second time I went out to ask them where they live, could they take me round to their home where I could speak to their parents. I spoke at length, kindly but firmly, to their mother who had no idea what they where up to. It was not an enjoyable thing to do. But I did not want ANY form of questions being asked about me in that situation. I was very uncomfortable about the whole thing.

10
Anna Raccoon February 26, 2010 at 17:31

Blink,

A shiver went down my spine reading your comment – you did the right thing, but how sad that it was the right thing to do.

Mind you, you were lucky you didn’t get a mouthful from the Mother.

Just after Madeleine McCann went missing, I found a three/four year old girl in my garden talking to my dog – she had let herself in through an iron gate. I went in search of the parents, and eventually found them (English!) sitting in a bar two streets away with three other couples. Several empty bottles sat on the table. Two other children were firing water pistols at each other in the street and at passers by.

I pointed out that she had no way of knowing whether my dog was friendly or not – most French dogs outside are not! – and that a similarly aged little girl had just gone missing in Portugal.

No prizes for guessing that I got a total mouthful for my troubles. Anglo-Saxon mouthful. fortunately I speak fluent Anglo-Saxon myself.

11
Joe Public February 26, 2010 at 17:42

36 year old & 11 year old.

However, if the former is male, then penetration would physically harm the latter; yet, the converse is not true.

12
Alan February 26, 2010 at 20:01

I’m a bit confuddled by this Daily Mail report of the sentencing:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253999/Woman-sex-12-year-old-boy-191-times-faces-jail.html

The highlighted quote of ‘Angela Sullivan preyed on and took advantage of a vulnerable young man’ isn’t what is quoted in the body of the article.(‘Angela Sullivan has clearly preyed on, and taken complete advantage of a vulnerable young boy.) So who said it and why are they referring to a 12 year old boy as a man?

And I’m really nonplussed at the remarks from the Judge: “The judge condemned Sullivan for the psychological effect her conduct would have on the victim and her own son.

‘But having read the pre-sentence report and the psychiatric report upon you I am prepared to accept this was an aberration, albeit one that was long lasting, rather than anything more serious.’”

She waited until the boy was drunk and took him upstairs to rape him. Then raped him nearly 200 more times. A man doing anything remotely similar such as the grooming, planning and celebrating would stir media discussions into chemical castration and whether imprisoned paeodo’s should ever be allowed to see the light of day again.

13
Anna Raccoon February 26, 2010 at 21:01

Alan,
“A man doing anything remotely similar such as the grooming, planning and celebrating would stir media discussions into chemical castration and whether imprisoned paeodo’s should ever be allowed to see the light of day again”.

Precisely.

14
Alan February 26, 2010 at 21:54

Has the law been changed recently?

An earlier Daily Mail article sprang to mind just now:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1250060/How-FIVE-teachers-ONE-school-seduced-pupils.html

How can one man be given 18 years for wanting to diddle an underage lass but another who admitting doing it gets 12months suspended (Terry Mann), another gets 4 years (Ian Blott) while a third who had three underage relationships got 4 years as well (Steven Edwards)?

Was it the internet grooming that did for Martyn Palmer?

15
Anna Raccoon February 26, 2010 at 21:56

Alan,
It is illogical that grooming should be sentenced more severely than rape!

16
Old Slaughter February 26, 2010 at 22:53

Oh jesus. I saw the photo. Lock her up and throw away the key. She’s a diabolical menace.

Sexism… back of the net.

17
Ed P February 27, 2010 at 12:39

Main STEAM media – fabulous, Anna!

(What’s called a “Freudian slit” perhaps?

18
Joe Public February 27, 2010 at 14:17

Alan 20:01…….

“She waited until the boy was drunk and took him upstairs to rape him. Then raped him nearly 200 more times.”

That stretches the credibility.

A comatose (drunken) female can be penetrative raped; a comatose male (boy) can’t get a hard-on.