I don't get this, if I was a sun reporter and I filmed Gordon Brown having sex with a secret girlfriend isn't that voyeurism? You do not here of papparazi getting done for this. It is a bloody double standard. I'm not defending the bloke, it was foolish but I think prison/sex offenders register is harsh.
Chat Forum
[closed]
Be careful what you film!
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
GrahamS - Member
Immoral, yes. Criminal, yes. Sex offender... nah
Seems to me that we need a Sex Offenders League Table, rather than a simple list.
There is talk of this.
Basically it is well known that criminalising people makes them more likely to commit crimes in the future as they are now effectively cut off from normal society. Being on the sex offenders register will make it tough for this guy to rehabilitate himself effectively.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Interesting one and I'll bet there'll be a load of people hurredly hiding/destroying all sorts of secretly recorded stuff when they hear about this case...
What he did was clearly immoral and illegal and as such a punishment is perfectly reasonable. What I am suprised at and don't agree with is the severity of the punishment - it does seem overly harsh to me on the face of it though this is dependent on a few things - eg that he didn't ever intend to use the videos to blackmail/etc or to publish further and also that what was videoed wasn't in some way played out as a performance specific to the fact that it was being filmed - maybe consensual but manipulated into?
Obviously we only ever hear the bare bones of the case in the reporting - maybe there is more to it than we know.
Posted 2 years ago # -
so yes, you did blame the GF, even if you did start with "well, it may not have been morally right"
That's like saying having your house burgled is your fault for leaving the door open or getting raped is your fault for the way you dressed. Or indeed the fault of a crime lies with the one who reported it.
No, I think you've kinda missed the point. It was his current GF who took the video to see the ex. The ex had no knowledge until she took it round;
Question a few things (I'm open minded and willing to give the benefit of the doubt here):
1) Why did she take it around, think about the mentality of that - I've found my boyfriends ex's on tape, I know what I'll do - I'll go and ask if they consented to it. Or "I'm jealous he has vids of her, I'll see if I can stir up trouble".
2) The videos were in the loft, boxed, gone. Found by current GF, not being watched, actively in his DVD player. How many of us here would take their partner to the police if they found their partner was taping them for fun? I know I wouldn't, I'd be amused and possibly flattered. But there's no suggestion that he was hoarding them and using them for years after being with them etc.
3) If you found videos of your other half with ex's, is the first thing that comes to mind "go and find the ex to ask if it was consensual"?I know I'm playing devils advocate here but:
Clearly it was morally borderline, and obviously the judge/lawyers have found a law to catch it under (for all we know he may be well known to them but nothing proven until now) making it illegal, but the punishment is well OTT and you have to question the motives of the person reporting it, without which the crime would have been "victimless". I recognise your gym/changing room analogy but I don't agree with it entirely, I think there are some subtle differences. This begs the same questions as the CCTV arguments always do though, why do you care if someone is filming you especially if you agreed to do the act in front of the person who's fimed it?
Ultimately, while it's a bit grim when you know about it, if someone finds me that attractive that they want to watch me getting undressed in the evening then so long as I don't find out and it doesn't get spread round the internet they can do what the hell they like. It's had no effect on me at all. This approach doesn't extend to kids simply because kids should not be viewed in a sexual nature, that's horrific in itself without recording etc. But at the end of the day there are PLENTY of "weirdos" out there who find womens feet and shoes very sexy, they could no doubt film in a street or take photos and go home and use that for sexual gratification once then lobs the video in a box that gets shoved in the loft. Does this differ? Legally they are doing nothing wrong, just videoing in a public place, this is fully legal as it's not a sexual act being video'd, so the only difference I can see is "the act" being filmed, and whether that act is deemed OK or not depends on whether you have a very very prude mind or a very very crude mind, and where you draw that line.
Both cases the "actor" is doing something consensual.
Both cases the filming is done without you knowing.
Both cases they're done for gratification.Posted 2 years ago # -
Awaits all the threads asking how to safely dispose of home video/dvd's without detection.
Totally over the top. Poor bloke has unfortunately ploughed a couple of girls that are attention seekers. As mentioned above, most normal people would laugh at it. All they had to do was ask him to destroy the dvd's and i am pretty sure that would have been the end of it.
All he has done is record an act that both parties consented to. A bit like his memory. He hasnt displayed it or distributed it (That would be a different matter)
Posted 2 years ago # -
"You got to feel for this poor guy, and boy, a womens scorn..."
Why do you describe him as a 'poor guy'? Please remember, this wasnt a one off, he was charged with filming five different women - were they all consenting? (not just to having sex, but to being filmed). If they were, then maybe he should have thought about disposing all the evidence of his 'hobby' before asking his new girlfriend to move in with him. If they werent, then in my opinion, he's bang to rights.Posted 2 years ago # -
Phew! My stash of phone sex MP3s is still fine
Has my lawyer not been in touch yet then? I'll give him a kick.
