Careful where you point your camera - The fun police threaten to strike again.

#2
Oh look, another dirty old man who thinks he’s “funny”...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
#3
Just in case someone want's pictures......
1519119684722.png


Harry.P would be disappointed with Emma
1519119767929.png
 
#4
I thought it was a crime without consent? Nothing stops you taking a few snaps of your girlfriend/wife/friend/a model - with her agreement.
 
#5
Much as I'm always pleased of the occasional flash, intentional or otherwise, in a public place, taking pictures crosses that 'creepy' line. Taking them and sharing them goes way over that line and deserves an arse-kicking.
 
#8
Much as I'm always pleased of the occasional flash, intentional or otherwise, in a public place, taking pictures crosses that 'creepy' line. Taking them and sharing them goes way over that line and deserves an arse-kicking.
Unfortunately there seems to be a number of men who seem to think any women is automatically sexually available to them. Women wise up to this, and sometimes some of us nice guys get hurt by misunderstandings, as women learn about the seedy and primitive drives of some males, and we get tarred with the same brush.

Pictures taken without consent are the issue. Can you imagine someone going around in summer, looking for topless sunbathers, photographing them without asking, and publishing their pictures online? Is that acceptable? If the women agreed and were happy then no such issue arises.
 
Last edited:
#10
Unfortunately there seems to be a number of men who seem to think any women is automatically sexually available for him. Women wise up to this, and sometimes some us nice guys get hurt by misunderstandings, as women learn about the seedy and primitive drives of some males.

Pictures taken without consent are the issue. Can you imagine someone going around in summer, looking for topless sunbathers, photographing them without asking, and publishing their pictures online? Is that acceptable? If the women agreed and were happy then no such issue arises.
While I agree with the concept doesn't the very fact that the women (or bloke) has decided to show the whole passing world their wobbly bits by displaying them in a public area then remove some of that "I didn't mean everyone to see them"?

If you are in private or it is accidental then 100% you have the right to be left alone but when you deliberately decide to show all to the general public then the idea of privacy gets a bit vague.
 
#13
Unfortunately there seems to be a number of men who seem to think any women is automatically sexually available to them. Women wise up to this, and sometimes some us nice guys get hurt by misunderstandings, as women learn about the seedy and primitive drives of some males.

Pictures taken without consent are the issue. Can you imagine someone going around in summer, looking for topless sunbathers, photographing them without asking, and publishing their pictures online? Is that acceptable? If the women agreed and were happy then no such issue arises.
It may be unacceptable to most people but it is not actually illegal.
 
#14
Unfortunately there seems to be a number of men who seem to think any women is automatically sexually available for him. Women wise up to this, and sometimes some us nice guys get hurt by misunderstandings, as women learn about the seedy and primitive drives of some males.

Pictures taken without consent are the issue. Can you imagine someone going around in summer, looking for topless sunbathers, photographing them without asking, and publishing their pictures online? Is that acceptable? If the women agreed and were happy then no such issue arises.
Consent is the issue

In London there are full time upskirt photographers chasing the z list celebs, admittedly a lot of it is staged by consent... i.e. they 'accidentally' get caught by the togs which works well for both partieds
 
#16
What if is was your wife/gf/sister?

Bet the "fun" would soon **** off then.
Peter Dow is more likely to have a wife or girlfriend than our upskirt aficionado, @baldbof.

While I agree with the concept doesn't the very fact that the women (or bloke) has decided to show the whole passing world their wobbly bits by displaying them in a public area then remove some of that "I didn't mean everyone to see them"?

If you are in private or it is accidental then 100% you have the right to be left alone but when you deliberately decide to show all to the general public then the idea of privacy gets a bit vague.
Christ on a bike... if a woman shows a bit of cleavage she is not inviting everybody with a camera phone to fill their wank banks and the wider interweb with images of her chebs.

The very act of wearing a skirt says in itself that anything concealed by it is private and as such... women have a right to go about their business freely without the attentions of @baldbof and his ilk.
 
#17
While I agree with the concept doesn't the very fact that the women (or bloke) has decided to show the whole passing world their wobbly bits by displaying them in a public area then remove some of that "I didn't mean everyone to see them"?

If you are in private or it is accidental then 100% you have the right to be left alone but when you deliberately decide to show all to the general public then the idea of privacy gets a bit vague.
Who decided to show what? What is being referred to is someone taking pics of someone's trolleys without consent. Anyone who 'decides' to show the world their underwear or bare growler & are ok with pics being taken - thats then consenting. Whats the issue?
Some freak trying to sneak pics of some unsuspecting woman is whole different ball game & the issue.
Its particularly an issue where some weird fcuker is trying to take pics of younger women & girls. Who's to know how old the girl is? She may well be below the age of consent which is probably the appeal for some pervs.
 
#18
Sounds fairly sensible to me - the ask is to criminalise 'covert' picture taking, without consent, and generally of a sexual nature i.e. upskirt etc.

Article also explains that existing laws aren't up to par.

It's not going to stop you taking pictures in public places or tourist spots, nor of your consenting partner in the bedroom/outdoors/wherever.

NAAFI: spunk, tits, flange.
 
#19
Why do we need yet another law surely the Police can prosecute under "Outraging public decency" ?
Outraging Public Decency is an offence at Common Law, and as so frankly rather unsuitable for anything other than the bottom of the barrell prosecution.

"At common law it is an offence to do in public any act of a lewd, obscene or disgusting nature which outrages public decency".
You are unlikely to be able to charge harrassment, as that offence requires two courses of conduct which a reasonable person would (or should know) would amount to harrassment as defined in the 1997 Protection from Harrasment Act

The court has already set a high bar for "Public Nuisance", the critial bit being that statute law should be preferrable to common law (which I mentioned above).

At common law it is an offence to (a) do an act not warranted by law; (b) omit to discharge a legal duty if the effect of the omission is to endanger life, health, property, morals, of comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise of enjoyment of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects.

The House of Lords in Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 459 made it clear that this offence should not ordinarily be used where there is a statutory offence covering the relevant conduct.
Nudity in Public - Guidance on handling cases of Naturism | The Crown Prosecution Service

The offence of Voyeurism is at s67 of the Seuxal Offences Act 2003. By the time your are there, you are looking at what was technically referred to as "weird shit land". This is the exposure, voyeurism, sexual penetration of a corpse, intercourse with an animal sort of territory.

In very general, the offence is committed by spying on a person in private for the purpose of sexual gratification.

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and

(b)he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification.
Obviously examples being putting cameras in showers, locker rooms, toilets and all that weirdness.

Doing an overt act in public does not seem to meet that test.

Frankly, I would welcome such an offence. Many years ago I had a tangle with a chap who i suspected was photographing upskirts of ladies using the Millennium bridge. I would have cheerfully punched his lights out and thrown him and his camera in the Thames. Sadly little bits of PACE got in the way, even in my copy with crayon ammendments and pages torn out.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top