• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Get away with anything if they dont have breasts!

#1
More madness!

A VOYEUR who secretly filmed another man in the showers at Bishop's Stortford's Grange Paddocks swimming pool has had his conviction quashed - because under the law only women have breasts.

Her four-year-old daughter was also caught on camera naked in the showers in the same incident in April 2005, but the voyeur, 44-year-old former care home worker Kevin Bassett, told his trial jury that it was her father he was interested in filming.
The fact that he filmed the girl with her father, whether interested in her or not, should have been enough to see him punished.

Lord Justice Hughes ruled that a bare-chested man did not come within the statutory definition of the Act.

"This Act didn't mean to refer to the male chest, but only to female breasts. The intention of Parliament was to mean female breasts and not an exposed male chest. The former are still private among 21st-century bathers, the second is not."
http://www.harlowstar.co.uk/hertsandessexobserver-news/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
DrStealth said:
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.

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
jew_unit said:
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.
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!
 
#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
DrStealth said:
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.
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
a_nony_mouse said:
jew_unit said:
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.
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!
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."
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top