Another one in court

And as we all know indecent exposure is a gateway crime that escalates to more serious offences. Just the CSA images are enough to point to that. He should have been imprisoned for far longer. 😡

Ridiculous outcome, a failure to convict someone exposing themselves.

I am shocked to learn a jury did not believe those girls. They were perhaps directed to query whether it was really exposure rather than him being naked in his own house while the girls happened to walk by. Then the jury would have second-guessed themselves.

Meanwhile he was planning to rape a child. It is horrifying.

Poor girls. They will no doubt have learned a lesson to not report a sexual crime against them as they’ll be the ones presumed to be liars.

Two years. What a failure. He is dangerous to children and he should be detained for far longer than that,

There should be minimum sentences and custodial ones for possession of child abuse images, and two years is nothing.

@OneOfThoseOldFashionedWomen that's a photo to give you nightmares!

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/24188080.ringwood-shop-worker-new-years-resolution-sex-child/

Another report, her penis. Fuck off.

The sentence does not reflect the suffering of all the children abused for his viewing pleasure.

So he traumatised the eleven year old girls (twice - successive days) with his original (alleged) offending, then subjected them to the further trauma of having the court process and ultimately being disbelieved by the jury.

He even portrayed himself as the victim.

"Norris, who worked at a Sue Ryder charity shop in her home town of Ringwood, Hampshire, said she had been the victim of abuse from youngsters in the town and she felt these girls had been “taunting” her."

I physically recoiled when I saw that photo, no joke.

These elements stand out, to me, from the Mirror’s piece:

”After the jury returned its not guilty verdicts, Norris, entered guilty pleas to three charges of making indecent images of children of categories A, B and C, one count of possessing prohibited images of children and a charge of possessing an extreme image depicting a person engaging in sexual activity with an animal.”

And, the Judge seeing his tactics (in delaying the plea) plainly for what they were:

“He [the Judge] added: “It’s pretty blatant to me that you decided not to enter guilty pleas (earlier) as these pleas would have gone in front of the jury of the other matters.”

This guy / his solicitor manipulated the Jury into giving him the benefit of the doubt by delaying his plea. Which meant the jury didn’t hear the abuse elements when deciding on giving him the benefit of the doubt on the indecent exposure charges.

So he traumatised the eleven year old girls (twice - successive days) with his original (alleged) offending, then subjected them to the further trauma of having the court process and ultimately being disbelieved by the jury.

The judge saw him for what he is. It’s a travesty that the jury weren’t given the same opportunity.

That picture is terrifying 😳

I don't normally do the "he looks like a killer" thing but the photo above is setting my alarm bells ringing!!!!

So he was cleared of indecent exposure but found guilty of possessing indecent images. At least he’s now behind bars but I feel sorry for the young girls that were not believed.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/charity-shop-worker-jailed-child-32351288.amp

Update on this person

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/transgender-charity-shop-worker-with-16000-abuse-images-is-jailed-4556018

DuesToTheDirt

So actually I find the phrase "her penis" very useful for pointing out the ridiculousness of the trans ideology, and also it shows how transwomen really do not have lady-brains - if they did they wouldn't do this stuff.

I agree. Lots of people still very confused about transwoman and transman and "her penis" is very clear

Still waiting for the headline that says a man is in court for flashing 'his vagina' at children.

Is anyone collecting a list of these sort of cases on a thread anywhere that I've missed?

There is this thread, where we were trying to collect these ‘never happens’ stories, but because we can’t sticky it, it falls off active threads.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3348290-It-will-never-happen-resource-thread?

There could be, although I'm pretty certain that there wouldn't be in this situation. The reason they are doing it is very obvious:

1. That's the word used in court. That's why it's in quotes.

1. They are taking the piss out of the guidance from various groups by doing exactly what that guidance says.

Personally I think the use of female pronouns for very obvious males is working great for us.

The 'transitioning to woman' boils my piss. Just print 'transitioning' ffs. Men cannot become women, no matter the wrong sex hormones, the surgery, the clothes, the makeup, the head tilt. It. Is. Impossible!!!

But this never happens - apparently 🤷‍♀️

If the article said "his penis" you'd simply think, yeah, just another male sex offender.

So actually I find the phrase "her penis" very useful for pointing out the ridiculousness of the trans ideology, and also it shows how transwomen really do not have lady-brains - if they did they wouldn't do this stuff.

Gross.

There is no punishment for any newspaper which prints the truth about an individual's sex.

So why do they persist in telling these lies about these perverted men being women? The quote marks don't alter anything.

They lie.