UK brothers were 'having a laugh' when attacking trans woman, avoid prison

[Quail]

Two brothers from the UK have escaped a prison sentence after they said they were 'having a laugh' when the attacked a trans woman.

Luke and Nathan Statton, 24 and 23, from Bridgwater were handed suspended sentences on 27 January, meaning they will go to prison if they re-offend. The elder will serve eight months in jail, while the younger will get five months.

In March last year, the brothers damaged the victim's property. The Bridgewater Mercury reports how the elder kicked over a sign outside the home, and she came outside to confront them.

After being pushed and punched in the face by the younger Statton, the eldest kicked and stamped on her while she was on the ground.

Judge Eric Salomonsen warned them: ‘I have seen the CCTV of this unprovoked attack. I have no doubt homophobic remarks were used. Luke Statton, you pushed home this assault by kicking and standing on her.

‘If either of you put a foot out of line for the next two years you know what is going to happen.'

In defence of the Stattons, defense lawyer Emma Martin said this was not a homophobic assault, insisting the beating was just a bit of fun.

‘This was an incident of mischief,’ she told the court.

The brothers are said to have known the victim before her transition and lived in the flat above her home.

In total, they will also be ordered to pay £1,500 ($2,500, €1,800) in compensations and costs.

This honestly defied belief. How can a hate crime ever, possibly be described as "an incident of mischief"? If this woman hadn't been trans I imagine the sentences would have been much more severe.

Source.

[Futility Personified]

"Just a bit of fun." So what sounds like pretty serious assault and harassment is recreation? That sounds like carte blanche to treat trans folk as a subspecies. I doubt somehow the tabloids will be over this example of a miscarriage of justice or being "soft on crime". EDIT: Also, Bridgewater is a shitehole.

[Sabot Cat]

So if I were to round up a posse of trans people to "have a laugh" with them, would that not land us in prison or what?

[Brutus]

In defence of the Stattons, defense lawyer Emma Martin said this was not a homophobic assault, insisting the beating was just a bit of fun.

Ugh, fuck you Emma Martin.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Good to know there is still justice in the Queen's England.

The language used by the defense lawyer is utterly repulsive and I think her home address should be figured out and spread. Like wow.

[Craig_J]

Wonder what would happen if one of us were to track them down and kick their heads in for 'a laugh'.

I think there'd be a lot more laughing to keep us entertained whilst we're in prison for a few years.

[Ocean Seal]

What suspended sentences? Not to encourage the prison system, but that's decidedly unfair, they will have to be caught on tape again before they stop torturing this woman.

[Zostrianos]

A total joke. There should be proper hate crime laws passed for this.
In recent years, I've developed a special hatred for those who go after transpeople, especially considering how unjust society is to them, how many murderers got away free with killing transwomen.

[Rosa Partizan]

This is beyond disgusting

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

If the victim had been a woman (ie born, traditional, whatever) then there would have been abject outrage at such a savage and unprovoked attack. My heart goes out to the victim and I hope her fuckhead attackers put 'a foot wrong' soon so they get some kind of punishment (not that it will make a difference; damage already done and it won't change their disgusting attitude to trans women). Just makes me despair that people exist like this and that so little is done about it save a fine and some finger-wagging.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

this is essentially a verdict of "boys will be boys." I don't see how anyone could read this and think that justice was done.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Some concerned citizens might take it upon themselves to find the people in question and their lawyer and vigorously debate with them until they end up in a wheelchair. That would probably scare the local transphobes a bit. I mean, you might say that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[Sam_b]

The language used by the defense lawyer is utterly repulsive and I think her home address should be figured out and spread. Like wow.

The entire so-called 'justice' system in the UK is a complete joke which allows perpetrators of racism and sexual assault to walk free on an almost daily basis - that is, if they even get brought to court in the first place. At the same time, those forced to beg and shoplift to feed themselves and their families get locked up and the key thrown away. The system does not work, and at the heart of it is the idea you can pay whatever amount of money to get a lawyer who's job is not in the meeting out of justice but to get their client the result they pay for.

My point being, this is endemic of a fucked-up system and we're calling for someone's address to be publicly named on the basis on six words which cannot be verified? It says a lot that this is the first reaction rather than us thinking of how we can offer support and solidarity to the trans community and the victim involved if they would want it.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

My point being, this is endemic of a fucked-up system and we're calling for someone's address to be publicly named on the basis on six words which cannot be verified?

Sure, why not? If they are guilty, they deserve the attention. If not, they aren't our concern, being lawyers, and the incident would keep transphobic lawyers and lawyers ready to resort to transphobic rhetoric on their toes.

[Sam_b]

Sure, why not?

Because you haven't asked the trans community or the victim in question what they think of this and doesn't materially change the environment that the 'justice' system works in? Not to mention how bigots can use these things as a rallying-call for their hate.

