Would airport security have powers to go through his phone? Debatable it seems but probably not.
Would airport security exercise those powers, if they have them, on the basis of say-so from a member of the public? Highly unlikely, rendering the first question moot.
Would airport security exercise those powers, if they have them, if the OP had taken a photo of said perpetrator in the act? Perhaps.
Would airport security have the ability to make him have a very bad day in an interview room for two hours if they were sufficiently pissed off? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Should've told them you thought you'd overheard him talking about bombs. (-:
I suppose it comes down to deciding whether when you witness someone’s (and in this case, let’s just recall that it was a girl who would have been in her mid-teens at most) privacy being violated for sexual gratification, whether you’re (morally, not legally) obliged to inform the parent/guardian or just think, “Ah **** it, he’ll probably just have a Thomas-the-tank over them later. What harm’s been done?
That is a genuine debate I’ve been having with myself btw. I’m kinda falling on the side of letting the responsible adult know what’s happened. Yes it’s unpleasant to hear for them but it had happened and I believe they have a right to know. However, I can also see the argument for not saying anything. I’m sure at the time my decision was driven by me having made the mistake of making it obvious to the perp that I’d clocked him doing it. I’m sure he’d have deleted anything fairly quickfire once he’d been rumbled. If I’d mentioned it to the bizzies, they may have lit a Gauloise and shrugged, or if they’d approached him, the family may have found out anyway. Who knows what would have happened?!?
As the person didn't do anything wrong I would have taken no action at all. In the UK you can take pictures of whoever you want in a public place which is all they were doing.
If you don't want people to see your crotch then don't go around bending over in a very short skirt - irrelevant whether anyone chooses to photograph it or not you are still clearly happy showing it off.
Would airport security exercise those powers, if they have them, if the OP had taken a photo of said perpetrator in the act? Perhaps.
I think this would have been an intelligent thing to do at the time, but if you can just put yourself in my position, I could only see him holding up the phone as I got close and actually make out the detail when I was pretty much on his shoulder. At this point I probably should have turned around, for my phone out and re-traces my steps towards him, this time videoing. Crikey, that might have looked like it was me doing the “salacious” act!! Cue a line of outraged travellers all videoing one another in a line stretching back. It’s getting more Black Mirror the more I think about it. Anyway, diversion aside Cougar, I was so “WTF? Is he really doing that? Is he? Why, yes, he bloody well is, the dirty bastard...” that I’d passed and given him the stare before having a chance to consider. I think you get that anyway.
If you don’t want people to see your crotch then don’t go around bending over in a very short skirt – irrelevant whether anyone chooses to photograph it or not you are still clearly happy showing it off.
Ffs.
So the teenage girl was “asking for it” then right ?
So the teenage girl was “asking for it” then right ?
That appears to sum up what kerley is saying. I'd get a ban if I typed what I think of him for saying that.
I’m hoping it was a shit attempt at trolling rather than what he actually thinks.
As that would be truly depressing.
As the person didn’t do anything wrong I would have taken no action at all. In the UK you can take pictures of whoever you want in a public place which is all they were doing.
If you don’t want people to see your crotch then don’t go around bending over in a very short skirt – irrelevant whether anyone chooses to photograph it or not you are still clearly happy showing it off.
Never would have happened in a Burka. Ironically the young lady in question had probably spent most of the daylight hours of the preceding week wearing far less on a public beach.
I'd hope she could go through life without worrying about who was staring at her, but I guess society is not there yet.
{this is not a dig at Kerley - I get the point you are trying to make)
Not saying that DD did anything wrong, nor do I have a better suggestion. But I fear that the outcome is that perv-in-question has modified his techniques to evade future detection, and girl-in-question now has 4 years of dad saying "not going out dressed like that"
kerley: how young would the victim have to be before you thought taking pictures up their skirt was not 'being asked for'?
Yeeeees.... this thread has unearthed some pretty unsavoury opinions.
I thought the thread was coming to a peaceful end. Needs biscuits now I think...
People do know we're talking about a *child* here, don't they?
Not some celeb who's invited load of paparazzi on hols with them.
