Don't You Know That It's Different For Girls?

A man who had a six-month fling with a teenage girl has been spared jail.

Cue hired mouthpiece!

Robert Duval, defending, said "Mr Friendship's life had been wrecked by his actions and now he could not even get employment as a cleaner as a result."

He told the judge: "He has never been in trouble in any way, shape or form in his life before these events.

"It is to his credit that he has been as frank as he has to the sexual relationship that has taken place.

"Had he not done so it is probable, although not certain, that he would not have been prosecuted and this matter would have made no news and he would not have appeared in the dock of a crown court in this country. He was not obliged to do that and he has been courageous for doing that.

"This was a genuine case of infatuation. This was not a case of exploitation and there is no evidence of coercion or sophistication or manipulation." Mr Duval added:

"The effects of this case upon him are irretrievable – they are permanent, they are punitive and they are humiliating and distressing."

Wow!

Note: one or two details might have got a bit mixed up...

One to ponder on when you read the next tawdry 'revelations' in the Savile case, eh?

Compare And Contrast, Part 237

Dangerous dog attack 1:

The PCSO from the Cray Valley West Safer Neighbourhood Team was on patrol in Rookery Gardens, St Mary Cray, at 12.15pm on December 5 when two terrier type animals ran out from an alleyway beside a house and began to attack her.

They bit her several times on her arms and legs, causing her to fall to the floor and continued even after she was on the ground.

The dogs were seized by officers and are now in a specialist animal unit.

The 32-year-old female owner of the dogs has been questioned by police for having dogs dangerously out of control in a public place and the animals will now be destroyed.

Dangerous dog attack 2:

Dean told the court Mrs Sage may not be certain whether it was his dog or his daughter’s who had bitten her.

He accepted that the dog he had taken from Mrs Sage after the incident was his, but he said the incident had happened some distance from where he retrieved his dog.

"I didn't see how it started,” he said.

"I think Mrs Sage was in complete chaos and pandemonium and was confused,” he said. He said he accepted he had let the dogs out of their kennel but said the only time they would be loose was when he cleaned the kennels twice a day.

"It was very unfortunate timing,” he said.

"I am not blaming Mrs Sage for their predicament. However, there were riderless horses running loose on my property. Some people were also shouting and waving sticks.

"I am not saying they deserved this. But they were responsible for letting the horses loose.”

Hmmm. What a difference, eh? I can't wait to see if there's any discernible difference between the woman's claims vs the police dog trainer's.

I guess he learned a few things while he sat in court listening to all the usual excuses...

Their Contempt For You Is Total…

Children at the primary school had been sent home at 2pm rather than their usual 3.30pm on Tuesday, October 30, due to vital staff development training. Parents had received letters informing them of the change, which was said to allow teachers to research future lessons.

But one parent chose not to accept what he was being told:

He alleges he was tipped off that staff were not undertaking in-school training, and travelled there himself to verify. When he arrived, he said, the carpark was empty and a cleaner informed him staff had left “straight after” the pupils.

Amateur sleuth Mr Hussain then drove to the The Grand Venue, Oldham, to find 24 teachers and members of staff celebrating the wedding of a colleague, a Mrs Begum.

Whoops! Busted! But they have a plan to brazen it out, of course. Don’t they always?

Despite confronting headteacher Gillian Pursey at the wedding, he has now called for an official external inquiry into how it could happen.

Well, why not? It does seem to be the case that, these days, if you are unhappy, you call for an official inquiry!

Mrs Pursey has claimed staff were permitted to use the hour and a half to research in their own time, choosing to complete the work later in the evening instead.

What, after the wedding? That’s a likely story. Almost as good as ‘the dog ate my homework’…

A spokesman for Oldham council said: “While the management of staff resources is a matter for the school and their governing body, the Council are asking the Diocese to establish the facts of the matter and report back to the local authority.

"It would be inappropriate to comment further during that investigation.”

Does anyone seriously think anything will come of this? It just shows the massive contempt that some public sector workers have for their supposed ‘customers’.

Open Mouth, Insert Foot

A Southampton peer has sparked anger by suggesting retired people do community work in return for their pensions.

I think you've got that the wrong way wrong, chum. The pensions are a 'reward' for their work. Just like your stonking great civil service pension is a 'reward' for your w...

Oh. I  see.

Lord Bichard, who was educated at King Edward VI Grammar School in Southampton, said "imaginative" ideas were needed to avoid older people becoming "a burden on the state".

It takes some imagination to grasp quite how Bichard himself isn't a burden on the state. I don't think I've quite managed it yet...

During a meeting of a committee investigating the impact of the ageing society, he said: "Are there ways in which we could use incentives to encourage older people, if not to be in full time work, to be making a contribution?

"It is quite possible, for example, to envisage a world where civil society is making a greater contribution to the care of the very old, and older people who are not very old could be making a useful contribution to civil society in that respect, if they were given some incentive or some recognition for doing so."

We could make them peers of the realm, I suppose?

He added: "Are we using all of the incentives at our disposal to encourage older people not just to be a negative burden on the state but actually be a positive part of society?"

Soylent Green, anyone..?

So, Riddle Me This....

...if the feminist crackpots regard anonymity for men accused of rape as an awful idea, preventing further victims from coming forward, why the double standard here?

A television actor has been charged with the rape of a teenage boy. The star, who cannot be named for legal reasons, allegedly attacked the 14-year-old at a theatre in the London area.

Is it because they think they've got all the victims already?

He is also accused of three other sex attacks and an "assault by beating" at a London school, Scotland Yard said.

Or is it because, if the 'Mail' is correct, the actor in question is only 17 himself?

But if so....doesn't that totally invalidate the crazy feminist's objection? Why should the age matter if the lack of anonymity is purely to encourage further victims?

I guess we might know in November, when he appears at court. They'll have to name him then, won't they?