At first I was outraged, then

[Laura Jane]

I saw it was more about the behavior....

British man jailed for cross-dressing
From correspondents in London
April 08, 2005

A BRITISH man handed an unusual court order banning him from dressing in women's clothes in public after dark was jailed after being found cross-dressing in his car.

David Harris, 37, was spotted by police wearing an off-the-shoulder cream top and cotton skirt, and was arrested, Gloucester Crown Court in the west of England was told.
He had been banned in June last year from wearing women's clothes, accessories or footwear in public places during night time following concern that such outfits prompted him to commit sexual offences.

In 1998, Harris was jailed for two indecent assaults on young women, one carried out while he wore a pink dress and a black bra.

Advertisement:
He was released in 2002, but returned to prison the following year after being spotted wearing women's clothing again. Shortly before he was freed in June 2004, the clothing ban was made under sexual offences legislation.

Harris - who appeared in court in a black jacket and trousers - pleaded guilty to breaching the order, and was jailed for two and a half years.

The court was told that Harris was arrested last September after being seen dressed in women's clothes in his car, which was parked a rural area near Gloucester known as a meeting point for people seeking sex

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...-13762,00.html

[trinity24]

In 1998, Harris was jailed for two indecent assaults on young women, one carried out while he wore a pink dress and a black bra.

People like that should be executed on the spot. They make the rest of us look bad.

[wilma]

The more I think about this the more I get mad. The judge was right to put this guy away BUT. In the first place where does the judge get off assuming that if this guy stops wearing womans clothing he is not going to assult women. Think about it! That is like taking the trench coat away from a flasher so he doesn't flash anymore. I hope the judge doesn't start throwing people in jail for dressing like billy the kid. I would hate to be in his court if you'r not dressed correctly, according to his standards, your guilty by association. But to be honest I'm glad the guy got jail time. He should have gotten jail time for assulting women not dressing as one! Wilma

[StephanieCD]

I firmly believe sexual offenders should be punished like in the scarlet letter - they should be branded and set free to suffer the punishment of the masses...

A bold tattoo "I raped so and so" right across the forehead oughta do it.

[Tristen Cox]

Well I won't try to make too much of a point here, yet this kind of thing is the reason we need to separate sexual assualts and crossdressing. No matter how hard we work toward a better image, here comes some idiot to ruin it sending us back where we started. I agree with Trinity and Stephanie. Do they advertise a crossdresser going out and having a safe fun time? Nope just the bad things

[Julie]

Well done Laura, I had this ready for posting on Friday but have been a little busy.

There has been plenty of discussion lately about the way we want us as a group want to be perceived by the general public and how some of the stuff being posted here is doing our cause harm. Besides this going on here there is of course how we are perceived in the media, this could be the papers, radio or TV, for example the story below is from Today’s Guardian Newspaper.

JAIL FOR MAN WHO BROKE SKIRT BAN

A sex offender was yesterday sent to jail for two and a half years after he admitted breaking a ban on his cross-dressing at night.



David Harris, 37, a car clamper of no fixed address, was wearing an off-the-shoulder cream top and cotton skirt last September when he was seen by police sitting in his car at a spot said to be frequented by people looking for casual sex.



Gloucester crown court was told he was in breach of an order made last June, banning him from wearing women’s clothes, accessories or footwear in a public place at night. He had been jailed for six years in 1998 for two convictions of night-time indecent assault on young women in Stroud. In one attack, he was wearing a pink dress and black bra.



Harris was released in 2002, but recalled to prison the following year after being seen in women’s clothing. Just before his re-release at the end of is sentence in June 2004, the Sexual Offenders’ Order was made by magistrates. Dressed yesterday in a black jacket and trousers, Harris pleaded guilty to breaching the order.



Last September he was found by police in Shab Hill in Gloucester. His barrister, Paul Cook, said he cross-dressed when in a “stressed state of mind”. Despite acknowledging Shab Hill’s reputation, he said he went there as a “quiet spot where he could sit in his car”.



Judge Paul Darlow told Harris he had failed to engage with those trying to help him in sex offenders’ schemes, was “high risk” and that a custodial sentence was inevitable. (Press Association)



This was in a broadsheet newspaper and thankfully they only reported the facts but if this story had made the tabloids they would’ve torn into cross-dressers as a whole and almost certainly ridiculed each and every one of us for doing things that to us are perfectly normal.



This is why it’s important that what is posted here on this forum should show us in a good light as it’s read by anyone who should come across it. Stuff that is going to show us in the stereotypical view that society has of us should not be posted here, it’s already a long road that’s faced to change people’s views and these type of posts certainly don’t help our cause.

JJ

[Stormgirl]

People like that should be executed on the spot. They make the rest of us look bad.

*takes out M4a1 and puts in a fresh mag then pulls back the charging handle then presses the foward assist*

Yeah no shxt,people like that only anger me.

[ToniB]

I saw that one in the Guardian too Julie, but I was far from home visiting my Brother and Sister in law. Not much chance of posting anything there, so I saved it to post from home. You beat me to it!

