[Closed] Be careful what you film!

No, you haven't got to feel for him.. he's a criminal who got caught and punished for a criminal act.

The woman, who cannot be identified, said she had needed counselling after she found out what he had done. She stated she was too ashamed to tell her family what had happened and said it left her "feeling violated, dirty and sick".

And he really should have had some kind of secret labeling system.

actually no, he shouldn't be on the sex offenders register.

I'll keep my eyes peeled on red tube for some of this stash.

[i]No, you haven't got to feel for him.. he's a criminal who got caught and punished for a criminal act. [/i]

Hands up who knew it was a criminal act?

It only ever became a problem when the girlfriend decided to distribute it. It may not have been a morally right thing to do, but the girlfriend caused the distress and anger.

so if you've not been told it's a criminal act then that's OK?

Come on, your B**lsh*t meter must go off when you think about [i]covertly filming yourself having sex with someone else[/i] ... don't tell me you're naive enough to think that's an innocent act

Putting him on the sex offenders register (and so lumping him in with the paedos) seems very harsh as at the end of the day the sex itself seems to have been consensual (at least there seems to be no rape charge attached) but to suggest that this is the fault of the women and we should feel sorry for this guy being a perv is just silly.

oh, and is this guy a mountainbiker? Otherwise seems a bit OffToipc iyam

[b]/edit[/b]; and [b]coffeeking[/b]; do you honestly believe that up until the point that the GF told the (i'm going to call her the victim) that she had been vieoed without her knowledge having sex with a guy that nothing untoward had happened? Moral compasses at the ready please, this ship is waaaay off course.

Im just not sure how anyone gains from locking him up and putting him on the sex offenders register. Not only does it cost the tax payer money it also devalues the register !

Anyone remember Patrick from the TV show coupling....?

seems a bit excessive... he didn't distribute the films, they were hidden away 'for personal use' and in reality, no one was harmed until the girlfriend uncovered them and decided to act as she did...

so in effect, she's the guilty party guv'ner!

to suggest that this is the fault of the women and we should feel sorry for this guy being a perv is just silly.

No-one was blaming the women?

do you honestly believe that up until the point that the GF told the (i'm going to call her the victim) that she had been vieoed without her knowledge having sex with a guy that nothing untoward had happened?

Did you even read my post?

But at the end of the day, if the tapes had never been found and no-one was harmed in the making of it, what would it matter? It was the act of forwarding it to the "stars" of the film that caused the problems, otherwise in the grand scheme of things it would have made no difference to anyone. I'm not saying it was morally right, but at the end of the day, who gives a damn? If an ex had me on tape and kept it to herself, and I didn't know about it, what difference would it make to me? None, whatsoever. If she showed it to mates, sure I'd be annoyed, but without that it's ultimately little different to remembering it in your head at a later date, do you wan't people to bleach their minds after splitting up with you?

he didn't distribute the films, they were hidden away 'for personal use' and in reality, no one was harmed until the girlfriend uncovered them and decided to act as she did...

Get a grip.

So if i head down down the family changing rooms at the local swimming pool and film some kids getting undressed but keep the footage "hidden away for personal use" then it's ok?

that's not the privacy of your own home is it? and filming kids is a social taboo and clearly illegal under our criminal code...

I think what he's done is dubious/wrong, but in essence fairly harmless, he's punishment is excessive IMO, it'll have ruined his life, which doesn't fit the 'crime' at all.

So if i head down down the family changing rooms at the local swimming pool and film some kids getting undressed but keep the footage "hidden away for personal use" then it's ok?

Get a grip yourself bob, thats a wholely different situation and you know it. Nothing happened on the tape that the other partner didn't agree to do with the defendant and enjoy, unlike being filmed in the changing rooms. The only argument that is put forward is that the recording of the acts was wrong. I just struggle to understand that. (no, I've not done it, before people cast ideas about lol).

You can't just film yourself having sex without the other persons consent, does it really matter whether or not he kept it for his own personal use at home. Sex offenders start small, not saying he will go on to commit further however sex offenders start with "smaller" offences such as exposure or voyeurism. He was a f***ing idiot in my opinion.

About as morally wrong as having hidden CCTV cameras everywhere - in public and private spaces. I have no idea whether friends and acquaintances have CCTV in or around their homes.....

What we have here appears to be a case of double standards. Certainly what he did was morally dubious, but how different is it to having surveillance cameras everywhere?

Is it safe to assume (for legal purposes) that the bedroom is camera free, but the entrance lobby might have a security camera??? - no quickies on the stairs then...

Given the amount of material that ends up on the net, I think that "covertly" filming should certainly be discouraged. Putting him on the sex offenders register may be a bit steep, but then again his actions do display a certain tendancy....

rkk01 - fine with it if he'd put up signs warning partners of the cameras in the smoke alarm etc!

Voyeurism is a crime of a sexual nature, re the SO register I guess consider the fact that this guy might set up cameras overlooking other peoples windows etc, and that this would then remove the "consensual" element, it just becomes perving doesn't it?

