Woman admits 'outraging public decency' while driving (From The Westmorland Gazette)
When news happens, text KENEWS and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.
|
JOIN THE DEBATE BY ADDING YOUR COMMENTS ON THESE STORIES Registration to post comments only takes a few seconds. Click here to go to the registration page. |
Woman admits 'outraging public decency' while driving
4:00pm Friday 3rd September 2010 in
AN APPLEBY woman who admitted committing an act of indecency while driving on the motorway was trying to ‘cheer herself up’ after a catalogue of family problems.
Lorry driver Jonathon Kitchen spotted Miranda Chapman, 43, of Doomgate, indulging in an intimate act as she overtook him between Carlisle and Shap at around 4pm on May 13.
Penrith Magistrates' Court heard that Ms Chapman was pulled over by officers at Brunthwaite following a call from Mr Kitchen.
She was charged with dangerous driving and outraging public decency.
Judith Birbeck, defending, said Mrs Chapman had been shopping in Carlisle when she received a phone call from her daughter telling her she was pregnant.
“That might be good news to for many people but in this case it wasn’t,” said Ms Birkbeck.
“Her daughter suffers from mental health problems that are exacerbated during pregnancy so Mrs Chapman was unhappy and concerned by that call.”
Her soldier son then called to say he was going to be deployed to Afghanistan.
Ms Birkbeck said: “Mrs Chapman already has a relative who has suffered life threatening injuries from Afghanistan so you can only imagine her distress at the thought of him being sent there.”
She then received a third phone call from her disabled father who lives in Ulverston saying that he needed her to go to his house because he had lost something.
Ms Birkbeck said the events had made her client feel ‘extremely upset’ and the offence occured ‘in a moment of madness.’ “It was a completely out of character action for her. A decision made by all the incidents piling up and she believed she was in the privacy of her own car.”
A friend was allowed to sit with Mrs Chapman, who cried throughout the hearing, and the court heard how she dropped four dress sizes since the incident due to stress.
Magistrates issued an interim disqualification from driving until October 8, when she will be sentenced following a probation report.
She also faces being issued with a sexual offences order.
Comments(59)
blackpooldonkey
says...
9:31pm Fri 3 Sep 10
Hope she's able to get over this and has some good support.
worldsgonemad
says...
9:41pm Fri 3 Sep 10
wascal
says...
10:14pm Fri 3 Sep 10
wascal
says...
10:21pm Fri 3 Sep 10
k/complaints/makinga
complaint.html
use the above link to report this, it only takes a couple of moments
cobbler1
says...
10:38pm Fri 3 Sep 10
Stinkbomb
says...
10:46pm Fri 3 Sep 10
ajameson
says...
11:53pm Fri 3 Sep 10
This piece reveals all that is wrong with the British press and the quality of local journalism. If newsworthy at all the reporter could have written it up in the sympathetic style the story clearly deserves, but instead he seeks to systematically degrade Mrs Chapman. We can almost hear him chuckling at his computer as he types, before back-slapping the editor who green-lit it.
Shameful and of no journalistic quality whatsoever, an embarrassment to a pathetic publication.
EBEAN
says...
12:45am Sat 4 Sep 10
Lakeuk
says...
12:49am Sat 4 Sep 10
EBEAN
says...
12:50am Sat 4 Sep 10
mickadoon
says...
1:50am Sat 4 Sep 10
wascal
says...
10:42am Sat 4 Sep 10
Will Simpson
says...
1:56pm Sat 4 Sep 10
McCubberDoodle
says...
2:49pm Sat 4 Sep 10
KendalMintKake
says...
5:28pm Sat 4 Sep 10
and the other news sites reporting it have the guts to put the email of the reporter reporting (or is that too much like naming-and-shaming on a different level?)
i have a sneaking suspiciousness if this had been a man instead, the general feeling would be how outrageous and discusting that man is and that he probably should be named and shamed!
i would be reaching for the phone if there were some chavs speeding/driving dangerously.. but i dont think calling the police is what would go through my head in this case!!!
westmerrieman
says...
6:33pm Sat 4 Sep 10
TwoHat
says...
6:56pm Sat 4 Sep 10
I also hope the lorry driver was prosecuted for using his mobile phone whilst driving, as a professional driver he should know better.
wascal
says...
7:49pm Sat 4 Sep 10
Lakeuk
says...
11:57am Sun 5 Sep 10
If the gazette was to quietly omit the reporting of story, should the court do the same? quietly let her off - reading the sentencing options being considered the court is taking this seriously and fairly.
wascal
says...
