Married Mum, 32, Walks Free After Having Sex with Brothers 15 & 17
A MARRIED mum of three fell pregnant after having a sordid affair with a schoolboy and his teenage brother at the same time — then did not know which one was the father.
Claire Louise Roundill, 32, plied the 15-year-old boy with cannabis and bombarded him with hundreds of texts and naked pictures of herself before driving him to a secluded location to have sex.
Roundill, from Hull, claimed she was initially unaware of his age but had sex with him again when she knew he was under the age of consent.
Hull Crown Court heard she was also having a relationship with his 17-year-old brother.
Then she became pregnant and did not know which boy was the father.
Today she was given a nine-month suspended sentence after admitting sexual activity with a child, possessing and supplying cannabis.
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4582142/.html#ixzz291b66E8M
Compare and contrast with the following cases : http://theantifeminist.com/man-jailed-sex-14-year-old/
From your article to compare with this recent FARCE in justice, you mentioned the STANDARD courtroom spiel that all Metro Police are told they must recite whenever an older male is charged with any ‘sex-offence’ with a fully willing and consenting ‘minor’ young woman (but what the feminist judiciary terms: a ‘child’):
It’s almost the same legal ‘principle’ as the standard spiel they ALWAYS recite whenever someone is charged with other ‘common offences’ like Driving Under the Influence (DUI), for example:
‘When I stopped [insert offender's name], his speech was slurred, his eyes were blood-shot and his breath smelled strongly of alcohol.’
‘When I asked him to get out of the vehicle, he was unsteady on his feet and was unable to walk in a straight line…’
They always recite that standard description or ‘spiel’ of a DUI offender whether he or she was barely over the legal PCA limit, or totally and paralytically drunk out of his or her mind!
The difference between them though is that the DUI spiel is fair, because it is indeed very dangerous to other people including CHILDREN, for motorists to drive motor vehicles when they are drunk or even mildly intoxicated.
Whereas in the first ‘offence’: the police standard courtroom spiel is nonsense because nobody but the feminist indoctrinated police or a member of the similarly feminist indoctrinated thus paedohysterical public even sees a ‘crime’ or anything ‘offensive’ has actually been committed and invariably, nobody actually involved in the fully consensualrelationship (i.e the ‘minor’ female or the older male partner) even laid a single complaint!
And unlike a motorist driving whilst intoxicated: their (private affairs) behavior most certainly couldn’t possibly endanger, injure or even offend any other person (except a bitter and jealous old femihag of course).
The courtroom child-sex offence police spiel is therefore, clearly: a stock-standard feminist LIE!
Also: the second offence of DUI applies to ALL motorists: regardless of age, race, religion SEX or social status; whereas ‘child-sex offences’ apply only to white MALES, as we clearly see demonstrated in this more recent case with Claire Roundill.
I would therefore be very surprised if the standard courtroom ‘child sex-offence’ spiel was recited when Roundill appeared in court, because it only applies to men anyway.
Alan Vaughn
11 Oct 12 at 10:11 pm
“Today she was given a nine-month suspended sentence after admitting sexual activity with a child, possessing and supplying cannabis.”
This line says it all. Reverse the genders in the previous situation and the man would be looking at hard time, both for the sex with a minor, and the drug charges – if luck is with him he’ll be out in 10 years – assuming he doesn’t get stabbed in the showers for some reason, or no reason at all.
Google the web, and you’ll find tons of cases of female adults who have sex with minors and they always get away with a slap on the wrist, unless they ignore the court orders to stay away from their sexual partners.
The legal system must know this kind of open discrimination and hypocritical treatment and sentencing inspires contempt for the law in men and yet they continue on this path – contempt for the law increases chaos, because when men know the judicial system is stacked against them, they settle business outside that system.
Alex
12 Oct 12 at 5:36 am
Alan:
The really sad part of the story is that the whole Fathers’ Rights sect of the MRM will miss the point and demand that she be punished like a man would be if the genders were reversed.
I would LOVE to see an American judge with the balls to give a ‘suspended sentence’ to a man for having sex with a 15 and 17 y/o female. And, better still, if the judge had the balls to sneer at O’Reilly and the rest of the paedocrite media afterwards.
Eric
12 Oct 12 at 6:55 am
P.S. Or, in a case like the one above, the judge suspend sentence for the female involved, but punish her instead for adultery!
BTW, any American judge who did anything remotely like I just mentioned should take an extended trip across the nearest border, because he could start measuring his lifespan with an hourglass the minute the femihag/paedocrite got ahold of the news.
Eric
12 Oct 12 at 7:01 am
The news is full of such cases although most cases outside English-speaking countries will be underreported. Here’s a recent case in France where a teacher got 6 months (unsuspended, but lucky for her probably in a 3-star women’s prison) + a 6000-euro (!!) fine + a 5-year suspension from her teaching job. The “lucky” guy was 12 years old, not bad, he?
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/justice/condamnee-pour-avoir-eu-des-relations-sexuelles-avec-son-eleve-de-12-ans_1156226.html
She got slightly more than a wrist-slap but it’s a joke compared to what a male counterpart would’ve got under similar circumstances. Of course Eivind would be adamant that the boy “got lucky”, and I agree he did, but as MRAs we have no alternative but to denounce the disproportionate harshness with which men get punished for similar “crimes”. And if this means women getting the same harsh treatment, so be it!