He;s had his kicks of sleeping with these girlfriends (fair enough), videoing it (if that floats your boat), without their consent (creepy/perverted......)

My post was typed off fairly quickly and is a bit muddled for it....

... but in a society where surveillance is so pervasive, could it be argued that the norms become blurred?

If the pictures were taken on privat eproperty, with th eproperty owners permission, is it just the monkey business that makes it illegal?

Get a grip yourself bob, thats a wholely different situation and you know it. Nothing happened on the tape that the other partner didn't agree to do with the defendant and enjoy, unlike being filmed in the changing rooms.

No it's exactly the same. Nothing happens in the changing rooms at a swimming pool that the kids and parents there didn't agree to do. In both situations, the person doesn't mind doing what they're doing, but hasn't agreed to be filmed doing it.

But at the end of the day, if the tapes had never been found and no-one was harmed in the making of it, what would it matter? It was the act of forwarding it to the "stars" of the film that caused the problems, otherwise in the grand scheme of things it would have made no difference to anyone.

Yeah, but that is surely why we have laws against covert filming of private acts generally (you aren't allowed to record telephone calls without consent either). It makes no difference to anyone except in the case that it becomes public, which as we see here is very much a possibility.

Joe

[b]coffeeking[/b], you said

the girlfriend caused the distress and anger

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.

he whole timbre of this thread is "ooh, poor guy, he was just enjoying himself on his own time" which is nonsense.

[b]thisisnotaspoon[/b]

If the pictures were taken on privat eproperty, with th eproperty owners permission, is it just the monkey business that makes it illegal?

to extend the previous poster's analogy; if you owned a gym, would you feel free to video the kids or whoever in changing rooms and loos? would that be right or wrong, legal or illegal? what is non-consensual in that situation aside from the act of videoing?

I'm quite surprised that this is a criminal case. I'd have thought that the nature of voyeurism was observing other people rather than recording yourself participating in events. But maybe I'm being naive here.

[i] (you aren't allowed to record telephone calls without consent either)[/i]

I don't think that's entirely true. AFAIK You're allowed to record conversation you make with other people for your personal record without their consent. It's just not admissible as evidence.

nature of voyeurism was observing other people rather than recording yourself participating in events

It wouldn't be illegal if it was just him having a **** - the point is that there were other people and they didn't know they were being filmed (and could have had a reasonable expectation not to be filmed, given the private nature of the situation).

Joe

The changing room analogy is different - public space and children involved.

telephone calls are allowed to be recorded if you are one of the parties on the call - remember the taped Gordon Brown / bereaved soldier's mother's call...

Def guilty put don't aggree with the punishment when you look at other crimes and the punishment these criminals get.

He's basically highlighted himself as a potential threat as he might video the public, or he might video his neighbours, or he might post the videos on the tinterweb, or he might sell the films and become a millionaire......

Thats a lot of maybe's to be placed on the sex offender's register.

Come on everyone's a pervert behind close doors in someones eyes. This bloke just pushed the limits....

Besides keeping hard copy dvd's with peoples names on is just a rookie mistake 😉

I don't think that's entirely true. AFAIK You're allowed to record conversation you make with other people for your personal record without their consent. It's just not admissible as evidence.

Oh yeah, looks like you're right - as long as you give them to a third party.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/consumer/advice/faqs/prvfaq3.htm

I think that he's been a total shit for recording what went on not just without the consent of the other willing participant in the deeds, but by taking steps to do it covertly.

That said, I think that jail time and 10 years on the SO register is way over the top given that the films seem to have been made for his own, err, enjoyment, and that he didn't try to make them public in any way.

As for the woman involved saying "she had needed counselling after she found out what he had done. She stated she was too ashamed to tell her family what had happened and said it left her "feeling violated, dirty and sick". All the video was, AFAIK was a documentary record of the acts that she willingly took part in - a touch of WTFU is required on her part.

[b]rkk01[/b]

The changing room analogy is different - public space and children involved.

don't think so; My Gym, My land, but OK

take the kids and public classification out of the equation; I put a video in the loo and shower in my home (or indeed the office at the company that I own). [s]Your mum comes round for dinner[/s] friends, relatives etc come round to stay, I film them having a poo, taking a shower making love, beating off etc

right or wrong? Legal or illegal?

The judge says it's illegal, I agree with him. As I said, I think putting him on the sex offenders register is harsh (someone said it well; it cheapens the register itself) but for the rest of it? I think he got what he deserved, I'm just shocked at so many apologists suggesting that so long as it was for his own use then well, what harm has he done?

Phew! My stash of phone sex MP3s is still fine 🙂

The fact that he filmed it for his own sexual gratification is where he commits the offence (as well as without the other parties consent).

Munqe-chick - out of interest, do you have to show that he would have recorded it for his own gratification then in order to get a prosecution ?

Immoral, yes. Criminal, yes. Sex offender... nah

Seems to me that we need a Sex Offenders League Table, rather than a simple list. 🙂

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

"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.

[i]Phew! My stash of phone sex MP3s is still fine[/i]

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

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 😉