https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rl45jmv7o
A man has been given a community order after being convicted in a first- of-its-kind sex-based harassment prosecution brought by the British Transport Police (BTP).
David Stroud grabbed a woman's hair and asked if he could kiss her on an evening train to London from Hastings, East Sussex.
He was arrested two days after a new law banning harassment motivated by
a person's sex came into force on 1 April.
On 2026-06-09, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rl45jmv7o
A man has been given a community order after being convicted in a first-
of-its-kind sex-based harassment prosecution brought by the British
Transport Police (BTP).
David Stroud grabbed a woman's hair and asked if he could kiss her on an
evening train to London from Hastings, East Sussex.
He was arrested two days after a new law banning harassment motivated by
a person's sex came into force on 1 April.
Because the maximum for "common assault and battery" is 6 months,
and the maximum for this new law is 2 years?
The "new law" is basically a sentencing uplift for the existing
Public Order Act s4A "intentional harassment, alarm or distress",
which requires "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,
or disorderly behaviour". So you don't need to assault the victim to
be guilty of it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/47 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rl45jmv7o
A man has been given a community order after being convicted in a first- of-its-kind sex-based harassment prosecution brought by the British
Transport Police (BTP).
David Stroud grabbed a woman's hair and asked if he could kiss her on an evening train to London from Hastings, East Sussex.
He was arrested two days after a new law banning harassment motivated by
a person's sex came into force on 1 April.
On 2026-06-09, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rl45jmv7o
A man has been given a community order after being convicted in a
first-
of-its-kind sex-based harassment prosecution brought by the British
Transport Police (BTP).
David Stroud grabbed a woman's hair and asked if he could kiss her on
an evening train to London from Hastings, East Sussex.
He was arrested two days after a new law banning harassment motivated
by a person's sex came into force on 1 April.
Because the maximum for "common assault and battery" is 6 months, and
the maximum for this new law is 2 years?
The "new law" is basically a sentencing uplift for the existing Public
Order Act s4A "intentional harassment, alarm or distress", which
requires "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,
or disorderly behaviour". So you don't need to assault the victim to be guilty of it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/47 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
On 09/06/2026 18:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rl45jmv7o
A man has been given a community order after being convicted in a first- >>> of-its-kind sex-based harassment prosecution brought by the British
Transport Police (BTP).
David Stroud grabbed a woman's hair and asked if he could kiss her on an >>> evening train to London from Hastings, East Sussex.
He was arrested two days after a new law banning harassment motivated by >>> a person's sex came into force on 1 April.
Because the maximum for "common assault and battery" is 6 months,
and the maximum for this new law is 2 years?
The "new law" is basically a sentencing uplift for the existing
Public Order Act s4A "intentional harassment, alarm or distress",
which requires "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,
or disorderly behaviour". So you don't need to assault the victim to
be guilty of it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/47
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
Good answer.
At first glance, "motivated by a person's sex" is rather vague and unsatisfactory. Probably up to the jury to decide. If a man assaults
another man, I wonder how the court establishes whether the assault was "because of" the victim's sex.
But I think it might well cover the harassment of trans people by those
who firmly believe that they are disgusting and deserving of
intimidation. And obviously harassment fall far short of assault.
The wording is
(1)A person (A) is guilty of an offence under this section ifrCo
(a)A commits an offence under section 4A (intentional harassment, alarm
or distress), and
(b)A carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) because of the relevant personrCOs sex (or presumed sex).
(2)In subsection (1)rCo
rCLpresumedrCY means presumed by A;
rCLthe relevant personrCY means the person to whom A intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
On 9 Jun 2026 at 15:07:02 BST, "Jethro" <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rl45jmv7o
A man has been given a community order after being convicted in a first-
of-its-kind sex-based harassment prosecution brought by the British
Transport Police (BTP).
David Stroud grabbed a woman's hair and asked if he could kiss her on an
evening train to London from Hastings, East Sussex.
He was arrested two days after a new law banning harassment motivated by
a person's sex came into force on 1 April.
If it was just common assault he would probably have been bound over with no actual penalty. The offence he was charged with is more serious.
On 09/06/2026 18:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rl45jmv7o
A man has been given a community order after being convicted in a first- >>> of-its-kind sex-based harassment prosecution brought by the British
Transport Police (BTP).
David Stroud grabbed a woman's hair and asked if he could kiss her on an >>> evening train to London from Hastings, East Sussex.
He was arrested two days after a new law banning harassment motivated by >>> a person's sex came into force on 1 April.
Because the maximum for "common assault and battery" is 6 months,
and the maximum for this new law is 2 years?
The "new law" is basically a sentencing uplift for the existing
Public Order Act s4A "intentional harassment, alarm or distress",
which requires "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,
or disorderly behaviour". So you don't need to assault the victim to
be guilty of it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/47
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
Good answer.
