They are very different. In Scotland, BoP is a specific criminal offence and can be applied to a very wide range of situations.
and help to keep the site free for all
Man Convicted Of Taking Pictures Of Women Without Consent
- Thread starter Keith W
- Start date
They are very different. In Scotland, BoP is a specific criminal offence and can be applied to a very wide range of situations.
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The only difference with Scots law B of P is that it is slightly better defined.
Both in England & Wales and in Scotland, B of P is a common law offence, that means it has evolved, rather than being created by statute, in this case from for want of a better expression the normal bounds of behaviour.
It can be used as a catch all, but the CPS, who don't operate in Scotland don't like proceeding with it, so usually outside Scotland a person is now detained until the possibility of a BofP is over.
In England and Wales, the only sentence available is to be bound over to keep the peace which has to be agreed too, if you don't you go inside until you do. You don't plead guilty or not guilty like you would with say theft.
Does this have any effect outside of Scotland? Not really, no. Partly because the chances of the CPS going ahead is almost nil, and partly because there's better ways of doing it, harassment being a good example.
But that does not mean that it wont be used, I have done so with a photographer, mostly to stop him getting his head kicked in.
Both in England & Wales and in Scotland, B of P is a common law offence, that means it has evolved, rather than being created by statute, in this case from for want of a better expression the normal bounds of behaviour.
It can be used as a catch all, but the CPS, who don't operate in Scotland don't like proceeding with it, so usually outside Scotland a person is now detained until the possibility of a BofP is over.
In England and Wales, the only sentence available is to be bound over to keep the peace which has to be agreed too, if you don't you go inside until you do. You don't plead guilty or not guilty like you would with say theft.
Does this have any effect outside of Scotland? Not really, no. Partly because the chances of the CPS going ahead is almost nil, and partly because there's better ways of doing it, harassment being a good example.
But that does not mean that it wont be used, I have done so with a photographer, mostly to stop him getting his head kicked in.
Last edited:
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 45,816
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
thats why canon invented IS
Surely you're not implying that all Canon users are Onanists?!
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 7,505
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But is a little more likely to involve up skirt or down cleavage. I would suspect a large number of his images would have had something "sexual" about them to have even got the sexual element into the case.
Whilst I am assuming facts not actually in evidence, would any reasonable person who sees a thousand head and shoulder images of girls think "sexual" as opposed to a thousand pairs of breasts?
It's a pity the court proceedings haven't been made public, it would stop all the supposition by everyone (including me with what I just wrote).
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It was public, unfortunately, like all court proceedings the press only report the bits they want to.
Clearly there's a lot more to it than just taking pictures of women, but there's only 1 way of finding out and that's getting hold of the transcripts of the hearing, or find the officer in case and get the full story.
- Messages
- 984
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Interesting that on a policing forum there is a similar discussion to that which we are having here.
http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php?/topic/134961-man-takes-70000-pictures-of-women/
http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php?/topic/134961-man-takes-70000-pictures-of-women/
- Messages
- 25,358
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
That's a very narrow view of the world, like Poah said, there's more than t&a to sexuality. It could have been carrier bags or headscarves.
D
Deleted member 34016
Guest
Thank for the link Jon- Ive submitted my complaint, says it may take up to 10 days to receive a response- I await this with baited breath
Les
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 45,816
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
... As posted in post #24.
- Messages
- 2,845
- Name
- Jon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nothing yet. And I doubt if it will come to anything much. The wording appears to be the same everywhere, so has probably been lifted piecemeal from a wire report (common these days). Perhaps a mild memo asking for more clarity may go around internally, but I doubt if it'll go further than that.
Thank for the link Jon- Ive submitted my complaint, says it may take up to 10 days to receive a response- I await this with baited breath
Les
Good! Despite what I say above, these things should always be pointed up or one day we may indeed find that permission is needed to take a picture in the street.
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Demi
You do talk some rubbish.
Once evidence is given, and not disputed which is what has happened here, it's fasct, it can't be defamatory.
The full brief facts, as given in open court are public record, and can be reported.
The simple fact is that not all has been, hence the lack of clarity and conclution jumping.
You do talk some rubbish.
Once evidence is given, and not disputed which is what has happened here, it's fasct, it can't be defamatory.
The full brief facts, as given in open court are public record, and can be reported.
The simple fact is that not all has been, hence the lack of clarity and conclution jumping.
- Messages
- 984
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 7,505
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's a very narrow view of the world, like Poah said, there's more than t&a to sexuality. It could have been carrier bags or headscarves.
But extremely unlikely, someone looked through his images and came to a conclusion that there was a sexual element.
If you looked through a collection of images of carriers bag, headscarves or up-skirt images, which would you see as having a sexual element? My point is there must have been something in those images that made those investigating the complaint go "hello, what's this about?"