I’m against drug prohibition. I don’t think ANYONE should go to jail for drugs. This doesn’t mean I’m OK with women getting away with doing drugs while men face the full brunt of the law. A man doing drugs may “get lucky” doing so. But so does a woman. Women must be weaned away from the feeling that they’re immune.
jack
12 Oct 12 at 7:07 am
There is one judge there (according to Human-Stupidity) named Wienstein (or similar) who opposes these laws and if he only could, he would definitely and gleefully do what you suggest… (You’ll find it easily enough, somewhere in his child-porn hysteria topic). BTW: did you see my reply (in support of you) to that blatant paedocrite there (at H-S), identifying himself as ‘Normal Human Male’?
Alan Vaughn
12 Oct 12 at 7:08 am
I hasten to add I’m not embracing the stance of MRA fathers. They want equal victimhood for men (not to mention quite a few who are crypto-paedo with a fetish about being abused by a woman themselves).
I reject both victimhoods, while (reluctantly) agreeing that the propaganda war requires us to speak out against the comparative leniency with which female offenders are treated compared to men.
jack
12 Oct 12 at 7:19 am
Alan:
Yes, I saw your comment there. Thanks!
I think that I’ve seen ‘Normal Human Male’ posting on Fatroll’s blog before as well.
The judge you mentioned is, I think, a federal judge. There have been attempts to have him impeached for his outspoken views. It would be great if Obama nominated him for the Supreme Court! But I doubt if Hillary and Michelle would stand for it.
Eric
12 Oct 12 at 7:26 am
Also notice nothing about grooming or manipulation. When older men buy their 15 year old lovers cds or take them out for a meal, they are evil manipulative paedophiles ‘grooming’ their victims. When they give them drugs or alcohol, as in the Rochdale ‘grooming’ case, they are rapists and get 20 years inside. This slag feeds her underage lover drugs and she doesn’t even go to jail.
theantifeminist
12 Oct 12 at 7:29 am
Jack:
Even a lot of the Socon White Knights agree with the Fathers’ Rights mRAs about harsher sentencing for female ‘sex offenders’.
It’s a difficult line to walk in the ‘Propaganda War’ mostly because the paedocrites control 99% of the propaganda. Getting targeted by David Futrelle is one thing; getting targeted by Rupert Murdoch is another matter altogether. I laugh when I get quotemined by Futrelle; but if the entire Newscorp Syndicate decided to come after me, I’d probably be wise to make a bee-line for the nearest border.
Eric
12 Oct 12 at 7:38 am
He would probably join forces with Carolina and attack us there too, but he probably wouldn’t go there, since he wouldn’t be proving anything. He has to make his violent and paedohysterical point to paedophiles to ‘prove’ he can’t possibly be one of those who would be interested in the (16 or 17 y/o) child characters in her vampire novel.
“Paedocracy”?
Alan Vaughn
12 Oct 12 at 7:45 am
This was funny, Jack – “Of course Eivind would be adamant that the boy “got lucky”
Yeah, in many cases the older female initiating things is physically attractive, but I’ve seen a ton of real ugly ones as well – fat, plain, dead eyes – mating with those hogs would be pure torture and unless you’ve got some Eastern disciplines to erase the horror, those memories would haunt one for the rest of his life.
Generally though, only the pretty ones make the news, perhaps in order to reinforce the narrative – sexy older women initiating young boys into manhood, no harm done. Then if the genders are reversed the cases that get the most play are the ones in which the male is clearly insane, disfunctional, violent, etc… the innocent 17 year old girl was harmed for life. How many doctors, lawyers or scientists do you see paraded about as the typical older male in these pairings.
Alex
12 Oct 12 at 7:47 am
Sure, I notice the bias here, and like I said, if men know the legal system is stacked against them, they’ll start operating outside of that system which will breed chaos.
Say a man goes out to a bar, gets drunk with a woman, takes her home. She wakes up in the morning, tells the man he got her drunk and because of her impaired judgment she’s going to the cops to tell them he raped her.
If the man knows the system is just, he’ll get a fair hearing and the prosecution will have to prove their case, he’ll probably roll the dice. But if he knows he’s all but guaranteed to lose because of a gender bias, thinks this woman is about to destroy his life unfairly he may just kill her and dump her body somewhere – the majority of men won’t do this, but some will, either out of panic, anger or cold calculation. You already see some of this in cases where one spouse tries to hire a hitman to kill the other.
Alex
12 Oct 12 at 7:56 am
Jack,
Did you see this classic mangina recruitment campaign? Judging by the comments, it had an overwhelming response too!
Articles like this effectively do nothing more than uphold and give more credence to the feminists ‘chronic victimhood’ claims and are also typical examples of why people like Steve Moxon won’t identify themselves as Men’s Rights Activists…
My advice to those mRA ‘victims of the matriarchy’ is simple and a lot more useful:
Get a f***ing LIFE!
Alan Vaughn
14 Oct 12 at 12:58 am