Tuesday 13 December 2011

When Is A Dirty Pervert Not A Dirty Pervert?

Well, clearly, when he’s just doing it for ‘a giggle’:
Trevor Perry, who has six previous convictions for indecent exposure, deliberately performed lunges in small running shorts outside Didcot Girls’ School so his genitals were exposed.
Case closed? Well, not so fast…
But the 52-year-old environmental consultant was cleared of exposure by magistrates as they felt it was not proven he “intended to cause alarm or distress”, as set out in the wording of the charge.
Looking at the comments, there seems to have been a bit of a battle between the mags and the CPS over this…

But their decision seems nonsensical, and when you add in the gratutitous slap in the face of refunding his fares….
The three magistrates on the bench spent an hour and 15 minutes deliberating before clearing the defendant, and then agreed to pay for his travel costs and the bill for an overnight stay in a hotel.
Would any defendant get this?
Magistrates’ chairman Roger Clarke said: “This has not been an easy decision for the three of us to come to.”

He said it was proven that Perry had exposed himself.

But he added: “You have been consistent throughout that your intent, albeit unacceptable to the average individual in this country, was purely to get a giggle or a laugh. We therefore find you not guilty.”
So, ignorance of the law is no excuse (not that this guy could plead it anyway, with his list of previous convictions) but having a laugh at the law is, at least in this court?

I’m sure that’ll be a great comfort to Paul Chambers
Mr Clarke added: “Obviously this is a case that has caused distress, it has caused alarm, and there may be people in this court room who struggle to know how we came to this decision.”
Not just in the court, you utter buffoon…
Didcot Girls’ School headteacher Rachael Warwick said: “I do not understand how a man who has come into our community and exposed himself to three female students cannot be thought to have intended harm to our young people. The fact that no sentence was given seems to send mixed messages to schools and the community.”
Leaving aside her desire to shoehorn the word ‘community’ into the statement as many times as possible, it’s hard not to agree, isn’t it? Still, perhaps when some outraged father gives this undesirable a bloody good hiding, the mags will let him off if he says he only did it for a giggle?

8 comments:

Woman on a Raft said...

Speaking from his home in Rainow, Macclesfield, Perry said: “I had an illusion that if I made it look accidental it wouldn’t cause distress. That illusion has been shattered.”

Anyway, here's a picture of him. The comments ask why someone having business at RAF Benson manages to change in to running gear for a performance outside a girls' school in Didcot at going-home time.

Robert said...

How about this one?

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/9412664.Banned__Child_porn_pervert_listened_in_at_sex_trial/?ref=mr

Tattyfalarr said...

The courts may well have been mystified as to quite how young schoolgirls these days could possibly be alarmed and/or distressed at the mere sight of a man's genitals, these days.

After all, they're ALL force-fed sex education from an early age, prescribed contraceptives without parental consent, given free condoms and vaccinations against STDs on school premises....aren't they ??

Then they ALL go home to slap on loads of make-up, dress up sexy clothes, down a bottle of cheap vodka and hang around the streets late at night tempting innocent adult men into raping them ....**don't they ??

:|

**So some would have us all believe...

Anonymous said...

That's what you get for charging him with exposure under the sexual offences act 2003.....

NickM said...

Am I the only one who thought he got off with this because he is an "environmental consultant"?

blueknight said...

The problem is that under the 'new' 2003 Act, the flasher has to intend that alarm/distress is caused.
Under the 1847 Town Police Clauses Act, he only needed to be wilful and indecent

Anonymous said...

No NickM, that was my first thought as well. Which Councilor put a word in for him I wonder.

The thing I really hate about being a cynic is how often my worst thoughts turn out to be true :-(

JuliaM said...

"The comments ask why someone having business at RAF Benson manages to change in to running gear for a performance outside a girls' school in Didcot at going-home time."

A damn good question. Why wonders why it never crossed the mags' minds...

"How about this one?"

"... he said he did not accept all of the inferences which were made in court."

So, he accepted some of them? *boggle*

"The courts may well have been mystified as to quite how young schoolgirls these days could possibly be alarmed and/or distressed at the mere sight of a man's genitals..."

I can't help thinking of the schoolgirls on my usual train; it'd be a brave man indeed who attempted to flash them!

"The thing I really hate about being a cynic is how often my worst thoughts turn out to be true :-("

;)