Wot, No Sex Offenders Register..?

(Sam) Armstrong approached the teenagers – believed to be aged around 15 and 16 – and asked them if they wanted to have sex with him.

He then took them to a building near a railway line and took turns having sex with each of them, The Sun reports.

Armstrong, who had been smoking cannabis, and the girls were in full view of the train line during their encounter at Abbey Wood, in south London.

Passengers who were travelling on the line spotted what was going on and called the police.

Cue OUTRAGE! and demands to…

Oh. Hang on.

Armstrong from Gravesend, Kent, admitted outraging public decency and possessing cannabis resin at Greenwich Magistrates’ Court in South-East London.

What? That’s it? That’s ALL..?

A psychologist told the court Armstrong had ‘difficulties appreciating what is appropriate behaviour’ but was not mentally ill.

*boggle*

Defending Tatinder Sokhal said her client lacked self-esteem and self confidence.

Armstrong will be sentenced on May 16 and is likely to get a community penalty

A what…???!!

Of course, once again, I may have altered things a little….

But isn’t it bizarre how once again, in this supposed paradise of ‘equality’, a totally different view is taken of this sort of offence?

I mean, if the roles had indeed been reversed, could you imagine a newspaper including this in their report?

According to The Sun a source said after the case: ‘To the boys it was like all their Christmases and Easter had come at once.

‘Armstrong didn’t realise they could be seen.’

Fair? I say no. She’s a sex offender. Why is she not treated like one?

13 comments for “Wot, No Sex Offenders Register..?

  1. Wolfie
    May 15, 2011 at 10:35 am

    We all know that guilt/blame/ culpability is now apportioned by your social position. Such that white middle-class men are responsible for everything that is wrong in the world – from birth. Where have you been Julia?

  2. May 15, 2011 at 10:44 am

    I’m disappointed. I was expecting this post to be making fun of D Strauss-Kahn, what a f-ing idiot that man is.

  3. Ashtrayhead
    May 15, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    ‘According to The Sun a source said after the case: ‘To the boys it was like all their Christmases and Easter had come at once.’

    Snork!! Apparently 3 did, but the rest managed to hold on a bit longer.

    • May 16, 2011 at 5:43 am

      😀

  4. May 15, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the professional feminist left wanted the boys charged with rape for taking advantage of a vulnerable woman.

    • May 16, 2011 at 5:44 am

      I would be astonished if someone involved in the investigation didn’t – at some point early on – consider that…

  5. May 15, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    I have mixed feelings here. I think it is misleading to suggest the situation is the same were the sexes to be reversed because medical risks and emotional attitudes are very different.
    Without condoning her idiotic behaviour I see little in the story to suggest the boys, some of whom were in any case above the legal age limit, were coerced. Nor as far as I can see were they harmed by the experience.
    One of the huge problems with the equality culture is that it assumes equal treatment is equivalent to fairness when in fact they are quite different things. I would suggest that treating or judging all people the same, irrespective of race, sex, age, background and belief, in the name of equality is frequently a recipe for gross unfairness.

    • May 16, 2011 at 5:46 am

      Are you happy that, should you be mugged, your mugger would get a lesser sentence for calling you a ‘fat bastard’ or ‘ginger bastard’ in the struggle, than if he called you a ‘black bastard’ or ‘fat bastard’..?

      • May 16, 2011 at 11:08 am

        It should make absolutely no difference because the main activity is a mugging. But I might accept that someone with learning difficulties should be considered differently to a pre-planned attack.

  6. Lord T
    May 15, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    I would suggest that treating or judging all people the same, irrespective of race, sex, age, background and belief, in the name of equality is frequently a recipe for gross unfairness.

    Wot… Treating or judging all people the same, irrespective of race, sex, age, background and belief, in the name of equality is treating people equally. It is the only fair way to do things without setting up an elite class, as our useless government has done, based on race, sex, age, background and belief.

    It is totally wrong. 🙄

  7. May 15, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    “equally. It is the only fair way to do things ”

    Except, rightly or wrongly, that’s not the way we do things.
    Universities are expected to give different terms to people from different backgrounds. Political parties frequently have all women shortlists. Someone with learning difficulties would not (I hope) be expected by the courts to show the same responsibility as someone who is well educated. We treat different age groups quite differently. You may say those don’t discriminate against the defined groups (race, age, sex etc) but actually some do.
    Positive discrimination is a deliberate inequality created to try and correct a perceived statistical injustice elsewere. Often the inequality of treatment is a recognition of individual differences. Then some essential differences are recognised – so for example men don’t get breast cancer screening and children can’t buy alcohol or draw a pension.
    You could say I suppose that all people and groups are entitled to exactly the same consideration in equivalent circumstances, and I would fully agree with that as an aim.
    But if everything is made equal on the basis of one ‘tick box’ simplistic external characteristic it ignores individuals, and I think creates unfairness.
    That’s why I think Julia’s suggestion that a situation of the woman ‘seducing’ a group of lads being equivalent to a man ‘seducing’ a group of teenage girls is a somewhat misleading comparison. I think it’s a situation where the sexes and repercussions are not equal.

    • May 16, 2011 at 5:49 am

      “Universities are expected to give different terms to people from different backgrounds. Political parties frequently have all women shortlists. Someone with learning difficulties would not (I hope) be expected by the courts to show the same responsibility as someone who is well educated. “

      Those things are ALL WRONG, and should not happen.

      With the last, education or lack of it isn’t the trigger, it’s whether you can understand that what you’re doing is wrong. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the term ‘learning difficulties’ to assume that this is always the case.

      “Positive discrimination is a deliberate inequality created to try and correct a perceived statistical injustice elsewere.”

      Firstly: Two wrongs don’t make a right.

      Secondly: The devil’s in that word ‘perceived’, isn’t it?

      • May 16, 2011 at 11:31 am

        Yup. The devil is always in the detail, and ‘perceived’ is a political decision. So for things like all-women (or ethnic) MP shortlists my view is that they are quite wrong because the ability to be an MP does not depend on one’s dangly bits or skin colour. I personally don’t accept the ‘perceived’ inequality of the people having less opportunty to stand that justifies imposing an inequality. I was however illustrating for Lord T that society does very frequently impose inequalities at various levels.
        Sexual equality however does have to recognise some realities of physical if not personality differences (modern psychology would argue these exist). So absolute equality of medical treatment would be a nonsense. Also as only women can get pregnant then should not rape laws recognise (in a general sense) a different level of significance and seriousness depending on the sexual direction of the attack?

Comments are closed.