Man Banned from Showing any Bare Leg

[cessna152towser]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle2009517.ece
This has stirred up some controversy on kilt/manskirt forums over here in Europe. I can't helping thinking its guys like this who do a lot of harm to our cause, his "kilt" is way too short to be worn regimental, and one has to wonder why he was loitering around near schools. Although he is wearing a skirt rather than a kilt, the worrying thing about this media coverage is that readers could think all kilt wearers are the same, especially those of us who wear non-trad styles and solid colours. Though I can't help but feel a bit sorry for the guy that he feels so sad and lonely that he has a need to loiter around other people's families.

[McClef]

It's hardy an attack on kilts and I expect that any guys hanging around schools, however dressed, would be viewed somewhat suspiciously.

[The Vicar]

The article makes it sound like the fellow could use some help with his style of dress (why a school girl?) and his behavior?

I hope he gets the assistance he needs.

I wouldn't see this as being worrisome to people wearing the kilt but then again I am not where you live and hearing the the fall out.

"V"

[Nighthawk]

That's the thing about cross dressing... it implies some kind of serious emotional disorder. This guy is deffinately disturbed- wearing a knee length lab coat with nothing underneath? That's not regimental- that's public nudity!! The world is full of strange people...

[Rex_Tremende]

Although he is wearing a skirt rather than a kilt, the worrying thing about this media coverage is that readers could think all kilt wearers are the same, especially those of us who wear non-trad styles and solid colours.

I don't know that most people are going to confuse the behavior of one creepy guy with the motivations of men in kilts (and manskirts) or even your run-of-the-mill transvestite. Here was someone who seems to go out of his way to be noticed and to cause a stir. The response of the court reflects this difference in doing what is necessary to limit his interaction with the children, while doing the least to not limit his choice to run about in a frock if that's what he wants. To me this should be seen as a victory for "the cause" (if there is such a thing), not a setback.

In a country where part of its national costume requires showing some leg, I doubt that it will ever come to an all-out ban of kilts. Unfortunately, it's considerably harder to legislate against stupidity.

Regards,
Rex.

[robthehiker]

And the skirt is pleated in the front! Bah!

[JS Sanders]

And this isn't limited to the UK....

I took this photograph at a local Celtic Festival last month. Still can't determine if he's being an intentional caricature, or simply knows no better. Either way, hopefully he left the event knowing more than when he came in.

[beloitpiper]

First, a question: is The Sun a market tabloid? Because that's a terrible article.

Ok, the court shouldn't fine him, they should be get him some psychiatric care. Caring for his elderly mother full time is probably damaging him, and it sounds like he's developed a huge disconnect from the real world.

That being said, I don't think anybody is going to confuse this guy with a kiltie.

[Rogerson785]

There is definitely something wrong with this chap, however until social workers or mental care professionals take the time to speak with him then no one will ever know what his real problem is other than being a full time care giver to his mother.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

There is no doubt that Mr. Trigger isn't, as we say, "the full shilling". And I agree that he does need psychological help. That he had to pay the court 250 GBP is neither here nor there. The terms of his release back into society are, in my experience as a former LEO, appalling.

Is he banned from all school yards? Apparently not. He is instructed to keep away from the school where he was detained by the police only during specific hours, Monday through Friday.

Is he banned from intruding himself into the presence of children? No, at least not as reported by the SUN.

So, dressed as a school girl or wearing nothing but a lab coat and a smile Mr. Trigger is free to roam public parks, hang out at the mall, or go anywhere else children my be present. Why? Because the courts view Mr. Trigger's right to "dress as he pleases" as more important than the potential for physical or psychological harm he may inflict on children.

I'm all for dressing as one pleases, as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses, or potentially molest children.

Or make themselves a target for violent attack.

I worked the West Hollywood Division of the LA Sheriff's Department for six of my ten years on the force. At least once a week I had to respond to an assault on a cross-dressed person. 90% of the time, aside from their mode of dress, they had done nothing to warrant any sort of attack. But attacked they were.

By failing to place Mr. Trigger in protective custody the courts, in this instance, have placed both him and the children they should protect in greater danger. Thirty days of psychological observation would have provided both Mr. Trigger and the community with the kind of service they deserve. But releasing him back into society, under the most lenient of terms, only shows a callous preference for the court to be perceived as politically correct rather than serving the very real needs of the community.

Will this have a knock-on effect in the kilted community? Possibly, especially for those who, kilted, may take their children to school, or collect them after the end of the school day. If, God forbid, Mr. Trigger's future action in the presence of children escalates to predatory behavior, then concerned - nonthinking - parents will draw no distinction between a man in a kilt and a disturbed individual in a dress.