If they are guilty, they deserve the attention. If not, they aren't our concern, being lawyers, and the incident would keep transphobic lawyers and lawyers ready to resort to transphobic rhetoric on their toes.

You are calling for a lawyer to "end up in a wheelchair" based on six words reported in a news outlet. Forgive me if I find this to be macho posturing for lefty credentials rather than actually doing anything to help the situation.

If not, they aren't our concern, being lawyers

Britain's racist, homophobic and uneven justice system is our concern.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Because you haven't asked the trans community or the victim in question what they think of this and doesn't materially change the environment that the 'justice' system works in? Not to mention how bigots can use these things as a rallying-call for their hate.

Who constitutes the trans community? All trans people, or militant trans people who recognize their oppression and fight to overthrow it? It's the same difference as that between the class-in-itself and -for-itself. And the issue is larger than this one particular victim. As for "rallying calls for hate", that is what all liberal arguments in the queer milieu come down to - "don't do anything so that homophobes and transphobes don't get mad and beat up people". Well they already beat up people. Would you have opposed the battle of Cable Street because it just made the Daily Hail readers mad?

You are calling for a lawyer to "end up in a wheelchair" based on six words reported in a news outlet. Forgive me if I find this to be macho posturing for lefty credentials rather than actually doing anything to help the situation.

It would be macho posturing if I called for individual acts by brave, usually male and able-bodied supermen, not collective action. The thing is, the left used to respond to fascists by kicking their teeth in, burning down their houses etc. Now they debate them on TV if they aren't already cooperating with them - and correspondingly, fascism is on the rise.

Britain's racist, homophobic and uneven justice system is our concern.

But the health of one transphobic petit-bourgeois lawyer is not. And the justice system will not be changed and it will not be reformed as long as capitalism stands. Trans people can't look to the state to protect them.

[Clarion]

A suspended sentence is fairly typical for first offenders convicted of common assault. Gender identity is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, so rather than getting softer sentences because of the transgender status of a victim, it would be treated as an aggravating factor if a transphobic motive can be proven and they would receive a harsher sentences (sometimes markedly so). It is unclear from the article what charge they were found guilty of or what was or was not considered in the judge's ruling handing down sentence. People shouldn't jump to conclusions.

The language used by the defense lawyer is utterly repulsive and I think her home address should be figured out and spread.

A defence lawyer's job is to defend her clients to the best of her ability. That can involve challenging the motive. The paraphrased statement in the article could well have been her speaking in the voice of her client, it is highly unlikely to reflect her belief. Like it or not it's her job to stand up for vile people and to do the most effective job possible. Either you believe everyone has the right to the most robust defence possible or you do not.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

My point being, this is endemic of a fucked-up system and we're calling for someone's address to be publicly named on the basis on six words which cannot be verified? It says a lot that this is the first reaction rather than us thinking of how we can offer support and solidarity to the trans community and the victim involved if they would want it.

Has no one here heard of the phrase setting legal precedence? This is obviously a crap shoot and assuming these are her words (the fact that we are so skeptical and defensive of this woman is pretty shitty IMO) it's really a Freudian slip and seems indicative of how such cases are handled, viewed and treated in the English justice system irrespective of the fact that she's a defense lawyer. Now, this is paving the way for others to "have a laugh," I mean, after all, if its a common social phenomena rather a fucking hate crime then you know "boys will be boys," and get slaps on the wrist and ass for this rather than real punishment. If we are to be fed this garbage of consumerism then we as consumers have every right to use our words in this regard aka public shamming. Public shamming and humiliation is a perfectly reasonable response from society at large to elements of reaction, violence and oppression. As is social ostracization signifying this behavior is unacceptable as is the facilitation and perpetuation of this behavior regardless of what the Queen's courts may say.

It doesn't matter if she was "just doing her job," or if she was mimicking the beliefs or views of her clients as her words validate, facilitate and perpetuate transphobic violence. It's ok to assault a transwoman because apparently nothing of merit will happen to you nor will it be viewed as a hate crime qed its totally ok, it's just shits, giggles and a little assault, come on. Last point, yeah, suppose you're right, even though what I'm saying flows into that what with the whole community showing support of her and her case and outrage at the handling of it and the humiliation of those responsible.

[Sam_b]

Who constitutes the trans community? All trans people, or militant trans people who recognize their oppression and fight to overthrow it? It's the same difference as that between the class-in-itself and -for-itself. And the issue is larger than this one particular victim. As for "rallying calls for hate", that is what all liberal arguments in the queer milieu come down to - "don't do anything so that homophobes and transphobes don't get mad and beat up people". Well they already beat up people. Would you have opposed the battle of Cable Street because it just made the Daily Hail readers mad?

