Google translate, DezB. Difficult to link things in English about things French.
Holy crap I only read page 1.
Ed you are a world class bellend
Try reading page 2, squirellking.
As this is descending into character assasination I'll repeat the line which best sums up my view:
It’s wrong to me but it isn’t wrong enough to society for anything to be done, perchypanther.
You might not like the scooters on the pavement in Paris, but I suggest leaving the local police to apply fines rather than take direct action.
You might not like the tail gaiting on the périférique but brake checking isn't the answer.
You might like you car being broken into in Marseille but short of not going there I don't have a solution.
The church bells all night might drive you nuts so don't live near them
Don't try to force your own morals and standards on other countries and their populace.
OP should have intervened by placing himself between the subject/filmer and twerking.
#Strangest
it’s harcelement sexuel and illegal when it’s done by placing a camera under a woman’s skirt when standing next to the woman, that isn’t the case here. It’s two people sitting 3-4 metres apart in an airport lounge.
So if it was from across the room with a 300m telephoto lens, that'd be absolutely legal?
it would taint it for her.
snatched the phone off him
Shouldn't laugh, but...
Don’t try to force your own morals and standards on other countries and their populace.
I think perhaps where folk are taking issue with you here is you appear to be saying "it's not illegal so it's absolutely fine." Which might not be what you mean at all but that's kind of how it comes across (to me at least).
.
So if it was from across the room with a 300m telephoto lens, that’d be absolutely legal?
It wasn't. Binoculars first now a 330m telephoto lens. What next, Cougar? Both would demonstrate an intent that carrying a mobile phone doesn't.
DD's description is pretty good. I don't reckon the authorities would have done anything on the basis of DD's witness statement. It would have gone down as a "main courante". And whenever I've given a main courante absolutely nothing has come of it. It's a way of appeasing annoyed people rather than bringing about justice. That's my opinion, at least it's based on some experience of things legal in the country this took place in.
Don’t try to force your own morals and standards on other countries and their populace.
For goodness sake don't do anything if you see a crime being committed!
the prison population is a lot lower than the UK despite a higher crime rate
Aha, a clue!
The link you provided referred to invasions of privacy. I don't see how posting a picture of someone doing something quite openly (brazenly, even) in a public place like an airport, where you have 0 expectation of privacy, could be an invasion. Taking a picture of the area underneath a skirt, whether you post it or not, from any distance, absolutely does. A half decent modern phone has a camera capable of the equivalent of at least 100mm zoom. Some are so good they would have no trouble reading the label on your underwear from 100mm.
Or do websites and private people not post pictures of celebrities and politicians in France, lest that be the thing that finally stirs the Gendarmes into putting down their eyebrows, shoulders and gauloises and leaping into action?
you appear to be saying “it’s not illegal so it’s absolutely fine.”
That is a gross distortion of the truth and you know it, Cougar. You are putting words in mouth and as a moderator I find that unaccepatble.
I've said it fall within the scope of "harèlement sexuel" which is illegal, but is not the sort of characterised use of a camera under the skirt of a woman that would lead to prosecution;
I have never said "it's absolutely fine" or implied it in any shape or form. This is my oft repeated view.
It’s wrong to me
I consider your recent posts as harasment using social media, Cougar. Now go away and find someone else to pick on.
As for the rest of you Internet bullies (that's some not all of you on the thread), have a nice day.
It wasn’t. Binoculars first now a 330m telephoto lens. What next, Cougar? Both would demonstrate an intent that carrying a mobile phone doesn’t.
That's the first time you've mentioned intent as a factor.
And anyway, how does it "demonstrate an intent" in a way that zooming in with a phone doesn't? Someone really into their planes, seems reasonably plausible to want to have a pair of binoculars on them. Or maybe they're a birdwatcher hoping to spy a lesser-spotted thrush or something.
What I'm trying to ask, in a somewhat irreverent fashion, is whether French law differentiates between "up-skirt" photos taken from close-up, and the exact same photos taken from farther away with a zoom lens.
That is a gross distortion of the truth and you know it, Cougar. You are putting words in mouth
Ah, irony. I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that's how it may appear. Directly after the sentence you quoted I even said, "Which might not be what you mean at all"
and as a moderator I find that unaccepatble.
I'm not posting as a moderator, I'm a user just like you. So don't come that.
I consider your recent posts as harasment using social media, Cougar.
Seriously? Wow. That's honestly not my intention, sorry if you took it that way.
Not read all three pages, but I’m an act now think later type. This approach has landed me in so much shit over the years and I never learn. To my shame I’d probably have slapped the phone out of his hand and booted it across the concourse before casually walking away. Your approach is more sensible DD and I reckon you did the right thing considering.
Or you should’ve owned him with bombers / pissed in his shoes.
No-one can answer till there's a court case for exactly that, because that's the way the law works, Cougar. It's not black and white. Stick a phone up a skirt and it's black and white, it's sexual harassment. Point a phone at someone sitting 3-4 metres away and it's going to be impossible to prove. Illegal?
