Is it wrong to identify as something you aren’t?

What is the difference between identifying and pretending.

Identifying means that you really think you are what you identify as, and I would expect it to infuse you whole life.

Pretending is just that pretending to be something that you know you are not and only at specific times and in specific cases.

In this case dressing up as a high ranking naval officer at Remembrance parades.

Identifying just means you pretend more and for longer.

I don't think it's possible to legislate for intent. Same applies to sincerity. We can't know what others are thinking, or how far they believe something, and in any case it doesn't matter.

What does matter, and what can have laws to frame it, is how people behave, and the results of that behaviour. So if someone impersonates an admiral and makes money out of it, or pretends to be a doctor and touches someone inappropriately, or dresses as a police officer and (mis)directs traffic they are breaking the law because others are being endangered or otherwise affected, regardless of whether the perpetrators are fully invested in the pretence. The same applies to men in dresses watching young girls in changing rooms - their 'inner feelings' are irrelevant - they should not be there.

While this dangerous criminal is fully investigated we have rapists recruited as police officers as they don't have the time or resources to do all the necessary checks.

We can rest safely in our beds tonight knowing no one is attending Remembrance Parades in a uniform that isn't appropriate.

We can rest safely in our beds tonight knowing no one is attending Remembrance Parades in a uniform that isn't appropriate.

Yes we can because there are no Remembrance Parades at the moment.
He was charged with wearing uniform or dress bearing the mark of His Majesty's Forces without permission and fine of £500, not life imprisonment.

You are missing the point. But it doesn't surprise me that many people cannot see the difference between this and someone who thinks they are a cat.

If it ever comes to conflict here one day I hope you may realise then.

Doodledog- The UK in fact does legislate for INTENT- 'Mens Rea' in criminal law which, in simple terms, means the mental state required for crime, ie to do something "with intent to commit a criminal offence'. There also is a distinction in law between "specific intent" (e.g. intending to kill for murder) or "reckless intent".

If found guilty of a criminal offence the court then interprets the EXTENT of intent to define criminal culpability and sentencing. The courts are bound by the UK's Sentencing Council guidelines which assess intent and looks at factors of planning, victim vulnerability and abuse of trust, and how that impact on the charges. Penalties for 'specific intent' crimes usually lead to harsher sentences.

Jonathan Carley was charged with "wearing uniform bearing the mark of his majesty's forces without permission". No charges and no evidence of danger or harm to the public.

With regards to his INTENT (e.g. why did you do X? being a routine police interview question) -it was recorded in police interview that Carley said he had wanted a sense of "belonging and affirmation".

Comments on this thread indicate some posters view that as an 'excuse' but the question was asked in context of INTENT. What other intent would those posters suggest, based on what evidence? Courts are provided with a copy/transcript of the police interview).

Carley laid a wreath and saluted during the Remembrance Parade "wearing uniform bearing the mark of his majesty's forces without permission".

It seems to me the intent aspect was considered by the District Judge and the sentencing guidelines appropriately applied.

M0nica Tue 06-Jan-26 19:16:00 "I thought the unusual factor in this case is that people who had known Jonathon Carly, when he was a history master at two prestigious private schools and as a rowing coach to an Oxford College all spoke highly and warmly of his abilities and his personality as being warm and pleasant. People who knew him clearly held him in high regard".

Good comment and observation 👏. Defendants lawyers present such background information as a "mitigating factor" to decrease culpability - e.g. remorse, good character, difficult background etc. The prosecution lawyer seeks to present "aggravating factors" to increase culpability - e.g previous convictions, targeting vulnerable victims, domestic context, using drugs/alcohol. The judge, within the sentencing guidelines has the job to weigh mitigating factors against aggravating factors accordingly. The key aggravating factor in this case, which the judge did state, the extent of Carley's disrespect and upset to others.

Allira

^We can rest safely in our beds tonight knowing no one is attending Remembrance Parades in a uniform that isn't appropriate.^

Yes we can because there are no Remembrance Parades at the moment.
He was charged with wearing uniform or dress bearing the mark of His Majesty's Forces without permission and fine of £500, not life imprisonment.