This is pretty fucking lol. Not to particularly call-out at this point, but I highly doubt it's the role of cis people to define what and what isn't the trans community, particularly if they *may* be using this as a reason for calling action without consultation. Secondly, it is particularly foolhardy to equate Cable Street, an all-out mobilisation of defence of the working class community of over 100,000 people; with naming a lawyer on a blog so they can get their windows panned in, and in your words, get them to "end up in a wheelchair". One is an action with working class support, the other is a squadist vengeance attack which is likely to achieve very little in either terms of trans awareness or support.

It would be macho posturing if I called for individual acts by brave, usually male and able-bodied supermen, not collective action. The thing is, the left used to respond to fascists by kicking their teeth in, burning down their houses etc. Now they debate them on TV if they aren't already cooperating with them - and correspondingly, fascism is on the rise.

1. This is not a case of fascism in action;
2. Fascism is not on the rise in the UK, which I'd assume you are referring to given the context of this case;
3. Give me some sources about antifas burning down people's houses. We should be out to defend the streets but again there is a difference between squadism and collective action. If antifa people were burning down the houses of fascists this is fucking stupid for a whole unmber of reasons.

But the health of one transphobic petit-bourgeois lawyer is not.

Again, making assumptions based on six words which have not been verified; but yes I broadly agree. This does not, however, stop your proposal from being stupid.

And the justice system will not be changed and it will not be reformed as long as capitalism stands

Agreed. So you calling out antifa to go and paralyse a woman isn't going to change so much, is it? Maybe apart from making you feel better that you've done something. The class will invariably see this another way.

[PhoenixAsh]

Has no one here heard of the phrase setting legal precedence? This is obviously a crap shoot and assuming these are her words (the fact that we are so skeptical and defensive of this woman is pretty shitty IMO) it's really a Freudian slip and seems indicative of how such cases are handled, viewed and treated in the English justice system irrespective of the fact that she's a defense lawyer. Now, this is paving the way for others to "have a laugh," I mean, after all, if its a common social phenomena rather a fucking hate crime then you know "boys will be boys," and get slaps on the wrist and ass for this rather than real punishment. If we are to be fed this garbage of consumerism then we as consumers have every right to use our words in this regard aka public shamming. Public shamming and humiliation is a perfectly reasonable response from society at large to elements of reaction, violence and oppression. As is social ostracization signifying this behavior is unacceptable as is the facilitation and perpetuation of this behavior regardless of what the Queen's courts may say.

It doesn't matter if she was "just doing her job," or if she was mimicking the beliefs or views of her clients as her words validate, facilitate and perpetuate transphobic violence. It's ok to assault a transwoman because apparently nothing of merit will happen to you nor will it be viewed as a hate crime qed its totally ok, it's just shits, giggles and a little assault, come on. Last point, yeah, suppose you're right, even though what I'm saying flows into that what with the whole community showing support of her and her case and outrage at the handling of it and the humiliation of those responsible.

Precedent is not set by the lawyer but by the judge. The lawyer can argue all they want but it is ultimately the judge who decides whether to credit an argument with a legal status.

I seriously do not understand why we are focusing solely on the lawyer rather than on the judge who made the ruling when he stated that he had no doubt trans-phobic remarks were made.

Now...a little in depth research (you know..googling) revealed the following...ad I am not going to be winning any popularity contests here by pointing it out:

The argument that "they were having a laugh" was used by one of the defendant (I believe Luke) when revering to kicking over the sign and that they did not single out the victim because of her gender/sexuality. The lawyer argued that any suggestion of hostility towards sexuality was not true and added: “This was an incident of mischief.

So what we have here is once again a shining example of under information though the press.

After kicking over the sign CCTV showed that the victim apparently came out of her house and confronted (and it was said in some articles that she tried to hit one of the assholes but missed) them after which she was pushed and hit and she was severely beaten up.

Since no mention was made in the article that there was a history of these hooligans to harass the women we are assuming that it was a hate crime simply because we are talking about a trans woman. What you are forgetting is that that needs to be established legally.

I am definitively not arguing it wasn't a hate crime...but sine we lack information...we have no real clue whether or not the guys kicked over the sign because the woman who lived there was trans gender. That is only heavily suggested without substantiation by the way the article is written.

But before it can with certainty be said that it was...we need both more information and it needs to be legally established that that was the most likely reason and intent.

And in establishing whether or not it wasn't it is entirely logical for a defense lawyer to argue that it wasn't. And that isn't necessarily trans-phobic or intentionally enabling trans-phobia.

Now all what I said here can be immediately changed when there is evidence that they have either a history of harassing the victim or when trial excerpts or briefs are published.

Until that moment it is best to focus on the system rather than on any single individual lawyer through a quote in a news paper article....without knowing the entire story.