Tranny perv in knicker flash! shock! horror!

So what on earth is going on in Northampton? A Mr Trigger, previously given an ASBO for scaring the local school kids, is now found guilty of having breached it.

His crime? He bent down in front of his neighbours. Repeatedly, in fact. Wearing nothing but a skirt and a pair of black trousers. Or leggings. We are shocked. Flabbergasted, no less.

I mean, the horror of looking out of one’s car window and seeing a clothed bum bending down in front of you. Surely it is time to institute nationwide patrols to ensure no-one, male, female or hermaphrodite ever bends down in front of anyone else again.

Of course, this is not what some on the blogosphere have made of the case. Mr Trigger, the tranny in question, has “previous”. He was awarded his ASBO for allegedly loitering near schools, frightening school kids and possibly – the details are hazy – exposing himself to parents.

Maybe he did. The problem, of course, is that at the heart of those allegations are two perfectly good criminal offences: harassment and indecent exposure. So how come, if he is such a bad lot, the police didn’t collect evidence of his heinousity and charge him like a proper criminal?

Could it possibly be there wasn’t enough evidence? Which is why they resorted to the ASBO route, for which the standards of evidence are lower than for a normal criminal trial and hearsay evidence (for which, read prejudice) is permissible?

Same again this time round. What Mr Trigger appeared to have done is nowhere an offence in and of itself. It can’t be. Bending down and “exposing” a clothed butt? Nah! On which planet are the police and lawyers who prosecuted this living?

Oh. I forgot. Now that he has an ASBO it is an offence to cause alarm or distress to his neighbours. I suspect it doesn’t even require the courts to show intent on his part. His neighbours – a charming pair, who admitted in court that they were so disturbed by Mr Trigger’s bending over, they were tempted to assault him ( a REAL criminal action) – turned on the water works about their distress.

Sorry. So sensitive are they that they can’t view a clothed pair of buttocks without going all coy: yet they have no qualms about hitting someone because they give offence? Just who should the law be protecting from whom here? I certainly would not wish to be gifted with such tolerant neighbours.

Still, the courts have decided. Few of us have any way of knowing whether Mr Trigger is mad, bad or the victim of wholly trumped-up anti-trans hysteria.

The blogosphere was full of fears about the effects on the poor ickle kiddies of seeing a bloke wearing a skirt. Better not let any of them into church on a sunday, then!

In the absence of certainty, though, what seemed to be bubbling to the surface yesterday was a whole load of transphobic bigotry, dressed up (!) as concern for kids. Many of those commenting on the affair seemed incapable of clocking that Mr Trigger’s offence was committed in respect of two adults, and involved no kids at all.

Ah well. There was I thinking that the UK was mostly more tolerant than the US, which recently spewed forth this load of nastiness, also predicated on the wholly confected fear that trannies are really closet kiddy-fiddlers. Or as the piece puts it “weirdos”.

But of course we are, darling! After all, us trans women only risk life and limb each time we stick our noses out the door. What other reason could there be, than that we are closet pervs and crypto-paedos?

Sorted.

Advertisements

About janefae

On my way from here to there
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Tranny perv in knicker flash! shock! horror!

  1. Alize says:

    What you have omitted to mention is that the man had a 12 week previous suspended sentence for indecent exposure, and the only reason it was suspended is that he was the carer for his mother. The minimum sentence for indecent exposure is one month.

    He is now on the sex offenders list and has to attend sex offenders counselling. Children were distressed by his behaviour and accompanying parents chose to avoid him by taking different routes to school. He had be warned by many agencies that his behaviour was unacceptable but refused to acknowledge it.

    That isn’t transphobic, he is an offender who has been found guilty of exposure and harrassment.

    • janefae says:

      hi, alize. No, i haven’t omitted to mention it: rather, i consider it to be irrelevant. Or rather, all part of the great ASBO scam.

      In law, we are meant to punish on the offence. That’s why, except in exceptional circumstances, details of previous crimes are withheld from juries. Its so a jury can’t go: “they’re a bad lot” – and stop listening to the evidence relevant to a specific case.

      What an ASBO does is effectively stigmatise an individual and then criminalise behaviour that is otherwise unexceptional.

      If i had told you that someone was up for a prison sentence for the heinous offence of bending over and exposing their leggings to their neighbours, i hope, in ordinary circs, you’d laugh.

      The guy was not sentenced yesterday – not punished – for anything he may or may not have done in the vicinity of school kids. Nor was he alleged to be acting in an indecent manner.

      According to the prosecution, his neighbours, who mentioned the matter to police because otherwise they were inclined to assault Mr Trigger, felt alarmed and distressed.

      Wow! As a trans woman, i am alarmed and distressed several times a day. Except in my case, the alarm is often in case of real threat. Do the police arrest and prosecute every last person who alarms or distresses me?

      You must be joking!

      ASBO’s are bad law, introduuced by Labour in an attempt to play to a populist gallery. If Mr T did something criminal, like harassment, exposure, indecent assault or whatever, i say throw the book at him.

      But if he is doing something that in ordinary circs would never be criminal? No.

    • Julian says:

      Alize, there is no minimum sentence in the UK for indecent exposure. The only minimum sentences are for 3rd time Class A distribution, 3rd time domestic burglary and possn/distribution prohibited weapons or ammunition.

      He has a previous conviction for indecent exposure. So what? He hasn’t even been accused of repeating that offence. He’s been accused of upsetting people by bending over whilst fully clothed in the presence of adults only, and nobody cares that this is about as upsetting to a reasonable person as watching bunny rabbits frolic in the fields, because, well, he’s a perve, innit?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s