Well feel free to think it is, I think that the way you are putting words into my mouth on here constitutes on-line abuse which is covered by harassment laws.
When you've got a forum moderator on your back being provactive it's time to ignore the thread.
Point a phone at someone sitting 3-4 metres away and it’s going to be impossible to prove
Unless you look at the images on the phone - which would prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
On further reflection, the chances this guy was taking are high. AFAIK, there isn't a country in the World that doesn't have the power to inspect the contents of any electronic device so if he did fly somewhere, he could very easily get caught and the place he got caught could have laws against the activity he was engaging in.
Ooh just read it all. Even if it’s not illegal it is a massive dick move of the highest magnitude and therefore deserves some kind of intervention.
Ooh just read it all.
Good effort! 😀
Flipping eck. Flounce, flounce, flouncity flounce...
Illegal isn't the point, morally acceptable is the point. Just because the letter of the law does not dictate does not make something morally acceptable. The activity DD spotted is not morally acceptable, and therefore he's right to have acted. How he acted is very easy to debate after the fact, and we would have all (I hope) acted in the same way to a larger or lesser extent which was to make people aware of the situation and shame the accused into inactivity.
If it was my daughter, I wouldn't give a shit what the law says I'd be struggling to contain a bunch of negative emotions/actions while facing down the perpetrator. And I'm very mild mannered - until kids are concerned that is.
Honestly, it's like the little arsehole at school (there was always one) who would goad everyone and anyone into reacting and when someone inevitably did would go running off crying about being bullied.
Please for the love of God can we get an ignore function that doesn't need a kill file. In the meantime stop engaging and hopefully he'll **** off back from whence he came.
When you’ve got a forum moderator on your back being provactive it’s time to ignore the thread.
You should have ignored it after your first couple of posts to be honest😉
I rarely waste my time getting involved with these sort of internet arguments as it just makes you look like a massive prick but there are a few people who ruin this site by not knowing when to back away from their keyboard and you're definitely one of them!
Not trying to join in and gang up on you but it's like you've got some kind of issue with having to be right all the time or getting the last word in!
I think that the way you are putting words into my mouth on here constitutes on-line abuse which is covered by harassment laws.
So you honestly think the comment below is Illegal and constitutes harassment....?
I think perhaps where folk are taking issue with you here is you appear to be saying “it’s not illegal so it’s absolutely fine.” Which might not be what you mean at all but that’s kind of how it comes across (to me at least).
But somehow zooming in and taking pictures/videos of a 15 year old girl’s underwear in public [b]isn’t [/b] illegal or harassment.
That’s just..... erm. weird. 😳
I think the OP did exactly the right thing: staring-down the offender, and importantly NOT telling the family.
If somebody came and let me know that "that chap over there is surreptitiously photographing/filming up your young daughter's skirt" - I would have probably kicked-off, and in doing so got into more trouble than the perp. Take the point of view that you helped him avoid that situation by NOT telling them.
I'd do a spectacular dance in front of him .... "yeah? yeah? this what you like, or am I too old for you?"
or perhaps give airport security a shout and creep up behind him and shout "taser taser taser"
there isn’t a country in the World that doesn’t have the power to inspect the contents of any electronic device
Not really.
Lets start with the UK Police.
https://www.burtoncopeland.com/news/do-police-have-right-search-your-phone
How about the US Border Guards?
They found firearms parts in his luggage and the search of his phone was deemed illegal as they had no warrant.
Lets start with the UK Police.
Quite right that they can’t just demand to look at anyones phone content.
However (if it was in the UK) in this case, the guy would have been accused of taking indecent pictures of a “child” (in law)
From your link...
If served with a S49 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 200 (S49 RIPA Notice), you’ll be legally required to provide passwords to open electronic devices
Which covers the accusation perfectly, so he could be held and have his device searched.
No idea if they have a similar law if France, but it would seem logical ?
(Edit-spelling)
Quote right that they can’t just demand to look at anyones phone content.
However (if it was in the UK) in this case, they guy would have been accused of taking indecent pictures of a “child” (in law)From your link…
If served with a S49 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 200 (S49 RIPA Notice), you’ll be legally required to provide passwords to open electronic devices
So by the single accusation from a bloke in an airport, that apparently he was zooming in on young girls hemline, they would arrest him, interview him, accuse him of taking indecent pictures of a child and then issue this "S49 notice?" Seems extremely unlikely.
It's hardly the same as
there isn’t a country in the World that doesn’t have the power to inspect the contents of any electronic device
It’s hardly the same as
Which is exactly why I said you were right in the first line 🙄
Get out of bed the wrong side this morning?
OP should've just pointed at guilty party and shouted "Peado" at the top of his voice. In best Invasion of the Body Snatchers style when they find a human.
Get out of bed the wrong side this morning?