ToniB

[Julie]

I saw that one in the Guardian too Julie, but I was far from home visiting my Brother and Sister in law. Not much chance of posting anything there, so I saved it to post from home. You beat me to it!

ToniB

Sorry Toni. What was strange and possibly a good thing about this was that the tabloids left it alone. If they'd run with the story you could just imagine the story lines they'd come up with.

JJ

[Priscilla1018]

Any assault on a woman should be punishable with prison time as should every assault on a crossdresser.Wrong is wrong.It's time we put these slime bags away.Naturally the media picks up on the crossdressing and not the real crime.

Love and Hugs,
Priscilla

[Sigrid]

Well I won't try to make too much of a point here, yet this kind of thing is the reason we need to separate sexual assualts and crossdressing. No matter how hard we work toward a better image, here comes some idiot to ruin it sending us back where we started. I agree with Trinity and Stephanie. Do they advertise a crossdresser going out and having a safe fun time? Nope just the bad things

Having lived in SF bay area all my life I've whitnessed a great deal of media coverage of gay/lesbian events (e.g. Gay Freedom Parade in SF). Invarialbly the images they would show were the most outrageous drag queens. I'm sure these images helped form the stereotypical image of a CD/TG/TS in the minds of the general public - those who wouldn't bother to seek alternate points of view like in The Bay Guardian. Even I wondered at one point if that was where I was headed. It took a while for me to realize that the drag queens were (often) mocking women and that I, and a fair majority of CD's, were instead imbracing our femininity. I certainly understand the television media's motives - the more outrageous, the higher the ratings.

The association goes well beyond the press. I went into a major bookstore the other day looking for any books on crossdressing. I found two on shelf labled "Gay/Lesbian. The association isn't so much bad as it is just plain inacurate.

Then there's this jack a**.

Were I David Harris, I would have fought for my right to crossdress in the highest court. I'd then seek all the help I could to help overcome my aggressive nature, theraputically, surgically - whatever it takes. And if that doesn't work, I'd give Trinity a call.

~Sigrid

[Tristen Cox]

[font=Comic Sans MS]
This is why it’s important that what is posted here on this forum should show us in a good light as it’s read by anyone who should come across it. Stuff that is going to show us in the stereotypical view that society has of us should not be posted here, it’s already a long road that’s faced to change people’s views and these type of posts certainly don’t help our cause.

JJ

Precisely. Thank you. Could not have said that better. Sex offenders should be treated as such not related to crossdressing. Since the offense was not crossdresing but the acts committed in a sexual nature, why not romove their ability to have sex? Sterilize them and take away that enjoyment. Just because they can not dress in womens clothing doesn't mean their sexual motives are deminished.

[Akyra]

ahh hell just got the thing off......

doesnt need it anyway right......

loozer!!!!

[Aloha_Dana]

We can't blame the media because that is their job, sell papers, in anyway they can.

Can't do anything about the court's rulings, immediately.

We do have an opportunity to write back into the opinion sections of the papers to shed light on the cases....

Easy to say, tough to do. Over here, Letters to the Editor ask for and verify names and addresses before posting to opinion sections. Anyone feel like they can step up to the plate?

Dana

[Serena]

I'm still kinda outraged, because I have the feeling that the judge had something against CDs, rather than just saying he wasn't allowed to crossdress for a certain reason. I mean, he was only found in drab on one sexual assault, so they can't prove that he's getting off on CDing, then gets the urge to rape someone. I agree with wilma on this one. Yeah, you can take away a factor that'll result in sexual assault, but he'll still have the urge to do that kind of stuff, so all they can really do is jail him, or worse.

[Miss Sherry]

I understand most murderers wear shoes. Therefore, if we make a potential murderer walk around bare foot, there won't be any more murders.

Sounds perfectly logical to me.

Sherry

[Shy Charlotte]

Hmm, before everyone starts pulling out the garden shears and the M16 Carbines, think I'll play activist lawyer for a sec:
1) The facts, as can be ascertained by the article state that the defendant committed two nocturnal sexual assaults on women, and of these occasions he was caught once wearing a woman's dress and bra. This means that in only 50% of Mr. Harris' assaults did he wear women's clothing.

2) When he was picked up by police on this last time, he was wearing women's clothing. He had not committed any crime other than to be parked in a car in women's clothing, thus violating a court order. (It can be argued that his location was circumstantial).

3) He had two counts of "indecent assault" under his belt when he was finally arrested in 1998, and was released in 2002 (thus roughly 4 years, or about 2 years per count of indecent assault). When he was arrested for solely crossdressing, he was sentenced to 2 1/2 years.

So, many disturbing questions arise from the ruling:

A) At what point did the judge say that crossdressing = sexual assault, leading him to rule a court order prohibiting Harris from crossdressing in the first place, if only half the time that Harris had assaulted a woman in the past had he been crossdressing.

B) At the time of his arrest, Harris had not done anything in the way of sexually assaulting anyone. Even assuming that Harris crossdressed 100% of the time during his assaults, it's arresting him for something that he didn't do (unfortunately we're not living in Minority Report times, so we can't be entirely accurate what someone will do in the future).

