Yesterday’s news from East Sussex (the old original Sussex, in southern England), a Sussex News story (by Jo Wadsworth) that kicks off with this juicy summary sentence:
A handyman who masturbated over a tenant’s knickers has been acquitted of criminal damage.
The story is pretty much unavoidably raunchy, given the nature of the offense; nobody writes stuff like commit an obscene act these days. The reporter used the technical and punchier masturbated in the intro, I’d imagine because it was compact, but then opted for the euphemistic pleasured himself in the full story, which continues:
Simon Lawrence, 55, had been called to fix a faulty washing machine when he entered Joanna Hatton’s bedroom at the cottage she rented with her partner Thomas Jones.
But he didn’t realise the couple had installed a motion sensor camera there to watch their cat.
The couple were driving to Somerset for Christmas when Joanna got an alert on her phone that the camera had been activated on 19 December, 2022.
She watched in horror as Lawrence laid out her underwear on the bed and began pleasuring himself.
The reporter must have yearned to use the British slang wanked, which is vulgar but what ordinary people say in the UK. But you can’t talk like that in a respectable newspaper (though the tabloids can go pretty far).
But there would be room to veer towards vulgarity in the head; in fact, this is a dream story for an alert headline writer, who while casting about for alternatives to masturbated, to knickers (which is kind of giggly slang but not vulgar, and which doesn’t have to get into the head), and to be acquitted (which is legalese), might hit on the possibility for a somewhat rude pun on ‘masturbate’ vs. ‘be acquitted ‘, via the phrasal verb get off.
Or, of course, a headline writer might go for get off rather than be acquitted just because it’s a bit shorter (writing heads is sometimes like solving a devilishly complicated puzzle), in which case they could come up with the actual Sussex News headline in all innocence (until the laughter rolled in):
The fact that a handyman might be taken to be someone who’s good with his hands is just gravy
Well, yes, he did get off. At or on Joanna Hatton’s knickers. But he also averted punishment.
Lexical notes. From NOAD:
(intransitive) phrasal verb get off: 1 informal escape a punishment; be acquitted: she got off lightly. … 3 [a] informal be excited or aroused by something: he was obviously getting off on the adrenaline of performing before the crowd. [b] North American vulgar slang have an orgasm. 4 British go to sleep, especially after some difficulty: I eventually got off around midnight. …
Sense 1 or sense 3, take your pick.
The rest of the story. I was much taken with the rest of the story, which goes into the case in considerable detail. For your enlightenment and entertainment:
[Lawrence] had become aroused when he saw a pair of Ms Hatton’s knickers on the floor and had got more out of her drawers. Once he had finished, he put the underwear back in the drawer.
Lawrence told the court he thought he had been in private, and had no idea he was on camera.
The court heard the video of him masturbating was later circulated around parents in the area who were concerned he was employed by the primary school, whose garden he had helped construct.
He said: “A lot of my work was based in Sedlescombe [population ca. 1500], with regular customers and that’s all but dried up because of things that have been said around the village.
“It’s possible at the point where I am going to have to sell our house because we can’t live here any more.
“I’m extremely apologetic for what I did.”
Lawrence was initially arrested for burglary, but this charge was not pursued as he had not broken into the cottage, but had permission to be there from the landlady.
He was instead charged with criminal damage, even though no physical damage had been done to the garments.
Prosecuting, David Packer said: “The Crown is relying on the wider definition of criminal damage. Joanna Hatton decided to dispose of her whole underwear drawer as a result of this, which interfered in the enjoyment of her property.”
Defending, Judy Tamony said: “My client thought there was nobody else around. It’s a completely private act, he’s not aware of any TV cameras being in that room.
“There’s no way it can be proved within reasonable doubt that this was foreseeable.
“This is an emotive case because of the distress. He was originally arrested on suspicion of burglary but there’s absolutely no evidence of that. It does seem as though it’s an attempt to deal with this by charging him with an offence which the defence say has not been made out.
“The behaviour was outrageous and can be viewed as reprehensible and he’s already been punished for that because it spread like wildfire through the village and it’s affected his livelihood and reputation.
“But a criminal offence? The evidence just doesn’t add up.”
District judge Tessa Szagun said in cases of criminal damage, the prosecution needed to prove the defendant intended to or was reckless in causing damage to someone else’s property without lawful excuse.
She told Lawrence: “I do not consider that I need to determine whether any damage has been caused to the underwear. The point in question here is whether the prosecution is able to satisfy me so that I am sure on the element of intention or recklessness.
“Whilst this was of course a disturbing and distressing action on your part which has understandably left the complainant feeling violated and repulsed, I cannot be satisfied that this was something that you could have known in the circumstances or foreseen.
“Based on being not sure of the intention or recklessness in this case, I dismiss the matter. You can go.”
And that’s an excellent curtain line.