Posted 2 years ago # -
oh, and is this guy a mountainbiker? Otherwise seems a bit OffToipc iyam
the only thing that can be off topic of this forum is mountain biking surely?Posted 2 years ago # -
Something to think about there right enough CK. Seems to be a lot of double standards around sex and the law. Taboo stuff is only taboo to x amount of people to the rest it is perfectly normal. The whole lot needs to be sorted out/standardised.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Cranberry, yup voyeurism is for their own sexual gratification! interesting case though IMO!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I thought that would create a (decent) discussion. For me I cannot see that the case 'was in the public interest' and consequently why it was brought - unless someone wanted a 'test' case?
His punishment is way over the top, along with some of the contributors to this post...
It would be interesting to do a poll of sex/age/class/orientation against opinion of the case - 'cos reading some of the replies I kinda get an impression of where at least some of us fit
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't get it.
If he'd watched the scene in a mirror it's fine and dandy. The fact he watched later makes him a filthy perv equal to a peado.
It's a funny old world.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Why do people keep banging on about voyeurism? He filmed them without their consent - surely that's the crux of the matter?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm not to sure that 'consent' is the crux of the matter. You don't need consent to record people.
Posted 2 years ago # -
If he'd watched the scene in a mirror it's fine and dandy. The fact he watched later makes him a filthy perv equal to a peado.
That's a great analogy as long as he has a magic mirror that only he knows about and that he can secretly look in whilst having sex.
Seriously, the key point is, if you say to someone "fancy coming back to mine for a shag", that is clearly not the same as saying to someone "fancy coming back to mine so I can film a home made porno film" is it? He clearly knows that the two things are different, and that people are likely to answer differently to each question, because he hid the cameras and recording equipment.
These people obviously did consent to one thing, but didn't consent to the other. In the same way as just because a woman goes for a meal with you, doesn't mean they have consented to have sex with you, the two things are different, so it is at least polite to ask. And whilst it is obviously not equal to having sex with a 6 year old or whatever, it is at the least a pretty nasty thing to do to trick people into making sex films, which even if you don't intend them to be distributed, may well end up public in the future (like they did in this case).
Joe
Posted 2 years ago # -
If they were that concerned about being seen they could have turned the lights off. Drama queens.
Posted 2 years ago # -
That's a great analogy as long as he has a magic mirror that only he knows about and that he can secretly look in whilst having sex.
Mirrors are hidden in plain sight, so it's a perfectly acceptable analogy.
Seriously, the key point is, if you say to someone "fancy coming back to mine for a shag", that is clearly not the same as saying to someone "fancy coming back to mine so I can film a home made porno film" is it?
No, but a meal doesn't involve getting naked and the most intimate of contact. They're not quite the same argument. The act of filming didn't require any extra or lesser input from the woman and assuming only the bloke was going to see it it presents no extra exposure or vulnerability. Ultimately the question "why is filming it requiring more 'inhibition' than just doing it?" is floating around in my head. Of course the worry of exposure to others or after the relationship ends is the primary concern and one would assume it would be the ONLY concern (as the act of filming is logically no more or less invasive or exposing than the original act)? Maybe it's only the fact that it's fairly expected that we have multiple relationships and relationship failures that causes this to be such a taboo, otherwise I can't see any reason why anyone would care if their life partner filmed them with or without their permission.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Filmed my GF in the shower once to wind her up lol but deleted it straight away!
2 months later I had to send phone away as it died and it was lost my royal mail...glad I deleted it!
She lost the memory card of her camera in some hotel after taking taking a pic of me in revenge!
Hairy butt and all lol -the finder probably died.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Classic mistake of saving to camera rather than memory card there zaskar
Posted 2 years ago # -
Barnsleymitch people are "banging" on about voyeurism because THAT IS THE OFFENCE! Plus crux of the matter isn't about consent, yes consent is one issue, other one is doing it for his own sexual gratification. Clear now?
Posted 2 years ago # -
MC - AFAIK it only becomes an offence of voyeurism if done without consent? (or obviously if ages differ, IIRC it's <18 = offence).
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yes voyuerism is without the consent of the other party AND .. there are other factors to it too as explained above. So filming someone in the shower without their consent and its' for your own sexual gratification is an offence, voyuerism. That's the basics of it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
She knew I was doing it and made me delete it in front of her.
So can I sue her for losing my hairy butt picture in Italy? She did have my consent either.
My butt feels invaded. And may cause offence.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think filming should involve consent, even if he was only keeping it as an aide memoir.
I thought the sentence was unduly harsh, but the good news for him out of this is that he is rid of a girlfriend who wasn't worth keeping. You don't really want a life partner as unforgiving and vicious as that.
Fair enough to blow her top etc, but the police, distressing the previous girlfriends?
The decent thing to do would have been to make him destroy the DVDs and then milk the occasion for all it was worth.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Munqe-chick - I presumed that people were using the term in a general sense, rather than a legal one, so my mistake, sorry.
Posted 2 years ago # -
That's the basics of it.
Yes, that was sort of my point just badly communicated - we can assume that was the reason for it, I can't see too many other reasons for filming it (making a documentary? Accidental? I mean it could have been left on from a previous visit by accident), so the only real remaining parameter is consent.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I guess if they didn't know it was being filmed, no consent. I like epicyclo's theory of milking it though
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