- Messages
- 25,358
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
The guy admitted a sexual connotation, after a complaint was made, i don't think the photos would have to be sexually obvious to anyone else to fuel the investigation.Dave1 said:
Policeman knocks on door, copper tells perv there's been a complaint made about him sitting in his window with a camera, he denies it, they arrest him confront him with a number of complaints, he admits it, they find thousands of images on his seized pc. They could have been of anything. It's also generally people with 'odd' sexual preferences that are likely to display illegal behaviour. People with 'ordinary' sexual tastes find it easy enough to contain them within a 'normal' relationship.
Clearly all the quote marks are there to pre-empt any petty debates about whats normal ordinary or odd.
For the record, I believe that the difference between kinky and perverted is:
kinky is when you use feathers, perverted is when you use the whole chicken.
- Messages
- 12,783
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Bernie174 said:
So you don't understand the difference between absolute and qualified privilege then?
As I pointed out, absolute privilege requires the reporting to be FAIR, ACCURATE and CONTEMPORANEOUS. If a newspaper report doesn't meet all of those criteria then it can most certainly be found to be defamatory.
There are additional reporting restrictions that apply which include the PCC guidelines and any restrictions applied by the court - especially in cases involving children and/or sexual offences.
It's not me that's spouting hot air!
D
Deleted member 34016
Guest
I have just had a reply to my complaint to BBc Scotland as Follows:
Graeme Esson <graeme.esson@bbc.co.uk>
12:56 PM (3 hours ago)
to me
Thank you for your email.
We have amended to clarify that the breach of the peace involved taking the shots without the women's permission for his sexual gratification. The sexual element was highlighted in the comments from the defence lawyer, but we have aimed to make it clearer that the offence itself had that added element.
Regards
Graeme Esson
Assistant editor, BBC Scotland news website
-----Original Message-----
From: NewsOnline Complaints
Sent: 24 January 2013 08:26
To: News Interactive Scotland
Graeme Esson <graeme.esson@bbc.co.uk>
12:56 PM (3 hours ago)
to me
Thank you for your email.
We have amended to clarify that the breach of the peace involved taking the shots without the women's permission for his sexual gratification. The sexual element was highlighted in the comments from the defence lawyer, but we have aimed to make it clearer that the offence itself had that added element.
Regards
Graeme Esson
Assistant editor, BBC Scotland news website
-----Original Message-----
From: NewsOnline Complaints
Sent: 24 January 2013 08:26
To: News Interactive Scotland
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Demi
Oh but you are, and that happens a lot with you.
This case is over,so anything said in court was found to be true, it therefore meets all the criteria you quote.
As I said, the reporting of this has been poor, in terms of the facts surrounding what he is accused of. Simply taking photos of women isn't legal, so something more has happened.
While I don't agree with the way some have put it, the gist of what people are asking is what are the full circumstances, as it is very much in the public interest to ensure that we don't do whatever it is that has gone beyond what is deemed acceptable behavior.
I'm sorry you neither understand the legal system, nor can interpret correctly guidelines but thats your affair.
By the way, you threatened to sue me, I'm still waiting, or was that more hot air?
Oh but you are, and that happens a lot with you.
This case is over,so anything said in court was found to be true, it therefore meets all the criteria you quote.
As I said, the reporting of this has been poor, in terms of the facts surrounding what he is accused of. Simply taking photos of women isn't legal, so something more has happened.
While I don't agree with the way some have put it, the gist of what people are asking is what are the full circumstances, as it is very much in the public interest to ensure that we don't do whatever it is that has gone beyond what is deemed acceptable behavior.
I'm sorry you neither understand the legal system, nor can interpret correctly guidelines but thats your affair.
By the way, you threatened to sue me, I'm still waiting, or was that more hot air?
I always buy The Digger magazine in Glasgow to see what's going on in the courts away from the mainstream media. Do they have an equivalent in England or Wales?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Digger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Digger
- Messages
- 12,783
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Bernie174 said:
Just to remind you, I was picking up on this sweeping generalisation:
Bernie174 said:
Which is manifestly not true for the reasons that I pointed out.
If you don't understand media law, in particular court reporting and defamation, it would probably be a good idea on your part not to make idiotic comments.
PS: I never threatened to sue you. I pointed out that your comments regarding a large number of senior police officers was libellous. I couldn't be bothered to pass the comments on in the end, a has-been just isn't worth the effort.
If you believe that anything that's been said in court can be reported then you will get yourself in seriously deep poo if you ever write about a case.
- Messages
- 2,845
- Name
- Jon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Result! Just goes to show that it *is* worth having a bit of a shout. I've had the same apology, and the amended story looks much better.
- Messages
- 6,383
- Name
- Emily
- Edit My Images
- No
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
Bernie, perhaps posts like these should be via PM, this is a friendly forum and ongoing battles only tarnish it.
