We have permission
There are developments.
I don’t think the court did “sentence Sally Anne Dixon as a woman.” I don’t think that’s a thing. They sentenced Dixon under that name, but I doubt they attached “azza woman” or “ut femina” to the sentence. They sentenced this Dixon who currently calls himself a woman.
Anyway. It may be that Sussex Police were inspired to withdraw some of the Twitter insults by a Tory MP [and Home Secretary].
Even Tories are right some of the time.
Convicted sex offenders should be barred from changing their names. The courts, the police, and the public have a right to keep tabs on registered sex offenders. The offenders should not be able to avoid scrutiny or fly under the radar by having new names.
Braverman is more than just a Tory MP, She is the Home Secretary, which means she is in charge of the Home Office, the govt department that oversees policing. The rough equivalent of Merrick Garland in the US system, though there isn’t an exact match, as we have a separate attorney general position in the cabinet, which Braverman has also held I believe, and a separate department for the courts and prison system called the ministry of justice.
Thanks; added. I knew that but neglected to say it: sloppy.
When Dixon is in “boy-mode” he’s a rapist. But in prison he’s in “girl-mode” and he becomes a simpering, butt-ugly “lesbian.” (Who could go into “boy-mode” at any second.) [This is SCIENCE.]
That’s actually a good outcome. I hope that the twit who sent those appalling tweets gets his or her official Twitter (and other social media) duties removed.
This is how I understand the system which pertains over here in the British Isles (the Irish system being very similar to that in the UK).
The police are supposed to uphold the law with the consent of the rest of the public; not make it up as they go along, and try to enforce ideology on us.
Creation of the law is the job of our elected representatives, and the scope of a law is tested in courts and established through precedent.
Enforcement of the law is the job of the courts. The police are only supposed to bring those suspected of law breaking to the attention of the courts; arrests are only supposed to be made when there is evidence that supports the notion that a particular person has broken a law which is serious, and are at risk of immediate re-offending. Otherwise, they are served with a summons to appear in court on a future date.
Expressing lawful views on social media, or anywhere else, is not within the purview of the police. Telling people not to tell the truth, especially as a response to a representative of the police lying, is so far beyond police duties as to most likely constitute an offence in itself.
Also, the child abusing piece of shit was at the time, and still is, a man. At no time has he ever been a woman.
The writer(s) of the new statement is/are still obfuscating the facts, by composing a timeline which could equally be interpreted to mean that Dixon is a woman who ‘identified as’ a man at the time of the offences, which is the exact opposite of the truth.
I hope that it gets re-written, without the ideological distortion.
I wonder how it would play out if a person who has recently converted to a particular religion, and then got convicted of a historic, but considerably bad crime, had their religious faith associated with their new identity in a headline ?
It could almost look like an exhibition of racial bias…
Unless there are sentencing differences between men and women for a given crime, what could it even MEAN to sentence this person “as a woman”?
Dude, I’m guessing that just means he called himself a woman when he was sentenced. I don’t see why it would mean more than that. But he does get to go to women’s prison and have all sorts of possible targets.