At first glance, "motivated by a person's sex" is rather vague and unsatisfactory. Probably up to the jury to decide. If a man assaults
another man, I wonder how the court establishes whether the assault was "because of" the victim's sex.
But I think it might well cover the harassment of trans people by those
who firmly believe that they are disgusting and deserving of
intimidation. And obviously harassment fall far short of assault.
The wording is
(1)A person (A) is guilty of an offence under this section ifrCo
(a)A commits an offence under section 4A (intentional harassment, alarm
or distress), and
(b)A carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) because of the relevant personrCOs sex (or presumed sex).
(2)In subsection (1)rCo
-a-a-a rCLpresumedrCY means presumed by A;
-a-a-a rCLthe relevant personrCY means the person to whom A intended to cause
harassment, alarm or distress.
On 09/06/2026 18:33, The Todal wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rl45jmv7o
A man has been given a community order after being convicted in a first- >>>> of-its-kind sex-based harassment prosecution brought by the British
Transport Police (BTP).
David Stroud grabbed a woman's hair and asked if he could kiss her on an >>>> evening train to London from Hastings, East Sussex.
He was arrested two days after a new law banning harassment motivated by >>>> a person's sex came into force on 1 April.
Because the maximum for "common assault and battery" is 6 months,
and the maximum for this new law is 2 years?
The "new law" is basically a sentencing uplift for the existing
Public Order Act s4A "intentional harassment, alarm or distress",
which requires "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,
or disorderly behaviour". So you don't need to assault the victim to
be guilty of it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/47
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
Good answer.
At first glance, "motivated by a person's sex" is rather vague and
unsatisfactory. Probably up to the jury to decide. If a man assaults
another man, I wonder how the court establishes whether the assault was
"because of" the victim's sex.
But I think it might well cover the harassment of trans people by those
who firmly believe that they are disgusting and deserving of
intimidation. And obviously harassment fall far short of assault.
The wording is
(1)A person (A) is guilty of an offence under this section ifrCo
(a)A commits an offence under section 4A (intentional harassment, alarm
or distress), and
(b)A carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) because of the
relevant personrCOs sex (or presumed sex).
(2)In subsection (1)rCo
-a-a-a rCLpresumedrCY means presumed by A;
-a-a-a rCLthe relevant personrCY means the person to whom A intended to cause
harassment, alarm or distress.
OK. So what is the "presumed sex" of a trans woman (or man)?
On 09/06/2026 18:33, The Todal wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rl45jmv7o
A man has been given a community order after being convicted in a first- >>>> of-its-kind sex-based harassment prosecution brought by the British
Transport Police (BTP).
David Stroud grabbed a woman's hair and asked if he could kiss her on an >>>> evening train to London from Hastings, East Sussex.
He was arrested two days after a new law banning harassment motivated by >>>> a person's sex came into force on 1 April.
Because the maximum for "common assault and battery" is 6 months,
and the maximum for this new law is 2 years?
The "new law" is basically a sentencing uplift for the existing
Public Order Act s4A "intentional harassment, alarm or distress",
which requires "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,
or disorderly behaviour". So you don't need to assault the victim to
be guilty of it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/47
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
Good answer.
At first glance, "motivated by a person's sex" is rather vague and
unsatisfactory. Probably up to the jury to decide. If a man assaults
another man, I wonder how the court establishes whether the assault was
"because of" the victim's sex.
But I think it might well cover the harassment of trans people by those
who firmly believe that they are disgusting and deserving of
intimidation. And obviously harassment fall far short of assault.
The wording is
(1)A person (A) is guilty of an offence under this section ifrCo
(a)A commits an offence under section 4A (intentional harassment, alarm
or distress), and
(b)A carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) because of the
relevant personrCOs sex (or presumed sex).
(2)In subsection (1)rCo
rCLpresumedrCY means presumed by A;
rCLthe relevant personrCY means the person to whom A intended to cause >> harassment, alarm or distress.
OK. So what is the "presumed sex" of a trans woman (or man)?
On 2026-06-10, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:33, The Todal wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rl45jmv7o
A man has been given a community order after being convicted in a first- >>>>> of-its-kind sex-based harassment prosecution brought by the British
Transport Police (BTP).
David Stroud grabbed a woman's hair and asked if he could kiss her on an >>>>> evening train to London from Hastings, East Sussex.
He was arrested two days after a new law banning harassment motivated by >>>>> a person's sex came into force on 1 April.
Because the maximum for "common assault and battery" is 6 months,
and the maximum for this new law is 2 years?