1:20pm Sun 5 Sep 10
The Gazette is a local paper, not the News of the World. The editor has chosen to humilate this woman and claiming that other papers have printed it is pathetic (But m'lud, I looted because everyone else was doing it!)
Those who defend this type of gutter press journalism usually have a vested interest and a clear lack of regard for other people.
Lakeuk
says...
6:26pm Sun 5 Sep 10
This lady won't be embarrass with what printed in the paper, her embarrassment came from being in court in a public place, soon that will fissle out and long term the most she'll experience is gentle ribbing from her mates.
We won't remember her name, recognise her in the street and it'll be left to history
wascal
says...
7:05pm Sun 5 Sep 10
Lakeuk
says...
7:30pm Sun 5 Sep 10
Will you question other stories to their news worthiness?
wascal
says...
8:09pm Sun 5 Sep 10
mickadoon
says...
10:20pm Sun 5 Sep 10
Mister Editor, would you have published the full name and address if this case had involved a member of your own immediate or extended family?
In a small place like Appleby the lady will be known to almost everyone.
I don't care for the lie-telling newspapers, haven't bought one for as long as I can remember other than the good old 'reliable' W.G.
As of today I'm reconsidering whether even this paper is suitable reading matter.
zaney5
says...
10:55pm Sun 5 Sep 10
Lakeuk wrote:So nice of you to put yourself in her shoes, I'll bet she wishes all she gets is gentle ribbing from her mates. Truth is if it wasn't for this being reported in the paper, the majority of people WOULDN'T have got to hear about it.
Every story has the potential to hurt/embarrass from the drink driving offence to the road accident resulting in a death, if some test was used then nothing would get printed.
This lady won't be embarrass with what printed in the paper, her embarrassment came from being in court in a public place, soon that will fissle out and long term the most she'll experience is gentle ribbing from her mates.
We won't remember her name, recognise her in the street and it'll be left to history
Maybe in time, after it's all blown over, no-one will remember her. But she will have to live with the knowledge that many many people did know.
Regardless of whether what she did was deemed wrong, to report something so intimate as this in such a way is totally wrong.
mickadoon
says...
11:26pm Sun 5 Sep 10
Only on the short strokes, Shirley?
Dangerous driving can mean using a phone or eating a banana, so why is it deemed okay that we have to glance skywards every few hundred metres on the M42 "Managed Motorway", blinding ourselves with the sunlight for half a minute, to check what speed the matrix signs say we should be doing?
I aim to follow this one up!
churchy66
says...
10:00am Mon 6 Sep 10
Cumbria1
says...
12:38pm Mon 6 Sep 10
What readers should understand is that reporters do not get a say on what they report on.
If you have a problem with the story, remember the reporter is just doing their job, for which they are paid a pitiful amount.
To describe the reporter as a 'cowardly journalist' who 'hides behind the anonymity of the "Gazette Newsdesk"' (ajameson and wascal), is really unfair.
I know that as a general rule, court and inquest reports in local newspapers (and online) do not feature bylines.
Whoever this reporter may be, they are clearly not to blame for the story because they are merely acting as the 'eyes and ears' for the community, which is the basic idea of a journalist.
That is how newspapers work, so don't shoot the messenger, as it were.
Similarly, to say this is 'invasive' reporting is incorrect.
Anyone could have walked into the court room that day and heard the story, then posted it on Facebook or similar.
Like I say the reporter was merely doing their job.
In actual fact, if you read this story again, it is clearly a very balanced report and is actually very sympathetic to the woman driver report - there is a great deal of mitigation included, and many reporters would not have done that, so this one should be given credit for that.
This court case was treated in the same way as any other court case of similar gravitas would have been.
Regular Gazette readers will remember the story of the lorry driver who was watching Battlestar Galactica on his laptop while driving.
It was reported in a similar way - as a dangerous driving case.
wascal
says...
12:53pm Mon 6 Sep 10
churchy66
says...
2:25pm Mon 6 Sep 10
Buckeye Bob
says...
9:36pm Mon 6 Sep 10
Faithless
says...
11:54pm Mon 6 Sep 10
IW
says...
11:32am Tue 7 Sep 10
Anyway, don't you think the 'i've had a lot of family problems & needed cheering up' is something of a contrived piece of mitigation? 'Sorry I just felt ****' would be more believable !
Surely a catalogue of bad news wouldn't prompt anyone to react with 'I'll just have a **** to cheer myself up' ?
jonzo
says...