A child waiting for a flight home.
And yet the 'she's probably shown more on the beach' 'she was asking for it' crew are out in force.
I feel a bit grubby just reading some of these posts.
I feel a bit grubby just reading some of these posts.
Stand on the other side of the room from the screen, and read them zoomed in on your phone. All OK then.
So the teenage girl was “asking for it” then right ?
How predictable. My point is that if you show off your crotch for all to see then don't be surprised when all can see and some people may look. If one of those people who can see decides to photograph it that is perfectly legal.
I personally wouldn't be looking and certainly wouldn't be photographing it and don't see it as great behaviour but that is not really relevant.
My point is that if you show off your crotch for all to see
DD makes it pretty clear in the OP that she had inadvertently allowed her skirt to ride up as she'd shuffled forward in her seat ready to get up, the little temptress.
You have at least moved on from 'doing nothing wrong' to 'legally OK vs morally wrong', which is an improvement.
My point is that if you show off your crotch for all to see then don’t be surprised when all can see and some people may look. If one of those people who can see decides to photograph it that is perfectly legal.
That's easy then. You do nothing. Maybe have a little chuckle to yourself that a perve is enjoying himself and putting stuff in the w-bank for later.
Luckily, most of us don't feel that way, like the OP doesn't and would prefer to do something about it.
Differing opinions... Not really worth arguing about or trying to persuade someone who doesn't think it's wrong, that it is, imo. No minds will be changed.
My point is that if you show off your crotch for all to see
Not sure why you need to make that point, because, and now, I didn’t stop to absolutely verify that the young lady in question wasn’t showing off her crotch for all to see, but I’m sure she wasn’t. She was sat in a cluster of seats with her family, not open legged across from the guy. But if you feel you need to make up a series of events that didn’t occur to justify your point of view...well, it’s an open forum. And y’know, she’s just a bloody kid.
And yet the ‘she’s probably shown more on the beach’ ‘she was asking for it’ crew are out in force.
as the person responsible for the first half of this, I want to reiterate - I in no way want to justify the pervs actions in any way.
I'm fully on the side of the poor young girl to dress as she pleases, and only wanting to point out that she is unfairly the victim of all this through no fault of her own. She knows that two blokes have been looking up her skirt (with very different motivations of course), and this was then drawn to the attention of her Dad in a public place. And now loads of blokes are arguing about her on the internet.
I've never been a teenage girl with a father, but I've been a teenage boy with a mother. These clearly aren't the same but trying to put myself in her shoes I'm not sure I'd have wanted anyone to know at all.
Apologies for my lack of clarity. There isn't a country in the world whose border/customs authorities don't have the power to inspect electronic devices, in some cases requiring you to hand over social media passwords etc, once they have established, to their satisfaction, that you are in some way suspicious. Which is all that is required. And their threshold of suspicious is incredibly low. So Airport security could tell them that the guy was acting suspiciously on his phone. That would be enough. Anyone who has seen what US customs preclearance guys do will understand where I am coming from. They routinely ask people under the age of 30 if they have ever used cannabis. Even if you say no, the agent simply says he doesn't believe you and refuses entry.
They found firearms parts in his luggage and the search of his phone was deemed illegal as they had no warrant
I think you might have misread that article. Customs officers in the US and most other places don't need a warrant. They merely need 'reasonable suspicion' a much lower and easier to tweak standard. The court said they didn't have reasonable suspicion but confirmed they didn't need warrants.
They routinely ask people under the age of 30 if they have ever used cannabis. Even if you say no, the agent simply says he doesn’t believe you and refuses entry.
How does that work? So no-one under the age of 30 is ever allowed into the US?
I think you might have misread that article.
You're right I did.
However, that's completely different circumstances from the OP.
The main jist is about terrorism and immigration, " finding that the government can conduct warrantless border searches to protect national security, prevent transnational crime and enforce immigration and customs laws.". It's not about catching a nonce in a departure lounge.
Anyone who has seen what US customs preclearance guys do will understand where I am coming from. They routinely ask people under the age of 30 if they have ever used cannabis. Even if you say no, the agent simply says he doesn’t believe you and refuses entry.