The "new law" is basically a sentencing uplift for the existing
Public Order Act s4A "intentional harassment, alarm or distress",
which requires "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,
or disorderly behaviour". So you don't need to assault the victim to
be guilty of it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/47
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
Good answer.
At first glance, "motivated by a person's sex" is rather vague and
unsatisfactory. Probably up to the jury to decide. If a man assaults
another man, I wonder how the court establishes whether the assault was
"because of" the victim's sex.
But I think it might well cover the harassment of trans people by those
who firmly believe that they are disgusting and deserving of
intimidation. And obviously harassment fall far short of assault.
The wording is
(1)A person (A) is guilty of an offence under this section ifrCo
(a)A commits an offence under section 4A (intentional harassment, alarm
or distress), and
(b)A carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) because of the >>> relevant personrCOs sex (or presumed sex).
(2)In subsection (1)rCo
rCLpresumedrCY means presumed by A;
rCLthe relevant personrCY means the person to whom A intended to cause >>> harassment, alarm or distress.
OK. So what is the "presumed sex" of a trans woman (or man)?
It doesn't matter, that's the good bit. If someone is harassing someone because they think they're trans, then they are doing so because of what
they presume their sex is, regardless of what they presume it to be, or whether they are correct, or what they think "sex" means.
On 10 Jun 2026 at 13:51:57 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:33, The Todal wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rl45jmv7o
A man has been given a community order after being convicted in a first- >>>>> of-its-kind sex-based harassment prosecution brought by the British
Transport Police (BTP).
David Stroud grabbed a woman's hair and asked if he could kiss her on an >>>>> evening train to London from Hastings, East Sussex.
He was arrested two days after a new law banning harassment motivated by >>>>> a person's sex came into force on 1 April.
Because the maximum for "common assault and battery" is 6 months,
and the maximum for this new law is 2 years?
The "new law" is basically a sentencing uplift for the existing
Public Order Act s4A "intentional harassment, alarm or distress",
which requires "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour,
or disorderly behaviour". So you don't need to assault the victim to
be guilty of it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/47
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
Good answer.
At first glance, "motivated by a person's sex" is rather vague and
unsatisfactory. Probably up to the jury to decide. If a man assaults
another man, I wonder how the court establishes whether the assault was
"because of" the victim's sex.
But I think it might well cover the harassment of trans people by those
who firmly believe that they are disgusting and deserving of
intimidation. And obviously harassment fall far short of assault.
The wording is
(1)A person (A) is guilty of an offence under this section ifrCo
(a)A commits an offence under section 4A (intentional harassment, alarm
or distress), and
(b)A carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) because of the >>> relevant personrCOs sex (or presumed sex).
(2)In subsection (1)rCo
rCLpresumedrCY means presumed by A;
rCLthe relevant personrCY means the person to whom A intended to cause
harassment, alarm or distress.
OK. So what is the "presumed sex" of a trans woman (or man)?
It tells you in the bit you are replying to, it is whatever sex the offender presumed his victim to be.
On 09/06/2026 19:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Jun 2026 at 15:07:02 BST, "Jethro" <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rl45jmv7o
A man has been given a community order after being convicted in a first- >>> of-its-kind sex-based harassment prosecution brought by the British
Transport Police (BTP).
David Stroud grabbed a woman's hair and asked if he could kiss her on an >>> evening train to London from Hastings, East Sussex.
He was arrested two days after a new law banning harassment motivated by >>> a person's sex came into force on 1 April.
If it was just common assault he would probably have been bound over with no >> actual penalty. The offence he was charged with is more serious.
Why? (Being assaulted must be pretty bad.)
On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 13:53:28 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 19:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Jun 2026 at 15:07:02 BST, "Jethro" <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote: >>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rl45jmv7o
A man has been given a community order after being convicted in a first- >>>> of-its-kind sex-based harassment prosecution brought by the British
Transport Police (BTP).
David Stroud grabbed a woman's hair and asked if he could kiss her on an >>>> evening train to London from Hastings, East Sussex.
He was arrested two days after a new law banning harassment motivated by >>>> a person's sex came into force on 1 April.
If it was just common assault he would probably have been bound over with no
actual penalty. The offence he was charged with is more serious.
Why? (Being assaulted must be pretty bad.)
Assault can be pretty trivial, depending on the nature of the act. Even a gentle touch can be assault. In fact, assault doesn't even need contact at all.
Mark
On 11/06/2026 11:47, Max Demian wrote:
How about making fun of someone because they are an unconvincing
transsexual, like the David Walliams character in Little Britain?
I suppose that can't be broadcast ever again.
On 11/06/2026 00:21, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Jun 2026 at 18:20:10 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
On 10/06/2026 14:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Jun 2026 at 13:51:57 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:33, The Todal wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rl45jmv7o
A man has been given a community order after being convicted in a first-
of-its-kind sex-based harassment prosecution brought by the British >>>>>>>> Transport Police (BTP).
