When is a 'paedo' not a 'paedo'?

A 29 year old teacher was found having sex with a 13 year old girl in their charge...and yet the newpapers including the usually up front Daily Mail never use the term 'paedophile' in all their coverage? Does this seem strange?

Well maybe when I tell you their headline was

"Top lesbian tennis coach found in bed with girl of 13"

you'll realise what was going on. Yes the 'teacher' or coach was a woman. Should this really make a difference? Are the media maybe all of us applying double standards to men and women in this regard?

Sadly, there will be a good many that would regard the fact she is a lesbian as worse than what she has done - and that fits very well with the Daily (Hate) Mail demographic.

drewboy wrote:

Sadly, there will be a good many that would regard the fact she is a lesbian as worse than what she has done - and that fits very well with the Daily (Hate) Mail demographic.

Sad but true... and if the child had been a 13 year old boy in this story the attitudes would be different again.

They would be sentenced as a paedophile when they are prosecuted.

Hang on a tick - the justice system says everyone is innocent until proven guilty. We don't know the facts of this case.

This woman claims she's not a lesbian (and even if she was, so what?) and says that it's all down to the girl's vindictive mother.

let's wait for the verdict before we start dishing the dirt.

koshkha wrote:

Hang on a tick - the justice system says everyone is innocent until proven guilty. We don't know the facts of this case.

This woman claims she's not a lesbian (and even if she was, so what?) and says that it's all down to the girl's vindictive mother.

let's wait for the verdict before we start dishing the dirt.

That wasn't my point, of course they are innocent until proven guilty and I was using a specific example in the news at the moment to illustrate a general point. My point was to highlight how the media and maybe society in general adopt different attitudes to these types of crimes based on whether the accused (and sometimes the victim) is a woman or a man. Of course in the end whether male or female if found guilty they will be considered as sex offenders BUT even then I think men tend to be dealt with more harshly...

One more point to think about is that the woman in this case has indeed denied being a lesbian (which to me is immaterial) but if it were a man accused of abusing a 13 years boy in his charge then he would probably be denying being a paedophile not homosexual...

Yes, good point.

Then again there is always the story of the woman whose house was daubed with anti paedophile comments when in fact she was a paediatrician by professon and the muppetts who go along with the whole crowd mentality had got it completely wrong.

atticusuk wrote:

Then again there is always the story of the woman whose house was daubed with anti paedophile comments when in fact she was a paediatrician by professon and the muppetts who go along with the whole crowd mentality had got it completely wrong.

Actually that never happened in the way it was reported...although I agree about the crowd mentality which is another reason why Sarah's law debated on another thread would be a dangerous thing...

koshkha wrote:

Hang on a tick - the justice system says everyone is innocent until proven guilty. We don't know the facts of this case.

This woman claims she's not a lesbian (and even if she was, so what?) and says that it's all down to the girl's vindictive mother.

let's wait for the verdict before we start dishing the dirt.

She's been found guilty of child abuse...now let's see how she is treated by the media and the courts...