C) Harris was sentenced to 2 1/2 years for crossdressing, although on average he served only 2 years for each count of actual sexual assault. That means that by court standards crossdressing is 20% worse than actual sexual assault, as far as punishment is concerned.

D) Harris was said to be in a "stressed state of mind" when he was arrested crossdressing. Honestly, those among us who feel the compulsion to crossdress more when they're stressed raise their hands. That's what I thought. I'm not saying any of us would ever go as far as to even think of assaulting a woman, but the fact remains that for many crossdressers it's the #1 stress relief.

E) If a judge can rule as he did in this situation, even with only a 50/50 chance that crossdressing leads to sexual assault in one individual, it's not inconceivable that there's a chance that all crossdressers are coiled sexual vipers ready to strike the unsuspecting. Thus perhaps the logical response would be to prohibit all men from sexually assaulting women by making crossdressing illegal in Gloucester after dark.

F) If in only half of the time Harris was in drag, what's to say that crossdressing even had anything to do with the assaults? I'm sure Harris was wearing shoes in both assaults (to paraphrase Miss Sherry), or a wallet, or any number of any other personal effects. The fact of the matter is that the judge picked on the crossdressing part because it's "queer" and stands out.

G) Seems to me that the media seemed to focus on the fact he was a crossdresser, rather than a rapist. From the headline "British man arrested for Crossdressing", to some of the text itself that Harris was wearing a "pink dress and black bra" in one of the assaults. Strange that they didn't mention what color pants or shirt he was wearing in the other assault.

To call a spade a spade, in this situation Harris was arrested for crossdressing, not for sexual assault (which he did not do in the final arrest). And yes, it seems like the judge, and possibly the media, have a bone to pick with crossdressers in general. A somewhat disturbing conclusion overall.

[Tristen Cox]

Damn Charlotte. Lawyer? Thought you drove an ambulance? Wow that was pretty darn good. Well put I must say. "The court is in recess for one hour"

[Carrah]

Well, there are a couple of issues here; first and unknown to most, there are laws here in the United States that prevent people from going about with a mask on or from walking about in a Mickey Mouse outfit. It is unlawful here in the United States to publically concele one's identity and you know what, crossdressing somewhat does just that!

Second, the same argument being used with respect to this guy's crossdressing as being related to his sexual offenses, is the same argument the anti-gun establishment uses; take away the gun and no one ever dies again. Now, does anyone really believe that? Well, apparently many do!

The Britt's have always been somewhat draconian in their ways anyhow, which is sort of what led to their demise here in the states in the first place. But, the rest of the world will likely follow suit eventually, it's really just a matter of when or how soon.

Each new law that is passed and each new precedence that is set, is one more thing we all either have to or must do from this point forward, or one more thing we are never allowed to do again and we have hundreds of people who's job it is to write new laws each and every day...

[Shy Charlotte]

[to Tristen] *wink*, just a Jane of Many Trades I suppose.

Actually Carrah I was vaguely aware of the facial covering law (I used to work at a Target as a security guard, and I had the unhappy position of telling revellers to take off their masks inside the store on Halloween), but I just was under the impression that it was either a state law or store policy implimentation, since it seemed a bit off-kilter.

I think Carrah does make a strong point with the comparison between the gun industry's current woes and the crossdressing issue:

[SIZE=4]Dresses Don't Rape Women, People Do[/SIZE]
(should be a bumper sticker)

[Aloha_Dana]

Sounds like an appeal to the case is in order, or at least, a letter sent to Harris' attourney quoting Carra's points and a few others in here. Obviously the defense attourney is a numbscull, but might, just might welcome the insight and information that we can give him to win a case.

But then, he might not care about his record, or, feel the same way the judge does.

Harris got screwed.

Any lawyers here or girls that know of a lawyer that might want to look into this case?

Dana

[Aloha_Dana]

Should have written, 'Charlotte': to quote Charlotte...

Dana

[alicorsetant]

GOD a pink dress and a BLACK bra, I mean has he got no dress sense, it is a case for the fashion police to prosecute.

As for the offences committed this kind of perve deserves castration and execution, as they are predators and give the GENUINE cd and ts community pad press, but fortunately they are not immediately linked to us as such.
They are seen for what they are mental perverts who have no regard for anyone as long as they get thier kicks, whatever they may be...

[Serena]

And yes, it seems like the judge, and possibly the media, have a bone to pick with crossdressers in general. A somewhat disturbing conclusion overall.

The judge did obviously have something against CDs, but not necessarily the media, or at least having something agianst them, it's just how they make money. People are interested in crossdressing stories like that usually, so the media milks them for all it's worth. If a similar situation would happen again, the media would put the emphasis on the CDing part during the whole thing, which is how it works.

[Serena]

And yes, it seems like the judge, and possibly the media, have a bone to pick with crossdressers in general. A somewhat disturbing conclusion overall.

Well it wasn't so much that the media probably had something against CDs, but that they wanted to get more attention to the stories, to get more ratings, get more papers bought, ect. When a story like that occurs, the people are interested in it, and the media is going to milk it for all it's worth. I can almost guarentee that if a similar story would happen, the media would emphasize the crossdressing, rather than the actual crime.