David Stroud grabbed a woman's hair and asked if he could kiss her on an
evening train to London from Hastings, East Sussex.
He was arrested two days after a new law banning harassment motivated by
a person's sex came into force on 1 April.
Because the maximum for "common assault and battery" is 6 months, >>>>>>> and the maximum for this new law is 2 years?
The "new law" is basically a sentencing uplift for the existing
Public Order Act s4A "intentional harassment, alarm or distress", >>>>>>> which requires "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, >>>>>>> or disorderly behaviour". So you don't need to assault the victim to >>>>>>> be guilty of it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/47
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
Good answer.
At first glance, "motivated by a person's sex" is rather vague and >>>>>> unsatisfactory. Probably up to the jury to decide. If a man assaults >>>>>> another man, I wonder how the court establishes whether the assault was >>>>>> "because of" the victim's sex.
But I think it might well cover the harassment of trans people by those >>>>>> who firmly believe that they are disgusting and deserving of
intimidation. And obviously harassment fall far short of assault.
The wording is
(1)A person (A) is guilty of an offence under this section ifrCo
(a)A commits an offence under section 4A (intentional harassment, alarm >>>>>> or distress), and
(b)A carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) because of the >>>>>> relevant personrCOs sex (or presumed sex).
(2)In subsection (1)rCo
rCLpresumedrCY means presumed by A;
rCLthe relevant personrCY means the person to whom A intended to cause
harassment, alarm or distress.
OK. So what is the "presumed sex" of a trans woman (or man)?
It tells you in the bit you are replying to, it is whatever sex the offender
presumed his victim to be.
What if I "presume" that a trans woman is female? Isn't that what <they> >>> want?
I don't go around "presuming" people's sex; I don't even know what that
means.
If you insult them because you like insulting women (as many men appear to do)
and you presume they are woman then you can be found guilty. In real life, the
nature of your presumption will probably be inferred from what body parts you
refer to while insulting them. Unless you can convince the magistrate that >> your routinely comment on men's arses you will probably be found guilty.
Perhaps if you knew they were a trans-identifying man you might have a defence
that you knew perfectly well they were a man and were just being sarcastic. >> You would then be insulting them because of their gender-expression choices >> *not* because of their sex. I think this would be a good defence, perhaps
others differ.
How about making fun of someone because they are an unconvincing
transsexual, like the David Walliams character in Little Britain?
On 10 Jun 2026 at 14:13:31 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-06-10, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:33, The Todal wrote:
On 09/06/2026 18:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-06-09, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8rl45jmv7o
A man has been given a community order after being convicted in a first- >>>>>> of-its-kind sex-based harassment prosecution brought by the British >>>>>> Transport Police (BTP).
David Stroud grabbed a woman's hair and asked if he could kiss her on an >>>>>> evening train to London from Hastings, East Sussex.
He was arrested two days after a new law banning harassment motivated by >>>>>> a person's sex came into force on 1 April.
Because the maximum for "common assault and battery" is 6 months,
and the maximum for this new law is 2 years?
The "new law" is basically a sentencing uplift for the existing
Public Order Act s4A "intentional harassment, alarm or distress",
which requires "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, >>>>> or disorderly behaviour". So you don't need to assault the victim to >>>>> be guilty of it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/47
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
Good answer.
At first glance, "motivated by a person's sex" is rather vague and
unsatisfactory. Probably up to the jury to decide. If a man assaults
another man, I wonder how the court establishes whether the assault was >>>> "because of" the victim's sex.
But I think it might well cover the harassment of trans people by those >>>> who firmly believe that they are disgusting and deserving of
intimidation. And obviously harassment fall far short of assault.
The wording is
(1)A person (A) is guilty of an offence under this section ifrCo
(a)A commits an offence under section 4A (intentional harassment, alarm >>>> or distress), and
(b)A carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) because of the >>>> relevant personrCOs sex (or presumed sex).
(2)In subsection (1)rCo
rCLpresumedrCY means presumed by A;
rCLthe relevant personrCY means the person to whom A intended to cause
harassment, alarm or distress.
OK. So what is the "presumed sex" of a trans woman (or man)?
It doesn't matter, that's the good bit. If someone is harassing someone
because they think they're trans, then they are doing so because of what
they presume their sex is, regardless of what they presume it to be, or
whether they are correct, or what they think "sex" means.
I am not sure I agree with you. They are not assaulting the individual because
he is a man, but because of some aspect of his presentation or behaviour which
they don't think is appropriate for a man.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 69 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 27:48:17 |
| Calls: | 899 |
| Files: | 1,320 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (12,347K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,593 |