You are missing the point. But it doesn't surprise me that many people cannot see the difference between this and someone who thinks they are a cat.

If it ever comes to conflict here one day I hope you may realise then.

Yes I'm sure our military will let this man wearing a uniform for an hour or two affect their role in future conflict.

You are missing the point that this was a waste of police and court time when they are under tremendous pressure.

You might not realise it but the police frequently don't arrest people when they use their judgement and giving a telling off or whatever they think is appropriate. If they didn't the justice system would collapse. Can you imagine if every one who drives at 31 mph in a 30 zone was prosecuted? How many self-righteous people on here have done that.

Ever sounded your horn while stationary?Should be prosecuted (potential fine of £1000 but how often does it happen), no one should just pay a fine for speeding but should have to go to court, similar with paying a fine for parking. We'd soon see how our legal system can't cope without massive financial input and how many people break the law without a second thought.

I'm struggling to get past the shouting, Lemonjam, but my point is that whereas yes, the man intended to pose as an Admiral (and I do understand how annoying that will be to those who have worked to gain rank when he hasn't), he didn't intend to do anything worse. He didn't commandeer a ship and take it into enemy waters, or anything approaching that. If he had done that, then of course he should be prosecuted and kept from doing it again, but simply going to a parade is not remotely the same order of magnitude.

In wartime, it would also be different.

The strangest aspect of this is that a man recognised that Mr Carley was misrepresenting himself by wearing apparel he wasn’t entitled to wear, claiming to be something he wasn’t and using that to appear on occasions where he wasn’t entitled to
Evidently, Carley, initially offending a man (CPO Terry Stewart) by doing that is more important and worth arresting for than the increasing number of men who upset and disrespect women by doing the same thing.
Eddie Izzard wasn’t arrested. He was encouraged to indulge his fantasy.
One law for males offending males . . .

My intent was to provide some background information in response to your first couple of sentences "
I don't think it's possible to legislate for intent. Same applies to sincerity".

I was not shouting and neither was I criticising your post.

Mollygo

The strangest aspect of this is that a man recognised that Mr Carley was misrepresenting himself by wearing apparel he wasn’t entitled to wear, claiming to be something he wasn’t and using that to appear on occasions where he wasn’t entitled to
Evidently, Carley, initially offending a man (CPO Terry Stewart) by doing that is more important and worth arresting for than the increasing number of men who upset and disrespect women by doing the same thing.
Eddie Izzard wasn’t arrested. He was encouraged to indulge his fantasy.
One law for males offending males . . .

An interesting point.

Yes that is why I was trying to unpick the difference between identifying and pretending, because to me there isn't one.

theworriedwell

Mollygo

The strangest aspect of this is that a man recognised that Mr Carley was misrepresenting himself by wearing apparel he wasn’t entitled to wear, claiming to be something he wasn’t and using that to appear on occasions where he wasn’t entitled to
Evidently, Carley, initially offending a man (CPO Terry Stewart) by doing that is more important and worth arresting for than the increasing number of men who upset and disrespect women by doing the same thing.
Eddie Izzard wasn’t arrested. He was encouraged to indulge his fantasy.
One law for males offending males . . .

An interesting point.

Totally disagree. Anyone can wear any clothing they wish in a general way. Clothing is not gender specific and if a man decides he prefers to wear clothes usually worn by women, why shouldn't he?

The artist Sir Grayson Perry is regularly seen in clothes that send up the concept of gender defined clothes but he is clearly male, addressed as he and has a wife and child, a traditional family unit.

Eddie Izzard is the same. neither of them pretends to be anything they aren't.

Dressing up in order to convince someone you hold/held authority or power by reason of the work you did/do or power given to you, is a completely different matter.

Eddie Izzard uses female spaces and shouts at fenale children who complain when he does.

Galaxy

Eddie Izzard uses female spaces and shouts at fenale children who complain when he does.

