Be careful what you film!

"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.

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.

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?

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.

Cranberry, yup voyeurism is for their own sexual gratification! interesting case though IMO!

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 😉

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.

Why do people keep banging on about voyeurism? He filmed them without their consent – surely that's the crux of the matter?

I'm not to sure that 'consent' is the crux of the matter. You don't need consent to record people.

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

If they were that concerned about being seen they could have turned the lights off. Drama queens.

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.

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. 😉

Classic mistake of saving to camera rather than memory card there zaskar 😀

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?

MC – AFAIK it only becomes an offence of voyeurism if done without consent? (or obviously if ages differ, IIRC it's <18 = offence).

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.

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.

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.

Munqe-chick – I presumed that people were using the term in a general sense, rather than a legal one, so my mistake, sorry.

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.

I guess if they didn't know it was being filmed, no consent. I like epicyclo's theory of milking it though 😉