Jess Bradley, first transgender student officer, suspended after flashing photos

[CaitlynsCat]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6003331/Britains-official-transgender-student-officer-suspended.html

"Shocking images on the site show an individual flashing while sitting in a train carriage, in a public park and at a bus stop.

Another photograph shows male genitals being exposed in an office close to a curved wooden desk that is strikingly similar to a picture of a work desk that Ms Bradley posted on her Facebook page. "

The photo have been archived on archive.is, you can search there under the domain exhbitionizm.tumblr.com and include lots of flashing shots.

Bradley has commented:

" I appreciate at this time there is a lot of speculation about my conduct and I am able to tell you that I am confident that none of my behaviour has been unlawful, and that I have not engaged in sexual activity with anyone, or in the view of anyone, without their consent. "

The use of the phrase "not unlawful" is very odd.

cf article linked above, may refer to:
www.bn.org.uk/files/file/739-legal-guides-public-place-naturism/

Media law expert David Banks, who has worked as a consultant for Government departments and other public bodies, said: ‘It is worrying if the lawyers for people in these situations are trying to use the Cliff Richard case as a means of shutting down potentially legitimate press attention into matters of legitimate public interest. ‘The concern is that the Cliff Richard ruling is creating general rules about the rights to privacy because we anticipated it would create this chilling effect on stories that do deserve to be publicised.’

There’s an appeal by the bbc going on I think about the cliff Richard case? I wonder if this is being used as a tester?

I hadn’t read the article - but yes this looks like a test case. So who is funding the legal side?

BBC request to appeal was turned down by the trial judge this week.
www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jul/26/bbc-agrees-to-pay-sir-cliff-richard-legal-bills-privacy-case

On the subject on whether the person alleged to be Jess intended to be seen or not - there's a series of photos with the caption, "think I got caught with my pants down on the bench :o".

Certainly it seems whoever posted those photos knew or heavily suspected they could be caught, so on the balance of probabilities it can't really be viewed as a victim free activity.

Ahhh didn’t know that ROwan

Even more interesting then. Very deep pockets.

Particularly the in a public place flashing, there's always the chance of someone seeing you and I cannot imagine that every single one of those trips on the train or whatever, that this thing was sitting in the carriage on their own.

This is what I don't get. They are utterly obsessed with sex like this is the ONLY aspect that separates people by gender/their sex! There is more to life than that. This is just a sex pervert, sexual abuser, potential rapist trying to justify their behaviour, behaviour which is unjustifiable to any decent human being.

The male rape references/links make my stomach turn.

I wouldn't want to share any space with this person, they are an abuser. They are viewing abusive material (anything to do with inter-family 'sex' is always abhorrent to me whether the individuals involved only look younger, I think this sort of thing should be made completely illegal). Of course, the police/CPS/courts struggle to prosecute open and shut cases of rape and sexual abuse so throw in a dollop of binary gender trans bollocks and they'll be so busy falling over themselves not to show themselves as 'ist, that it will likely not get taken much further. I can only fervently hope that it does.

Why are no journalists picking up on this whole subject and exposing the risks Panorama-style?

Why are no journalists picking up on this whole subject and exposing the risks Panorama-style?

Fear. Apathy. Ignorance?

Did the judge in the CR case not say that the judgement should not set a precedent? I’m sure I heard that reported but can’t find it.
The two situations (and individuals involved) do appear vastly different though.

This just turns my stomach. What a sick individual. Hope more people start to pay attention

Horrifying. The use of the phrase "not unlawful" is very odd.

Isn't it? Especially given that if the law changes around the GRA Bradley and others are calling for go through, it would be 'not unlawful' and far more likely for exposed penises to be in lots of places like female changing rooms, female-only NHS wards, etc.

And of course Bradley was invited to give written evidence to the select committee that recommended the proposed changes in law.

Sorry that should say to give oral evidence.

This is the statement from Jess (in case people don't want to go to their webpage). There is no denial in this, also the mail have gone ahead and published despite legal attempts to prevent publication.

“We started a website called Naked Vegan Cooking. We like to cook naked and then post the photos and recipes online." (cont)

I have a vegan birds eye chilli recipe that Jess Bradley might like to try, anybody have an email address for JB?

I'd love Sky news to revisit last week's reporting on lovely harmless Jess who just wants to get on with their life in peace.

But of course we silly terfs are wrong to be scared at the prospect of men like this in our toilets and changing rooms.
Srsly, WHY are so many people and organisations protecting sexual perverts? Just WHY? I still can't work out if they just don't believe us or they believe us but don't care.

I'd love to see someone like Louis Theroux investigate the TRA and feminist movements. I think he'd need to do both, for balance. Would we trust him to do it fairly?

And we are told to kowtow and call this pervert "she".

Carter Ruck? He has rich friends then.

The tumblr is pretty grim. Could only stomach a few posts.

Oh, is this another one of those things that never happen or will ever happen?

Strange, because women, actual born women, were saying this sort of thing would happen, and we keep getting told it would never happen.

So all you out there, you know who you are, and we know who you are, who are arguing loudly for access to women's spaces, you are all women right? Not fetishists or perverts getting your rocks off at the idea of flashing your lady penis without anyone being able to challenge you.

From now on, the GRA consultation shall be named the 'Flashers Charter'. Seems more appropriate.

But we're in the wrong if we mention the link between (non-dysphoric) trans and fetishes?

Carter Ruck are using the controversial recent Cliff Richard/BBC ruling in their defence argument.

If they do that, this would be a hugely controversial, potentially landmark case given the potential implications for press freedom of speech. That suggests a hugely expensive, complex argument and case not a simple 'open and shut' case to me.

Would love to know who is funding this and why.

This is absolutely to the point.

At this stage we do not know if the twitter account was a complete set-up - the pictures may or may not have been of JB's penis, even if they were, they may or may not have been taken at JB's desk with the office door locked and therefore no risk whatsoever of a third party walking in. Either of these - that the penis in the photos wasn't JB's penis, or that the photos were taken in a place reasonably deemed "private" at the time - would be a defence against accusations of "flashing" and therefore grounds for a successful libel action. (AFAIK, and lawyers may wish to correct me, libel has to demonstrate that the report was false, and that it was damaging to the person's reputation. The truth is an absolute defence against libel accusations.)

But this isn't the only angle Carter Ruck are playing - they are trying to use the Cliff Richard case as part of their defence, even though the judge in the Cliff Richard case explicitly stated that it should not be used as a precedent.

Carter Ruck are seeing this as an excuse to make Britain's libel laws - already among the most stringent in the world - tighter still, with freedom of the press as the loser.

Incidentally I predict that this thread will go "poof" as soon as the mods come on duty - there is no way MN is going to get embroiled in a libel case with Carter Ruck acting. This is not a consipiracy theory ("they're always trying to shut down debate on TRAs"), this is what any sane social media platform based in the UK therefore subject to UK law would do.

Rythym Jess says that they are a transwoman.

Who are we to deny their identity? We must believe that they are.

It looks like Carter Ruck were trying to silence the story - is stop it going to press at all- using the BBC ruling.

That is one of the big concerns about the impact of that ruling - that stories in the public interest wouldn't see the light of day due simply to threat of legal action.

This is a prominent activist who has been lobbying parliament to change the law to make it accepted law and common practice for males with penises still attached to go into female changing spaces, sleeping areas etc (and been invited to speak to them about this).

Is it fair to say it is in the public interest to know this person has been suspended from their position due to allegations of flashing and they are arguing that's ok because it's 'not unlawful'?

I would say so.