Get away with anything if they dont have breasts!

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by a_nony_mouse, May 23, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. More madness!

    The fact that he filmed the girl with her father, whether interested in her or not, should have been enough to see him punished.

    http://www.harlowstar.co.uk/hertsandessexobserver%2Dnews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=316984
     
  2. Menboobs. MDN has a fetish for menboobs. Especially if the man is in fishnets heels and .... you get the picture.
     
  3. once again the judicial system is more interested in obfuscating the process with pedantic and long winded shadow and smoke play, over the publics need for common sence judgement and justice.

    and the lawyers are laughing all the way to thier offshore bank accounts.
     

  4. This will all have been done on legal aid, so the lawyers will have got f*ck all cash for their work.

    The decision is absolutely right re: the father. If he can be sent down for that, then it means men will have to cover up their chests in public places again. However, the filming of the daughter is worrying. If she was naked at the time then he definitely should have been put in prison.
     
  5. No one should have the right to film a man/woman/child/MDN without permission and whether the child had clothes on or not should be irrelevant, they were in a shower for God's sake!
     
  6. [quote="jew_unit

    This will all have been done on legal aid, so the lawyers will have got f*ck all cash for their work.[/quote]

    Ahahahahahahahaha.

    This was a criminal case, not a civil one. They'll have been paid handsomely enough.
     
  7. Err...you are aware that the only types of case to qualify for legal aid are criminal, family and some civil, right? The crown was prosecuting, so prosecuting counsel will be paid by legal aid. Its concievable that his defense was privately funded, but I sincerely doubt it as defense fees can be very expensive.


    Edited for not thinking.
     
  8. Did you actually read the link? He was convicted, but then appealed and got it quashed on a technicality. So a jury did see it for the perverse act it was. Don't be so quick to blame the judiciary for this, badly written law is more likely the cause.

    OTOH your second para I totally agree with :wink:

    Now back to the booze.
     
  9. However much you dislike what this man did, he can only be tried for the crime/s with which he has been charged. The original conviction was clearly wrong and the appeal completely correct. To acheive the outcome you would have preferred would have required the Crown Prosecution Service to charge him with a crime they could demonstrate that he had committed, so the fault (if any) lies with the CPS.
     
  10. I agree with you, but unfortunately, this would have to be changed:
    "The 2003 Act specifies that private parts must be exposed during the alleged act of voyeurism and Mr Bassett's lawyers argued that the law related only to female breasts."