Indecent exposure and Jordan Gray on Radio 4

How anyone can discuss Gray without also thinking of Couzens I don't know. It's all part and parcel of the same aggressive male predator behaviour.

If Couzens had been stopped when his only crime was flashing, Sarah wouldn't be dead. All those who let it slide, enable it, are allowing predatory men to escalate.

BBC2 Politics Live!

And Jordon Gray mentioned on BBC too as well

All men know that flashing their penis at unconsenting women causes alarm, distress and fear of assault. Therefore every occasion when a male displays his penis among women, regardless of his identification or presentation, is a deliberate attempt to cause alarm or distress.

Politics Live on BBC2 now- same subject

Great to see this hypocrisy being exposed. And always worth remembering that Gray claims to have worked in schools talking to young primary children about gender issues on behalf of Educate & Celebrate - who many parents will find have been in their children's school for various reasons relating to 'inclusion".

For hate crime type offences, the test is subjective, ie what did the alleged victim feel.

Is it the case that for indecent exposure the test is objective? Effectively, what did the perpetrator feel?

This is the trouble with allowing men into women’s single sex spaces (we mustn’t let them be rebranded as ‘safe spaces’ as that leaves them more open to challenge by men).

How much harder will it be to prove intent to distress if the exposed penis is in the ladies toilets or changing room and claiming every right to be there?

If a man gets his willy out in an alleyway as you walk past I would say that the intent would be fairly clear but people are allowed to get naked in a changing room.

All a flasher has to do now is take advantage of the self id policies of many places and pop into the ladies for his flashing fix.

Why do we need to make the distinction clear, what's wrong with modesty? Not sure it's necessarily helpful making this distinction, as far as I'm concerned the social convention in the UK is that public mixed-sex nudity is not acceptable, for various reasons, be it modesty, religious sentiment, or awareness of flashing as a precursor to further sexual offending.

I don't care if I'm called a prude, as that word is often used to break down instinctive female barriers, especially in teenagers/young women, it needs to be rehabilitated. If 'slut' is something to be unashamed of, why should 'prude' be?

I asked our Chief Superintendent about whether it would be considered indecent exposure if a man who identifies as a woman exposed their penis in a women's changing room.

Firstly the example was edited to: "a scenario where someone who was male to female transgender entered female public changing rooms and what if any offences would take place."

And then they said this:

Generally in law there needs to be an action which is a constituent element of a crime together with a knowledge or intention of wrongdoing. By way of example Exposure under s66 Sexual Offences Act 2003 requires the prosecution to prove that there was an intention to cause harassment alarm or distress.

In the scenario provided, police (and CPS) would need to be satisfied of this intention. The simple presence of this person in the changing room would not constitute an offence. Perhaps a contrast is in changing rooms generally people expose themselves (in the act of getting changed) this doesn't mean that everyone who uses public changing rooms automatically commits an offence. It is also of note that the person (male to female transgender) also has rights, there are a number of articles under the European Convention on Human Rights which would require careful consideration. What is clear is that societal changes have not caught up and where some buildings have gender neutral facilities not all do.

No.

Every single thing we see leaked about WhatsApp groups from Police make me feel unsafe and reinforces the Germaine Greer point about women having no idea how much men hate us.

I don't care if it's passed off as banter. I find it hard to believe that this doesn't affect culture and the way women are treated.

Prosecution has also to prove intention to cause alarm or distress

I've vote for a ban on flashing

Whoops erection! No voting required!

@RoyalCorgi - no requirement for an election - just exposure of genitals!

Good on Justin for raising this.

Am I right in thinking that technically, it's only "indecent exposure" if the man's penis is erect? That displaying a non-erect penis isn't regarded as a crime?

Do people generally expose their genitals unexpectedly as a mark of respect to the person they’re exposing themselves to?

of course not. It’s always an act of aggression and / or a demonstration of disrespect

anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t know how humans work

It does need to be made very clear, as I heard Julie Bindel do recently, that our objections to seeing penises is NOT modesty but an awareness that men will use them as weapons. So, when we see one without our consent, there's this primal reaction that we're about to be harmed. We know 'flashing' is often a precursor to more serious assaults (Wayne Couzens). This shouldn't be minimised by anyone.

I know, it's not even like they are particularly nice to look at. They certainly agent nice outlined in cheap materials! I'm quite happy never to have to see a male appendage or the outline of one, unless it's attached to someone naked in my bedroom ever again. And even then I could take it or leave it at this point to be honest!

Keep the ball rolling. So to speak

I would feel much more confident today.
It was interesting in the aftermath of sarah Everard's murder mu DD, who lived in Clapham , had a stalker (something which has followed her since uni). She reported to the police and they took it seriously, speaking to the stalker, who hasn't reoffended. She felt they were feeling stung and had to react.
Now is the moment, ladies, report report report.

Male nudity on television isn't automatically offensive, I watched A Room With A View the other day and there were a surprising number of cocks on show for a Sunday afternoon, but the Jordan Gray incident had an aggressive and territorial aspect to it: 'Fuck you, terfs! I'm in your spaces and what are you going to do about it?'

There were so many media debates yesterday concerning indecent exposure and 'non-contact sexual offences,' with some defensiveness from the police but also many pledges to take things more seriously. I just thought that we could actually see the official statistics on these incidents go down because transactivism has found a way to trans away the illegality of indecent exposure and voyeurism - which, of course, is the endgame.

The conflicting cultural discourse around this kind of issue is one of those things that feels like it is purposefully designed to drive women mad, and to always be wrong-footed. One second it's #MeToo and candlelight vigils and angry marches and 'why don't the police care about women?'; the next second it's 'ugh, why are you such an uncool bitch and a prude?' and 'you're the sex offender for staring at someone's penis in the locker room!' and 'white carceral feminists want rapists and murderers locked up!' Liberal feminists always oscillate insanely on this issue because their opinion always stands in relation to the status of the male offender and never on the side of the female victim. Police officer = bad sex offender; someone on their side = errrr, quick, blame white feminism for something.

Good on Justin. I noticed he posted a selfie from the Hannah Barnes book launch and said there was a lot of BBC staff there. It's a sorry state of affairs that seemed a bold thing to do!

Woman's Hour is asking listeners for today's programme: With the sentencing of Wayne Couzens would you feel more confident if you reported an incident of indecent exposure to the Police?

Thanks!