11:44am Tue 7 Sep 10
madgran6
says...
11:45am Tue 7 Sep 10
DuncanMcKay
says...
4:41pm Tue 7 Sep 10
Many of these message board entries read like personal attacks on the reporter, which is so unfair.
Reporters are actually human beings and have feelings too!
I do understand people have sympathy with this woman, who was obviously having a difficult period of her life, but it is important to point out that the main reason readers feel this sympathy is because the reporter has written the article in a sympathetic manner.
If the reporter had not included so much of the mitigation in their piece, many of you would have a different opinion, because there would be no reason for any of you to feel sympathy.
Therefore, this reporter has actually been some considerable distance away from 'taking salacious pleasure in naming and humiliating Mrs Chapman', or being a 'cowardly journalist', or 'wicked' 'or childish' - they have actually been very mature, balanced and fair.
If you don't believe me, have a look at reports elsewhere. Very different.
And if this had been a 'salacious' piece, there would have been little, if any, mitigation included.
This is a court case like any other court case. Cumbria Police and the Crown Prosecution Service - NOT The Westmorland Gazette or its reporters - decided a crime had been committed, no matter what the content.
If you have a problem, surely that should be with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service for taking the matter further.
And before any pseudo-witty/cutting ripostes are posted, I would like to point out that all I am doing is trying to explain how local newspapers operate, because it isn't as clear cut as people on the outside may think.
It's really unfair to judge The Westmorland Gazette as 'gutter press'.
Come on people - this is a paper which reports on silage competitions and controversial zip wires on fells!
I also wanted to point out it is unfair to gang up on a newspaper reporter who is playing an important part in democracy and doing an important job - one which is, amazing as it may seem, quite unlike that of an Auschwitz guard.
Where would society be without newspaper reporters, local, national or international?
westmerrieman
says...
7:22pm Tue 7 Sep 10
cowardly journalist,wicked and childish are all ways I would describe this article.
westmerrieman
says...
7:27pm Tue 7 Sep 10
wascal
says...
9:38pm Tue 7 Sep 10
Buckeye Bob
says...
9:46pm Tue 7 Sep 10
Lakeuk
says...
10:56pm Tue 7 Sep 10
Cumbria1 and DuncanMcKay make some good points on the reporting of the story.
cobbler1
says...
11:11pm Tue 7 Sep 10
ajameson
says...
2:01am Wed 8 Sep 10
However, my opinion of the Gazette is brought even lower. If you're going to keep the critical comments below the article, it must be made clear that the piece has now been heavily edited! The timestamp remains at 1600 on Friday and there is no note to suggest otherwise. This isn't some standard tidying of spellings, it's a full-scale rewrite!
Whilst we don't expect an apology from the paper, it would demonstrate some decency to put a sentence below in italics or whatever saying "this article originally appeared in a different form and has since been changed" or something equally face-saving yet which makes sense of all the comments!!!
churchy66
says...
11:22am Wed 8 Sep 10
lifecycle
says...
1:00pm Wed 8 Sep 10
http://davidicke.com
/forum/showthread.ph
p?t=133294
However, many here seem to have been taken in by the story told to the court by Ms Chapman's solicitor!
Most women who need cheering up reach for a chocolate bar or go shopping.
This woman elected to commit an indecent act - IN PUBLIC where she could be overlooked.
So why are people bleating on about her details being revealed?
If this was kept quiet then the likes of Paris Hilton, George Michael etc. would feel badly treated over their misdemeanours.
The Gazette report has appeared the whole world over - even in Dallas, so I don't expect they will be bothered by a few of you making a token gesture in not buying the paper for a few weeks!
Only our prima donna footballers are able to get injunctions barring the press from revealing their dalliances it seems!
lass fromt the north
says...
8:26pm Wed 8 Sep 10
gadgetgadget
says...
9:16pm Wed 8 Sep 10
The reporting of the case however could potentially have been stopped by an application by her solicitor for privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8) or the court could have imposed reporting restrictions without formal application if it felt that the woman's privacy was more important than the media's "right to freedom of expression" (under Article 10 of the ECHR) - have a look on the BBC website about Editorial Guidelines and Privacy for more info.
However, it is unclear whether either step was taken in this case and unless they were then the press had freedom to report the case, whether any of us think it's right that they did or not and of course if what was reported was inaccurate then that leaves the press open to potential libel action (which BTW some posters here might want to reflect on before posting personal insults to each other).