Yes but evidently that is less offensive to some people than pretending to be a rear admiral.

M0nica

theworriedwell

Mollygo

The strangest aspect of this is that a man recognised that Mr Carley was misrepresenting himself by wearing apparel he wasn’t entitled to wear, claiming to be something he wasn’t and using that to appear on occasions where he wasn’t entitled to
Evidently, Carley, initially offending a man (CPO Terry Stewart) by doing that is more important and worth arresting for than the increasing number of men who upset and disrespect women by doing the same thing.
Eddie Izzard wasn’t arrested. He was encouraged to indulge his fantasy.
One law for males offending males . . .

An interesting point.

Totally disagree. Anyone can wear any clothing they wish in a general way. Clothing is not gender specific and if a man decides he prefers to wear clothes usually worn by women, why shouldn't he?

The artist Sir Grayson Perry is regularly seen in clothes that send up the concept of gender defined clothes but he is clearly male, addressed as he and has a wife and child, a traditional family unit.

Eddie Izzard is the same. neither of them pretends to be anything they aren't.

Dressing up in order to convince someone you hold/held authority or power by reason of the work you did/do or power given to you, is a completely different matter.

M0nica I don't think those who have no experience of the Armed Services will ever comprehend that it is wrong, unlawful and quite different from someone identifying as a cat.

A man dressing as a woman is not breaking the law, a man threatening women and children by invading their spaces is a whole other issue and needs to be re-addressed and the Equality Act enforced more robustly in such cases.

Mollygo

Galaxy

Eddie Izzard uses female spaces and shouts at fenale children who complain when he does.

Yes but evidently that is less offensive to some people than pretending to be a rear admiral.

Yes but evidently that is less offensive to some people than pretending to be a rear admiral.

That is untrue. No-one has said that.

Galaxy

Eddie Izzard uses female spaces and shouts at fenale children who complain when he does.

In which case he is an offensive person, which I think he would be however he chose to dress or present himself.

Hopefully the new government definition if gender should stop that.

You might not realise it

I probably know a lot more than you worriedwell.
😁

No you’re right Allira, no one has said that.

M0nica

theworriedwell

Mollygo

The strangest aspect of this is that a man recognised that Mr Carley was misrepresenting himself by wearing apparel he wasn’t entitled to wear, claiming to be something he wasn’t and using that to appear on occasions where he wasn’t entitled to
Evidently, Carley, initially offending a man (CPO Terry Stewart) by doing that is more important and worth arresting for than the increasing number of men who upset and disrespect women by doing the same thing.
Eddie Izzard wasn’t arrested. He was encouraged to indulge his fantasy.
One law for males offending males . . .

An interesting point.

Totally disagree. Anyone can wear any clothing they wish in a general way. Clothing is not gender specific and if a man decides he prefers to wear clothes usually worn by women, why shouldn't he?

The artist Sir Grayson Perry is regularly seen in clothes that send up the concept of gender defined clothes but he is clearly male, addressed as he and has a wife and child, a traditional family unit.

Eddie Izzard is the same. neither of them pretends to be anything they aren't.

Dressing up in order to convince someone you hold/held authority or power by reason of the work you did/do or power given to you, is a completely different matter.

The artist Sir Grayson Perry is regularly seen in clothes that send up the concept of gender defined clothes but he is clearly male, addressed as he and has a wife and child, a traditional family unit.

Well I'm grateful that most men wouldn't see this outfit as appropriate dress for the occasion. In my opinion GP is a pervert, an opinion I'm perfectly entitled to hold.

Eddie Izzard maintains he is a 'woman' when it suits and uses female facilities. Another entitled, selfish man.

Allira

^You might not realise it^

I probably know a lot more than you worriedwell.
😁

If you think this was a good use of police and court time I doubt it.

theworriedwell, this gentleman pleaded guilty, and went straight to sentencing. No trial, no time/ money spent on barristers, calling a jury, organising a court date etc.
Trials take time to come to court because of all of the above. This gentleman's brief time before a judge will not have impacted on anyone awaiting a court date.