Teen films girl in toilet

[FairfaxAikman]

And isn't even subtle about it.
Again emphasising the need for single sex spaces and the ability to challenge male bodies people in them

www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/702003/fife-teen-on-sex-offenders-register-after-supermarket-child-attacks/

He is pretty fucking lucky that the parent of the ten year old didn't rip him to shreds. I would have drowned him in the toilet.

Jesus, the story is even worse than the title suggests. This is clearly a sexual predator with an MO for young girls being assaulted in toilets.

So he films a 12-year old girl in a women's toilet, and then sexually assaults a 10-year old. It gives me goosebumps to think that the father is waiting outside the women's toilet, thinking his girl is safe in there.

He is pretty fucking lucky that the parent of the ten year old didn't rip him to shreds. I would have drowned him in the toilet.

I, too, would have considered that course of action.

Something something 'it's already happening, so why are you bothered about opening up women's toilets...'

That's horrible. We absolutely need to be able to challenge males in female spaces. They shouldn't be in there. The ill thought through assumption seems to be that we shouldn't ever say anything because any male in the loos is there because they are stunning and brave. I'm going to send this clipping to my MP etc.

It gives me goosebumps to think that the father is waiting outside the women's toilet, thinking his girl is safe in there.

I hadn't considered the total lack of fear involved there. Dad hovering outside, as is fairly normal when a ten year old girl goes in the ladies on her own. He just figures she won't say anything if he threatens her. Clearly this isn't the first time he has physically assaulted a girl is it?

Toilet drowning is too good for him.

Clearly this isn't the first time he has physically assaulted a girl is it?

I highly doubt it, given that this seemed to be a pattern.

Did you notice this part of the article:

She explained that a crazy man with long hair was in the bathroom...

I am not incorporating the rest of the passage, as it's so upsetting. My question is, am I reading too much into it if I wonder about the "long hair" part?

My question is, am I reading too much into it if I wonder about the "long hair" part?

In which case you're falling into the genderised view of the trans-ideologists.

(DM to boys with longer hair than me)

Though naturally I wonder, too. But draw no conclusions.

Brave little girls.

What is more significant I think is that he had clearly already been in the women's toilets with a carer, who allowed him to return to the toilets unsupervised. That does imply that he and his carer thought he was entitled to enter the women's toilets.

It seemed to me, from the article, that the boy involved was special needs.

Had, not was. TGLWGH and use language properly.

But draw no conclusions.

Good advice. I shall not speculate. Whoever did this is a dangerous sexual predator and should not be allowed anywhere near girls.

I picked up on that Jelly.

What does TGLWGH mean? Please speak proper.

The poor girl :(

Is interesting that the article repeatedly just says "teenager" with no mention of their sex, only the victim is quoted as saying "man".

Is that not down to the paper needing to protect his anonymity because of his age though?

I hadn't thought about the long hair aspect, but lots of boys have long hair. Sometime papers will give hints about the things they can't say won't they.

Touché Juells. You're quite right, sorry.

They Go Low We Go High. The need to be circumspect in how we speak and behave.

To say the someone is special needs objectifies them. Even though that is nothing to do with trans issues, it is what trans ideology does: objectifies people. Better to say that a person has special needs.

What is more significant I think is that he had clearly already been in the women's toilets with a carer, who allowed him to return to the toilets unsupervised. That does imply that he and his carer thought he was entitled to enter the women's toilets.
Not necessarily. The article said the teen and carer were heading for the exit when the teen returned to the toilets by himself. Supermarket toilets are often off one corridor so he may have previously used the gents or accessible loo but then went into the ladies.

@JellySlice it says he was in the toilets- doesn't specify male or female and at both stores the toilets have a single entrance before branching off into the separate spaces.

Yes, suppose it could be like that. I dont know the store.

Which just proves my point that drawing conclusions from speculation is not a good idea!

Why was a 17 year old male in the female toilets anyway?

Yes. Sorry for derailing, there is really no evidence nor does it make a difference to the fact that the person who committed these crimes is terrible. It was mainly something I noticed and wondered about, so wanted to hear another opinion to tell me I was being crazy. Clearly my paranoia meter is on 200% in this day and age, and I am working on bringing it down.