If an application was not made to stop the reporting by her solicitor then IMO her solicitor has let her down especially considering the mitigation of how she has been affected.
I would hope that an old adage that "today's news is tomorrow's chip wrappings" applies to this case however it could be a very long time before she is able to feel that way and again IMO she needs professional help to overcome some of the adverse reaction to the case that appears to have taken place and probably will do for some time to come. I genuinely hope that she receives that help and she is able to get her life back on track.
One piece of advice to "lass fromt the north" posting obscene and offensive mail to an individual without their consent through the Royal Mail is an offence too (I believe) and if is repetitive from a particular source and causing additional harrassment then she may be wise to ask the police to intervene (as painful as that might be) but it may be the only way to stop it.
Buckeye Bob
says...
9:39pm Wed 8 Sep 10
wascal
says...
10:29pm Wed 8 Sep 10
Wascal.
gadgetgadget
says...
10:41pm Wed 8 Sep 10
wascal wrote:Wascal - whilst understanding your sentiment on this and agreeing she needs to get some personal peace : this report might be the only place where some of us want to or can post support/advice for the person/family regardless of the content of the report, I'm not sure asking people supporting her not to post is the right way forward. The Gazette are only responsible for this report and it's subsequent comments and not the numerous others around the web - some that I've seen are MUCH worse than this one so removing this one particular report is only the tip of the iceberg I'm afraid. I would agree however that we should stop debating the rights and wrongs of the press in this and it would be best if posters didn't engage in blasting each other with insult but we should also remember that if the Gazette remove this report she and her family/friends will lose the messages of support posted here too !
The Gazette should take full responsibility for this and no amount of philosophical debate about the rights of the free press or the finer details of solicitors duties will change that. We have now heard from a friend of the lady and so can see what damage has been done (not by the incident or court case but the subsequent reporting in the press). If the web editor has any shred of decency he/she will remove this article now, can I also suggest that all those who support the family stop posting new comments. Lets put an end to this now and leave her in peace,
Wascal.
Buckeye Bob
says...
12:19am Thu 9 Sep 10
But by 'eck, hasn't the article been changed, the M word has vanished for starters!?
Lots of burning ears in the Gezzy thanks to the voice of Joe Public, bring it on folks, power to the people!
Neigh Neigh, Mister Ed.
Andrew1
says...
4:21pm Thu 9 Sep 10
Andrew1
says...
4:23pm Thu 9 Sep 10
lifecycle
says...
4:57pm Thu 9 Sep 10
wascal wrote:Wascal, I think my first comment shows why it would be pointless for the Gazette to remove it now - it has been repeated all over the world anyway.
The Gazette should take full responsibility for this and no amount of philosophical debate about the rights of the free press or the finer details of solicitors duties will change that. We have now heard from a friend of the lady and so can see what damage has been done (not by the incident or court case but the subsequent reporting in the press). If the web editor has any shred of decency he/she will remove this article now, can I also suggest that all those who support the family stop posting new comments. Lets put an end to this now and leave her in peace,
Wascal.
I also showed that many people have embarrassing moments in their lives reported to an equally wide readership with no recourse to have the details hushed up.
Indeed in many cases the media involved embellish the story and only occasionally are they forced to retract and apologise.
The best way to save face would have been for the incident not to have occured.
So many people who will at times have found themselves under great pressure without resorting to such public behaviour, will be wondering why Ms Chapman felt the need to take that course of action!
Personally, I find your criticism and call for the Gazette to remove the article hypocritical given the manner in which you first responded to my comment, which it appears has now been deleted!
You will not have advanced your crusade any with such a crude response!
Lakeuk
says...
11:20pm Thu 9 Sep 10
meatloaf
says...
8:14am Fri 10 Sep 10
The message is very plain and simple - focus on driving whilst in control of a vehicle.
soapy stevens
says...
4:53pm Mon 13 Sep 10
More News stories
- Crash on M6 cleared
- MP launches world-wide internet campaign to boost Cumbrian tourism
- Forecasters warn 5cm of snow on the way
- Heritage Heroes and the inspiring Lowther Castle restoration project
- Schools Minister to visit Dallam School
- Update: police scale down search for missing Ulverston man
- Ulverston set to be entertained by acclaimed youth orchestra
- Meeting to be called to address Kendal 'A' board concerns'
- New off road running event announced for the Lake District
- Work starts on safer path for pedestrains and cyclists along Eden road
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
wascal says...
8:54pm Fri 3 Sep 10