Cheers
EDIT
Ditto for Mark - pretty please?
- Messages
- 422
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- No
I've read through the various news reports of this (and yes wholeheartedly agree that the quality has been shoddy at best) but can find no real information on the actual offence committed (if any?).
I think this sets a weird precedence.....without descending into overly graphic detail if you chose to masturbate to any photograph you have taken then you are potentially committing a BoP? Or is it simply because the women were unaware that their photo had been taken? What if it was candid pics someone else had taken? Is the offence the original photographers? Or his for choosing to pleasure himself over those pics?
Frankly I think that the person had been very poorly treated by the Justice system and I think that any lawyer worth their salt could have and should have made a bigger noise on this.
I think this sets a weird precedence.....without descending into overly graphic detail if you chose to masturbate to any photograph you have taken then you are potentially committing a BoP? Or is it simply because the women were unaware that their photo had been taken? What if it was candid pics someone else had taken? Is the offence the original photographers? Or his for choosing to pleasure himself over those pics?
Frankly I think that the person had been very poorly treated by the Justice system and I think that any lawyer worth their salt could have and should have made a bigger noise on this.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
I thought breach of peace was just a cautionable offence, not an arrestable offence. If so, how was he convicted?
EDIT:
That answers that then!
Steve.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 25,358
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Or how about; Known sex offender, regularly seen at his window pointing his camera at women. Interviewed by Police, admits he's been doing it, Police find thousands of images on his computer, which he admits taking for sexual gratification.
Of course a different lawyer could have got him off, but would that be right? Some of these women will rightly feel like victims. Is it OK to say a better lawyer would have released him back onto the streets? What would he do next?
I'm far from a DM reading flog em type. But the guy is clearly a menace to society and is better off locked up than being 'at liberty' simply because the crime he committed is a little 'flexible'.
Of course a different lawyer could have got him off, but would that be right? Some of these women will rightly feel like victims. Is it OK to say a better lawyer would have released him back onto the streets? What would he do next?
I'm far from a DM reading flog em type. But the guy is clearly a menace to society and is better off locked up than being 'at liberty' simply because the crime he committed is a little 'flexible'.
- Messages
- 25,358
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Scottish Law and they even have a mention of the sexual element of a crime in their BoP laws.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
The title is misleading as he wasn't convicted of taking pictures without consent.
Steve.
Steve.
- Messages
- 371
- Name
- tom
- Edit My Images
- Yes
as above the media cant just pick out a and b as they want in a case juggle them about and come out with x, they must as said report true events, and in sexual offences ensure there are no reporting restrictions on the case etc again as above.
Yeah sometime the press do get it wrong etc, but something so simple as a court case is not often buggered up by the press, general public may not know there are reporting restrictions on a case etc, however its the reporters and photographers role along with the publisher to find out what restrictions if any there are.
When reporting they must not only stick within the law but also within the PCC code, just repeated whats been said but must emphasise the facts
Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, anyone who makes a complaint of a sexual offence receives lifetime anonymity as an alleged victim from the moment of complaint, even if the complaint is withdraw, or defendant is acquitted or charged on a lesser offence.. The complaint can be by any person (the alleged victim or someone acting on their behalf), to police, rape crisis centre or appropriate authority. Most journalists are able to spot the ‘usual’ unsafe information. But you should take care when details crop up unexpectedly in other parts of the story
tbh I dont think the BBC in this case have reported it badly, (not always the case) but it seems a decent enough outline. I cant see what more they could include tbh.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 422
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- No
Or how about NOT....from the Beeb's report...."Mr Kelly said: "Mr Lawrence is 45 years old with an unblemished record"".
Again from Beeb..."Oil worker Andrew Lawrence admitted a breach of the peace by taking the shots without the women's permission for his sexual gratification"....this goes beyond a little flexible...this is the thin end of the wedge. basically this means that anyone (in Scotland at least) who chooses to, ahem, enjoy themselves with pictures they have taken, unless they have specifically expressed to the persons being photographed that they might be used for this purpose then you are committing a BoP.
Also from a previous beeb story the guy clearly said "He stressed to officers during interviews that he was not a threat to the women."...this has never been refuted or disproved.
- Messages
- 25,358
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
If we're going to assume we can gather more relevant facts from the news coverage (that we've already agreed is rubbish) then its open house on what the correct outcome should have been.
Or we can trust that the jury found him guilty on the evidence produced, and the judge sentenced him within the guidelines passed down from the Scottish parliament.
Without going through the case transcripts, this would be about the only sensible approach. As I said I'm a Grauniad reading lefty public servant. But all I see here is a badly reported reported case of a sex pest being jailed. With the tons of pornography readily available, there's more to this case than a guy innocently getting his jollies over images on his computer.