Repeat sex offender with convictions under different names contacts woman online using male name. Judge stops prosecutor halfway through and insists on female pronouns.

[PalatineUvula]

There is a whole list of things that would never happen here.

www.northantstelegraph.co.uk/news/northants-transgender-sex-offender-used-fake-identity-to-speak-to-woman-on-facebook-1-8869416

The quick summary is:

• someone whose birth name the journalists can't be bothered to clarify (worried about transphobia?) has a habit of using many pseudonyms to contact women online
• this person is a registered sex offender
• this person appeared on the court lists as 'Mr', possibly using the name 'Chloe Walker'
• there is a 'Sexual Harm Prevention Order' in place specifically prohibiting them from using pseudonyms online without notifying the police
• this apparently did not stop this person changing name to 'Chloe Walker' and 'becoming a woman', because obviously that's much more important than preventing sexual harm
• despite the (legal?) identity as a woman and Chloe Walker, this person apparently exclusively identifies as male when contacting women online, in the current case using the name 'Jamie Thornton', and previously having used 'Brendon Walker', 'Steven Walker', and 'James Walker'
• the prosecutor begun proceedings by using 'he/him' pronouns to refer to Jamie/Brendon/Steve/James/Chloe (they/them, surely?) but was stopped by the judge and ordered to use female pronouns

fairplayforwomen.com/ipso/

Inaccurate press reporting of sex: Fair Play For Women’s written submission to the public consultation on the Editors’ Code of Practice

@testing987654321

I didn't know she actually refused, I thought she tried to comply when instructed to by the judge.

It's an outrageous position to be put in.

I could be mistaken. I thought she did her best to avoid using any gendered pronouns - ie refused to use feminine pronouns to describe a male - rather than that she insisted upon using masculine pronouns.

Blimey, just seen that my comment and @Findthetruth's reply have both been deleted. Not sure how either broke the rules so it might be hard not to make the same mistake again. I simply asked if the judge's decision might be related to the CPS being Stonewall champions

I could be mistaken. I thought she did her best to avoid using any gendered pronouns - ie refused to use feminine pronouns to describe a male - rather than that she insisted upon using masculine pronouns.

I think you’re correct. She tried to comply, but failed and was penalised.

But I’m fairly sure, if a judge was asking me for a statement about my experience, I would object and refuse. And if that resulted in a contempt of court ruling, I’d take it and hope someone from the press would have the courage to cover it. No judgement on Maria - she wasn’t expecting it and didn’t have time to think. But I think the time may come when women are going to have to break the law to demonstrate how ridiculous it is.

Why are comments being deleted on a threat about a fucking sex offender doing exactly as we predicted they would?

@lang
If i tell you what MNHQ (quite rudely) said about why they deleted my comment about the judge's response re said sex offender, will that earn me another strike?!

But I’m fairly sure, if a judge was asking me for a statement about my experience, I would object and refuse. And if that resulted in a contempt of court ruling, I’d take it and hope someone from the press would have the courage to cover it. No judgement on Maria - she wasn’t expecting it and didn’t have time to think. But I think the time may come when women are going to have to break the law to demonstrate how ridiculous it is.

I completely agree. It was completely unexpected when it happened so I understand why she didn't make a stand then.

What side of the criminal stats will they appear on. Will this be an example of female sexual abusers being ‘more common then you think’ when comparing to male ones?

This is so distressing. The legal system is a fucking joke for women when it comes to sexual offences. And "being trans" is being used as a justification for sexual violence against women and a way to further abuse them - and women are punished and abused for pointing that out.

OPEN LETTER - PETITION idea - can you help write this?

To: Max Hill QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, Rebecca Lawrence Chief Executive of the Crown Prosecution Service

We are calling for the CPS to withdraw its policy forcing gender identity to be presented as if it were an individual’s sex, when prosecuting and reporting sexual offences and other crimes under the 'Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG)' framework.