No. I'm always this miserable.
What I really disagreed with was this statement:
However (if it was in the UK) in this case, they guy would have been accused of taking indecent pictures of a “child” (in law)
In those circumstances do you think it's likely?
I mean if the Police had "a word" and the bloke had previous and was on a register etc. then they might do something but if not I doubt they do a thing.
They could access the device contents if they wanted to, they have that power available to them in those circumstances if they choose to use it.
Wether they would or not is anyone’s guess. But if the officer involved had a young teen daughter it may improve the odds.
They could access the device contents if they wanted to, they have that power available to them in those circumstances if they choose to use it.
I disagree.
But if the officer involved had a young teen daughter it may improve the odds.
I hope not. I would prefer if the Police applied the law correctly and evenly, not down to their personal prejudices.
I disagree
I’m not shocked.
..I would prefer if the Police applied the law correctly and evenly, not down to their personal prejudices.
Me too. But I’ve lived in the real world for some time now, and have got used to how it actually works.
@gobuchul, can you explain why you posted the picture at the end of page 3? Just interested as to what relevance to this discussion it has for you.
Took a picture over his shoulder that clearly showed what he was doing and that it was him.
Then taken a photo of him so that he knew you had that clearly showed it was the same guy in the photo.
If you'd just taken a photo of him at least he'd still be shitting it to this day.
Ed you are a world class bellend.
Nah I think he has undiagnosed Asperger's syndrome and is trying to work through the details of the law whilst being oblivious to how he comes across.
@gobuchul, can you explain why you posted the picture at the end of page 3? Just interested as to what relevance to this discussion it has for you.
It was mainly a response to nealglover and cromolyolly who were suggesting that airport security would have the legal right to take someone's phone and search it on a single allegation from a member of the public. Also there was a few suggestions of grabbing the phone off him, which in all honesty is a pretty ridiculous suggestion.
Not saying that you didn't see what you saw and the bloke wasn't a sad pervert but I don't expect that authorities in a democracy should have the right to behave like that. Also, as you discovered, you were pretty much helpless to do much to stop his behaviour. Just another compromise of living in a liberal democracy.
Having had time to think about it I probably wouldn't have told the family. Even if photographs were being taken, (not someone just being bored at airport and doing some
spur of the moment perving) they wouldn't have been salacious, and it's highly unlikely that they'd be so widly circulated as to cause concern to the girl or her family.
I agree the distress would be caused by "knowing".
I'd have probably let the perp know with a stern look and some finger wagging. Not exactly saving the world but enough to put a stop to what was happening.
On another note it's a shame Edukator has been treated poorly by some forum members. He at no point condoned or supported the perp's activities. In my view he just tried to give some insight into French law and legal culture. Something I found interesting and informative.
It was mainly a response to nealglover and cromolyolly who were suggesting that airport security would have the legal right to take someone’s phone and search it .
Yeah, that’s not what I said.
But do go on.
which in all honesty is a pretty ridiculous suggestion.
Which is why I didn’t suggest it.
not someone just being bored at airport and doing some
spur of the moment perving
Indeed, I mean who doesn’t indulge in a bit of last minute perving by taking close-up pictures of a young teen girl’s skirt (although I’m betting he wasn’t just checking the stitching on her hemline) when bored at an airport. We’ve all been there. Nothing “salacious” at all about that.
And his analogy regarding not telling someone not bothered by noise to complain about it was crass. He used the thread to take the high ground regarding legal definitions and at no time attempted to answer the question in the OP.
It was mainly a response to nealglover and cromolyolly who were suggesting that airport security would have the legal right to take someone’s phone and search it .
Yeah, that’s not what I said.
But do go on.
hey could access the device contents if they wanted to, they have that power available to them in those circumstances if they choose to use it.
wouldn’t have been salacious, and it’s highly unlikely that they’d be so widly circulated as to cause concern to the girl or her family.
Wow.
It was mainly a response to nealglover and cromolyolly who were suggesting that airport security would have the legal right to take someone’s phone and search it .
I said that the police have powers to search devices if the person is suspected of having indecent images of children etc.
Not Airport security, and not just any person they fancy picking on.
Which was evidenced in a link you posted and that I copied.
You know this of course, because you can read.
So What exactly is your point, or are you just trying to be a bit of a dick ?
Wow
Indeed Wow. Explain to me "how likely" it is that photographs, (if some were taken) off an an anonymous girls high hemline whilst sat in a foreign airport by a complete stranger, do actually come to light and cause distress ? I'd say it's they very definition of "unlikely". So you balance that against the "very likely" distress caused by telling them. You then make a judgment call about what to do. But you don't because you do what you think is right in the spur of the moment, which is what the Op did and thats all anyone can do.
<Checks dictionary definition of 'salacious'>
Nope, hasn't changed recently. Still seems to be the perfect descripton of a zoomed-in image of a teenage girl's crotch taken covertly in an airport waiting area.