I have travelled in and out of the US quite a lot over the years. They seem to be a lot better now than they were a few years ago, a more pleasant and reasonable. However, I don't deny that some of them act like dicks but what you are describing is a Government Official abusing his power, not acting within it, with people who know that the more they kick off the worse it will be.
What happens when these people are flying to Colorado? Does the no cannabis rule still apply? I can't say I have ever been asked about my drug use when entering the US?
Differing opinions… Not really worth arguing about or trying to persuade someone who doesn’t think it’s wrong, that it is, imo. No minds will be changed.
Exactly. And by the way it isn't wrong (legally) so not sure why people are suggesting getting 'authorities' involved. As I said, not the sort of thing people should do and I certainly don't condone it - I just have a way of looking at things VERY objectively.
It's already been established that up skirting is illegal in France and it became illegal in England and Wales on the 12th of April under the Voyeurism Act. At least you did something OP but I'd have reported it to security, he might already be on the sex offenders register and if not it sounds like he should be. The guy probably thinks he has some impunity as he was blatantly seen, yet he still got away with it. I wonder what he might do next?
It reminds me of when someone tried to violently sexually assault me on a busy city centre shopping street one afternoon, not one person tried to help despite shouting at him to get off and that I didn't know him. I didn't report the incident either, what was the point? I worked as a waitress, had had a drink after work and was wearing skirt, obviously asking for it. Two weeks later he was successful in raping a woman
I just have a way of looking at things VERY objectively.
Yeah, I suppose describing a set of circumstances that didn’t happen to make a point comes under the label of objectivity for some people.
How does that work? So no-one under the age of 30 is ever allowed into the US?
I don't know if you don't understand or are trying to take the p*ss. I don't know how you could get there from what I said.
Essentially, you don't have the 'right' to any country not your own. They find all sorts of reasons that probably don't seem reasonable to anyone outside of Customs to deny entry, or have you into to 'secondary' where they can invade your privacy to almost any degree they wish. They engage in 'profiling' all the time.
I just have a way of looking at things VERY objectively.
You seem to be under the impression that’s a good thing.
If it makes you come out with the sort of shit you did earlier, then it’s really not.
I don’t know if you don’t understand or are trying to take the p*ss. I don’t know how you could get there from what I said.
You said, and I quote, "They routinely ask people under the age of 30 if they have ever used cannabis. Even if you say no, the agent simply says he doesn’t believe you and refuses entry." Presumably if they answer "yes" they will also be denied entry. That's all under 30s, unless there's a third answer to a yes / no question that I'm overlooking.
conduct warrantless border searches to protect national security, prevent transnational crime and enforce immigration and customs laws.”. It’s not about catching a nonce in a departure lounge.
Travelling across a border, or attempting to, with 'indecent'* images would be a violation of customs laws and transnational crime
*if an upskirt shot of a minor (I'm assuming she was) meets the definition of indecent in that country (and I really hope it does)
However, I don’t deny that some of them act like dicks but what you are describing is a Government Official abusing his power, not acting within it, with people who know that the more they kick off the worse it will be.
You will certainly never win a debate with them. What they do and the frequency at which they do it makes me suspect that the organistion doesn't believe it is abuse, but is merely vigilance. The US may not be the worst but they are probably top 1 of developed democracies. Apparently, they regularly have visibly pregnant women into secondary inspection because they believe they want to give birth in the US as a way to get Citizenship for the baby. Doing it deliberately is apparently not allowed. Not being able to pay the hospital bills should you give birth is apparently a reason to deny entry. If you 'happen' to give birth there and can pay for it is apparently fine!
What happens when these people are flying to Colorado? Does the no cannabis rule still apply? I can’t say I have ever been asked about my drug use when entering the US?
The Border is federal, so fed rules apply. Travelling to Colorado might be reason for denial of entry, due to drug suspicion, as is returning from a "known narco country".
Canada and Canadians are now on their hitlist it seems, because of the new drug laws.