These crimes include domestic abuse, rape, sexual offences, stalking, harassment, so-called ‘honour-based’ violence including forced marriage, female genital mutilation, child abuse, human trafficking focusing on sexual exploitation, prostitution, pornography and obscenity. and ‘upskirting’ – linked to the Voyeurism Act.

It increases the stress of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses to be forced to refer to the male perpetrator, using female pronouns.

The public is being misled on the occasions when an individual’s sex is relevant and important when reporting the crime.

The impact of violence against women and girls (VAWG) on victims,
their families and their communities cannot be underestimated,
and bringing perpetrators to justice is being undermined.

CPS must take special care with any rulings regarding the language of sex and gender identity because of the potential for political and societal ramifications

UK Equality law prohibits unfair discrimination on the grounds of both sex and self-declared gender identity. However, sometimes these two rights conflict so the law sets out circumstances where a person’s sex is considered uniquely relevant and important.

It is reasonable to expect CPS to apply the same principles when prosecuting crimes under the 'Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG)' framework

etc

etc

The protected characteristic iin the equality act s "gender reassignment", not gender identity.

Would also need to ask for repeal of the guidelines to judges that pepper must be referred to a as the gender they choose, regardless of their legal status. This prevents witnesses from speaking the truth as they are forbidden from stating the truth of what they perceived, and forces witnesses to perjure themselves as they are obliged to lie about what they perceived.

People, not pepper.

prevents witnesses from speaking the truth as they are forbidden from stating the truth of what they perceived, and forces witnesses to perjure themselves as they are obliged to lie about what they perceived

yes, surely in a court of law Truth is everything. if the crime were non violent and minor, I could see the argument for pronouns as a sign of respect though not recording the crime. but where the crime is a violent sex crime, it's different. The crime is causal. facts matter, biological facts (99% + of sex crimes male born). Some crimes can only be done by males (rape). more than this.... lying about the cause of the crime is another layer of abuse for the victim.

if the crime were non violent and minor, I could see the argument for pronouns as a sign of respect

Where does respect come into it? Why does one person's demand to control the speech of another require respect? This is about the witness describing what they perceived. The witness's right to describe their experience needs respecting, not the sense of entitlement of the person being described.

In terms of respect, requiring a witness to use 'preferred pronouns' is equivalent to requiring a Jewish witness to swear on the Gospels.

According to his Facebook he is on a host of anti-psychotic drugs and anti-depressants, and was in hospital with a 'Chloe Walker, female' patient label. One can only imagine he was on the women's ward.

@StandWitch

According to his Facebook he is on a host of anti-psychotic drugs and anti-depressants, and was in hospital with a 'Chloe Walker, female' patient label. One can only imagine he was on the women's ward.

that is beyond horrific as a prospect - to have to share a ward with someone like that..... that is why I have been writing to my local NHS Trust that allows people like that to self-id onto women's wards. No sensible response yet though.

I wonder how the courts/CPS reconcile the cognitive dissonance generated by the fact that rape (in England as I understand) requires a penis and women don't have penises (although obviously most transwomen do).

Does the court say that women do have penises or that a rape couldn't have taken place as it is a woman that is facing the charge?

Would any lawyer be tempted to use that as a defence?

I agree garden. Personally I feel the EA doesn't go far enough and that any crime falling under the violence against women and girls framework, should be prosecuted and reported inline with biological sex. females can't rape. it's a grotesque distortion of language and the enforced lying in court just adds another layer of abuse.

hear what you're saying jelly about enforced speech and I know there will be different opinions on here. the problem, I think is the ridiculous 'umbrella' by the governments favourite charity, grouping different people together. sex offenders like this Brandon Walker are nothing like transexual women who've gone through surgery. I know some and they're not the same at all. I don't have a problem personally using preferred pronouns with the latter. But the sex offenders have no right to pronouns, single-sex spaces or anything female related imo.