Guest Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Thanks Dr You have just described the problem perfectly. A parent would go to the school office to collect junior during the school day and all would wait at the normal home time at or inside the gates. Someone that does not collect a child does become "noticed" by the regulars and then action takes place. That I've seen and the cheer was amazing. Al
Puffer Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 OK. Here in the UK one's right to dress in clothing associated with the opposite sex is preserved by law. Moreover, a transexual has rights under both the Gender Recognition Act 2010 and under the Equalities Act 2011. ... I think a couple of decades ago I seem to remember reading that in the UK a guy wearing heels in public (or rather more generally crossdressing) could potentially be classified as "disturbing the peace" which could really be a catch-all for almost anything. That seemed to be stacked in favour of the perpetrator of prejudicial abuse rather than the victim but, as Dr Shoe has already pointed out, thankfully we have things like the Equalities Act to provide more legal protection against discrimination these days. Whilst the legislation referred to by Dr Shoe does indeed protect the UK crossdresser in principle, it is still possible to get into trouble by committing an alleged 'breach of the peace' as suggested by Sleekheels. Almost any form of conduct that is 'disturbing' to ordinary members of the public (even e.g. acting in a loud or ostentatious manner) could fall into this category. (At one time, the wearing of a top hat in the street was considered offensive!) An over-zealous police officer would have little difficulty in taking someone to task for having 'unusual' clothing or appearance if coupled with some mildly anti-social conduct. That is not to say that it would be easy to prove an actual offence had been committed, let alone administer any punishment, but brief detention in the street and a possibly sarcastic lecture is in itself an unwelcome imposition. An obvious (even risible) crossdresser quietly and soberly going about his/her business has very little to fear, but add in a little alcohol or skylarking (or wobbling about on stilettos) and the 'peace' may indeed be dented if not broken. Screaming queens beware!
skirtedvik Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 I am from Eastern Europe and have NEVER seen a woman having problems for wearing male apparel in public,not even once.
Dr. Shoe Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 Whilst the legislation referred to by Dr Shoe does indeed protect the UK crossdresser in principle, it is still possible to get into trouble by committing an alleged 'breach of the peace' as suggested by Sleekheels. Almost any form of conduct that is 'disturbing' to ordinary members of the public (even e.g. acting in a loud or ostentatious manner) could fall into this category. (At one time, the wearing of a top hat in the street was considered offensive!) An over-zealous police officer would have little difficulty in taking someone to task for having 'unusual' clothing or appearance if coupled with some mildly anti-social conduct. Actually, in the olden days, a TV would have been wheeled in just for wearing feminine clothing under the 'breach of the peace' act. However, a person would have to actually commit a 'Breach Of The Peace' for real to be carted in now, and the way the person was dressed should have nothing to do with it. Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects.
Puffer Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 Actually, in the olden days, a TV would have been wheeled in just for wearing feminine clothing under the 'breach of the peace' act. However, a person would have to actually commit a 'Breach Of The Peace' for real to be carted in now, and the way the person was dressed should have nothing to do with it. To clarify, there has never been a 'breach of the peace act', i.e. specific legislation (statute law) along the lines suggested. Committing a 'breach of the peace' (a very wide, amorphous and subjective concept) is an offence at common law. As I think I previously indicated, I agree that something more than mere cross-dressing is required to suggest a breach of the peace and the mode of dress ought to be irrelevant. But anything that draws attention to an individual may (subjectively, albeit unfairly) encourage those charged with upholding the peace to look more closely at conduct and perhaps find an excuse to take action. Discriminatory and unjustified it may well be, but it happens. (And to punks, drunks, foreigners, schoolkids and anyone else who is just a little different or who stands out in a crowd of mediocrity.)
Dr. Shoe Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 This is quite true. A friend of mine is a 'big hairy biker' type (though he doesn't ride a bike). He has loads of tattoos, a mohican haircut an always wears sleeveless tops and ripped denim. A while ago, he was arrested for carrying an offensive weapon. What had happened, his wife had been suffering with depression for quite some time and she got a carving knife out and threatened to stab herself. He managed to get it off her and was taking it round to a neighbour so it was safely out of the way. In the meantime, another neighbour had called the police about the barney and then saw a 18 stone (250lb?) biker type walking around with a long knife! Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects.
Recommended Posts