The Sunday Times reports with its usual sensitivity and understanding. Its piece on the doctor who says “late” motherhood is a problem is undoubtedly legitimate journalism (it is in other papers as well), whatever you think of her words, but the the ST goes on:

Nevertheless, the comparison with teenage mothers will still sting. The two groups could not be more different. One is made up largely of deprived and feckless girls while the other is dominated by highly educated and successful career women.

The problems caused by single teenage mothers are also very different and largely social in nature. The problems for middle-age women in contrast are mostly — but not entirely — medically related.

This isn’t a quote – it appears to be the newspaper editorialising on the bottom of the “news” story.

The Telegraph is showing no more sensitivity in its piece about death rates for babies of mothers with diabetes. Good story: “New figures show that babies born to diabetic mothers are four times more likely to die shortly after birth than children born to women who do not have the condition.”

Then …

Dr Blott, who is also a spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, pointed out that a diabetic woman was six times more likely to die during pregnancy and added: “It’s amazing that these people aren’t carefully watching their diet and ensuring that their blood sugar is strictly controlled. Partly, the women themselves are to blame, but the health service also lets them down.”

Of course you could, if you weren’t the Telegraph write this the other way, about the lack of services…

The Cemach researchers also discovered that only 34 per cent of women with diabetes received specific advice on pregnancy before they conceived. Just 39 per cent of women took folic acid before their last menstrual period – despite diabetes increasing four-fold their baby’s risk of neural tube defects such as spina bifida.

You’d really think judges would have got the message by now, but of course they live in another (male, public-school educated, London club) world. The latest is the judge who told a millionaire’s son (of course), that he could write a letter of apology to get off a sexual assault charge.

The introverted businessman had been “led into temptation” after the women, all Swedish and in their early twenties, had agreed to go back to his hotel for some food after a night out in Central London, the judge said.
He told the Old Bailey that, under normal circumstances, Modi could expect a jail sentence of up to eighteen months but that he was instead being given a six-month suspended sentence. He would also have faced a stiffer sentence had one of the victim’s friends not awoken and started screaming during the attack. By then Modi was half-naked, had removed the victim’s jeans and knickers and was lying on top of her.

You can just hear the expensive lawyer spinning the “innocent sheltered lad” story – for a man of 33 who’s travelled extensively in the West.

And that the judge thought it was the women’s fault…

After sentencing Modi, Judge Roberts said: “I suspect that this situation of having three women asleep in his bed and sofa would have been somewhat confusing. It was, of course, that situation that led him into temptation.”