A women ended up with a lifetime ban because she admitted to using CBD oil and iirc having some on her that she forgot. CBD in some forms is legal in the country but not at the border. Go figure. She is appealing but good luck with that.
cromolyolly
Member
How does that work? So no-one under the age of 30 is ever allowed into the US?I don’t know if you don’t understand or are trying to take the p*ss.
In your example there were no conditions under which you'd be allowed entry. Logic init.
You said, and I quote, “They routinely ask people under the age of 30 if they have ever used cannabis. Even if you say no, the agent simply says he doesn’t believe you and refuses entry.” Presumably if they answer “yes” they will also be denied entry. That’s all under 30s, unless there’s a third answer to a yes / no question that I’m overlooking.
Okay. So routinely doesn't mean always.
If you say yes, it is grounds to deny entry apparently. Whether the officer has the discretion to let you in anyway I don't know. Maybe
If you say no and they believe you, you are in.
So it's only all under 30s (or 25s, 28s etc depending on how old you look etc and how good the agent is at judging age)
IF they always ask, as opposed to routinely, if they all answer yes, or agents always disbelieve them, and they have no discretion.
Cromolyolly pedalling backwards, make way 😂
boblo, we just understand words and logic differently. Like how routinely means regularly or customarily, not always without exception, or how conditional logic works.
Here is what I do know from observation - if you are approximately under 30 and are wearing any clothing or jewelry with a representation of a marijuana leaf on it, your chances of getting in are vanishingly small. If you are wearing business or business casual attire, you will probably be okay.
Okay. So routinely doesn’t mean always.
Fair enough.
we just understand words and logic differently.
The thing with logic is that it's rather kind of absolute. You cannot "understand logic differently," rather you can either understand it or not understand it.
if you are approximately under 30 and are wearing any clothing or jewelry with a representation of a marijuana leaf on it, your chances of getting in are vanishingly small.
Makes sense. You've gone from a criterion of "being young" to one of "showing signs of drug interest / paraphernalia" though, it perhaps would've been helpful if you'd said that in the first place. How many of these people have you observed out of interest?
Perhaps they were carrying chemicals? (-:
Well I think this is getting a bit ageist.
I'm over 30 (just), have a tattoo of a marajawana leaf on my wrist and I've never been denied entry to the USA. I've never been there mind, does that affect my chances?
Just last week flew into miami with a kilo of coke down my pants , thanks to my pinstrip suit , bowler hat & cut-glass english accent.
it was the perfect ruse , immigration busied themselves with surfer type dudes......
flown into USA loads of times , never encountered anything remotely approaching what chromo states.
As per the OP.
He identified immoral behaviour by someone , and through basic human decency tried to do something about it , and that makes you a good guy regardless of the outcome so dont beat youself up with hindsight.
and how good the agent is at judging age
I know some American Border Officials can be a bit dim but I'm pretty certain the ability to read is prerequisite for the job.
Why do they care about age? I'm 50. I grew up in the 80's and 90's. (Sort of). Why would they not ask me about cannabis use? The only questions I get asked, is if I am on business and what my job is.
I have travelled to the US a lot, I have never heard of anything about surfer dudes all getting knocked back at the Border.
I have travelled to the US a lot, I have never heard of anything about surfer dudes all getting knocked back at the Border.
I heard that's the subject of Trumpy's latest tirade. Surfer dude druggies are the second biggest group (after Mexicans) causing aggro at the borders. They're building internment camps to put them in presumably en route to Guantanamo...
Been to the US a lot for work (over 50 times). Never been asked about drugs, except the one occasion when I was asked if I had any samples. I work for a Pharmaceutical company in R&D.
The thing with logic is that it’s rather kind of absolute.
But not always the same for everyone.
But not always the same for everyone.
Surfer dude druggies are the second biggest group (after Mexicans) causing aggro at the borders. They’re building internment camps to put them in presumably en route to Guantanamo…
Waterboarding at Guantanamo Bay sounds like a great idea when you're too stoned to remember what either of those things is.
bb - I'm thinking of Behavioural Economics - Dan Ariely, Richard Thaler etc.
Logically, none of us should be overweight and we should all be saving enough for retirement..