A trans activist grabbed a man’s testicles and squeezed them during a row at a women’s rights rally in Brighton.
Craig Thomas, 50, joined a protest against the Let Women Speak event in Victoria Gardens on September 18 last year.
Today, he was fined £100 by Brighton magistrates after pleading guilty to assaulting Oliver Waterhouse.
Two charges of possessing blades – two kitchen knives – were discontinued.
The court heard Mr Waterhouse, a sound engineer, had been arguing with Thomas before the attack, using a megaphone to call him a fascist.
Prosecuting, Melanie Wootton said: “There seemed to be some animosity between both sides of the demo, those for and those against.
“The police were also in attendance.
“During the course of the demonstration Mr Thomas became aggressive towards Mr Waterhouse.
“There was an exchange of views. Both seemed to be antagonistic to each other.
“At that point, Mr Thomas grabbed the victim’s testicles and squeezed and pressed them.
“Mr Waterhouse described the pain as excruciating. He fell to the ground and the man walked away.”
In a victim impact statement read out in court, Mr Waterhouse said: “As a result of being punched in my testicles, I haven’t been able to work.
“My position as a sound engineer has been taken away from me and gone to someone else and I won’t be able to get it back.
“I have nightmares and I’m not able to sleep well as I’m constantly thinking about whether I will be able to have children in the future.”
Defending, Oliver Mackrell said Mr Thomas, of Compton Road, Brighton, had been living in homeless accommodation when the attack happened, having lost his job as a chef during the pandemic.
He was suffering from depression and other issues, which had affected how he acted that day.
Mr Mackrell said: “This would have been a painful experience, there’s no question of that.
“But it would have been of a short period of time. There’s no medical evidence to support there being any other injuries.
“Mr Thomas admitted the offence in interview and apologised. This was out of character. He has no record of violence.”
Chair of the bench Eve Vamvas told Thomas: “The assault took place for a very short period of time and even the aggrieved said it was more of a punch with no visible injury.
“We have heard you have been very remorseful and we have decided to find you as that’s the best way forward.”
As well as the £100 fine, Thomas was ordered to pay compensation of £75, a victim surcharge of £48 and court costs of £85, bringing the total amount he had to pay to £328.
Thomas, wearing check trousers, a check tie, grey jacket and white shirt, told magistrates he was able to pay £50 a month.
Two more people, a 19-year-old woman and a 20-year-old man, were arrested at the demo, and Sussex Police later said they were investigating further alleged offences caught on camera.
The two people arrested remain released under investigation, and the investigation into a public order offence – throwing glitter – continues.
Isn’t this article a little confused? Everything else I have read on this incident has suggested that this man wasn’t a “trans activist” as the headline says at all? That he was a troubled chap who came along and initially stood WITH the trans activists, but when Keen started to speak moved to the ANTI trans activists and was on that side which was why the pro trans fella called him a facist, which led to the Anti trans fella squeezing the plums of the pro trans fella. I’m making light of it, but I really don’t think it’s good unbiased journalism to label Thomas a “trans activist” when he was on the other side and in fact injured a trans activist. Even if he was pro-trans, which seems unlikely given he immediately switched to the other side when Keen spoke, there’s no evidence I have seen that he was an ‘activist’ of any kind, rather just a bloke with some difficulties in life who came along to a protest not really knowing what the issue was and ended up assaulting someone. An activist doesn’t switch sides on a whim, someone who has no idea what day it is let alone what the issue is switch sides.
Perhaps I have this wrong, but this article seems to lay out the events very differently to both the Argus and the Daily Mail so either they, or the B&H news are obviously confused.