Caroline Berriman: sexism at it’s worst.

In 2013, Jeremy Forrest, a former mathematics teacher, was sentenced to five and half years in prison for a four-month long affair with a 15-year-old pupil. This sentence was based on the fact that he demonstrated clarity of thought and intention as to his actions; based upon text message evidence and the planning that went into the two of them fleeing the country.

With this in mind, it’s very difficult to understand why Caroline Berriman, a teaching assistant who had sex up to 50 times with a 15-year-old boy, has been handed a two-year suspended sentence and 250 hours of community service.

Now, you could say that there was difference in that Forrest abducted the girl in question and took her to France. But ask yourself, is that really significantly different to Berriman inviting her victim over every day to have sex? Is it so different to Berriman contacting her victim over Facebook to get his number in the first place? Encouraging her daughter to refer to him as “dad?”

There is one clear factor here that has had an unacceptable influence over the sentence. In a word: sexism.

Berriman is a woman and therefore she is not regarded as a rapist (in fact the UK legal definition of rape makes it impossible for a woman to even be charged with such a crime). Forrest is a man; therefore he must have manipulating his victim for his own sexual needs in the most vile and selfish way. Berriman must have just been lonely and needed a nice young man to cheer her up.

This is the thinking that seems to have been employed when sentencing here; no effort seems to have been made to taking any guidance from the Forrest case. Incidentally, I don’t doubt for one second that Forrest manipulated that girl; he was in a position of power and he abused it. But Berriman did exactly the same thing; she made the first contact, she played with his emotions, she apparently told him she was pregnant at one point.

I’m not saying the issue of Forrest abducting his victim shouldn’t mean a harsher sentence, but why is there such a wide gap between these two punishments?

Before I conclude, let’s talk about the big counter argument. The one that’ll come up in conversation when you’re in the pub talking about what’s gone wrong here. The victim in the Berriman case probably enjoyed himself more than the victim in the Forrest case. If anyone says this to you, point out that (strange as it may seem; but I read in a book somewhere) apparently women enjoy sex too. Would the victim in the Forrest case have willing got in a car and gone to France with him if she didn’t like what was going on? Before anyone attacks the comment section, I’m not victim blaming here; I’m pointing out that both victims in both cases got some sexual pleasure out of the relationships. To say that the victim in Berriman case is less of a victim because he’s male is the height of victim blaming and sexism.

Sexual abuse of children is one of the most serious crimes in western society; causing some of most prevalent psychiatric problems for the victims (not to mention the physical damage). The sentencing of Caroline Berriman demonstrates a failure to take it seriously for no better reason than her being a woman. This is sexism: plain and simple.

Jeremy Corbyn

So Jeremy Corbyn didn’t sing the national anthem, which has made him the embodiment of Satan to some and a hero to others.

I am the only one sitting here, going “this is just a guy who didn’t sing the national anthem.” I mean he’s the Labour Leader now, but in modern politics that just means he’s the leader of ther not-important-until-the-next-election party. I mean come on, I get criticsing a man’s morals if they don’t align with yours, but seriously. David Cameron’s government is dismantling the NHS and royally battering the benefits system and people are worrying about a man who had no real power, aside from the ability to make “shadow cabinet” which I’ve always thought of a sad roleplaying game that the opposition does to feel like they’ve got a real job.

What’s most annoying about this is the utter outrage that Jeremy Corbyn isn’t acting like the leaders of the past. Well, if it wasn’t plain to see (and I don’t know how it can’t be) we haven’t has a Labour party ever since Tony Blair took his first steps into Number 10. So it seems we’ve now lolled ourselves into a rut, where the position of Prime Minister is a generic mouthpiece for the same solutions to the same problems. I hardly the first person to point out that David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband were essentially the same person, spouting the same ideas, couched in different language.

Have we really got to such a point, that we’re upset by the opposition acting in a way that’s opposite to the government? I mean Corbyn’s the opposition…he’s supposed to do that. He isn’t supposed to sing along to the national anthem like David Cameron; he isn’t supposed to agree with Cameron’s assessment and suggestions.

Now you could say that his omission with the national anthem is disrespectful to the veterans who were present, but that’s a completely subjective viewpoint. Much like changing the channel of a TV program that upsets you, there’s an easy solution to any problem you may have with his attitude; don’t vote for him at the next election. If he’s upset enough people by then, he won’t win; it’s that simple.

So why don’t we all step back, take a breath and focus attention on the government and their actions and not the actions of what is (at this moment) someone who doesn’t really matter and is repeatedly doing himself no favours.