Upskirting

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Upskirting

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 10 of 14 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

HeathMan Purley 17 Jun 18 12.10am
I have been following this topic. Both males and females do provide images that will stay in the mind for a little while. However savouring that moment six months later with the aid of a camera is a self-inflicted perversion. Going on to talk, within a group, about the quality of images secured and stored - as though that activity was comparable with the production of "Blue Planet" - is something to be discouraged - by law, sensibly applied, as needed.
Alert a moderator to this post

HeathMan

Purley 17 Jun 18 12.10am

I have been following this topic. Both males and females do provide images that will stay in the mind for a little while. However savouring that moment six months later with the aid of a camera is a self-inflicted perversion. Going on to talk, within a group, about the quality of images secured and stored - as though that activity was comparable with the production of "Blue Planet" - is something to be discouraged - by law, sensibly applied, as needed.

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 17 Jun 18 8.27am
Originally posted by HeathMan I have been following this topic. Both males and females do provide images that will stay in the mind for a little while. However savouring that moment six months later with the aid of a camera is a self-inflicted perversion. Going on to talk, within a group, about the quality of images secured and stored - as though that activity was comparable with the production of "Blue Planet" - is something to be discouraged - by law, sensibly applied, as needed. A while ago I was trying to learn photography while at college. The guy leading the course would bring in his copies of ‘Amateur Photographer’ magazine. In one edition was an article, with loads of photos, basically saying that if you can’t afford to hire a model, there are plenty of pretty ladies to be photographed while you are ‘out and about’. Then there were many examples, and I have to say that a number of them merited (ahem) ‘closer inspection’ and ‘a full report in the morning’ (Reference - Woody Allen in ‘Sleeper’). My point of course is that any law will have to be very careful to specify what candid photography is illegal and what is not. A chance shot of an inner thigh through a split skirt or of a pair of barely contained ‘puppies’ (in the vein of the regular ‘Tit Monday’ thread here on HOL) - legal or illegal? This is why law needs to be carefully considered. For the record...I don’t deliberately take photos of strangers, but presumably AP magazine wasn’t promoting illegal activity in encouraging its readers to do so. Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 17 Jun 18 8.27am

Originally posted by HeathMan

A while ago I was trying to learn photography while at college. The guy leading the course would bring in his copies of ‘Amateur Photographer’ magazine.

In one edition was an article, with loads of photos, basically saying that if you can’t afford to hire a model, there are plenty of pretty ladies to be photographed while you are ‘out and about’. Then there were many examples, and I have to say that a number of them merited (ahem) ‘closer inspection’ and ‘a full report in the morning’ (Reference - Woody Allen in ‘Sleeper’).

My point of course is that any law will have to be very careful to specify what candid photography is illegal and what is not. A chance shot of an inner thigh through a split skirt or of a pair of barely contained ‘puppies’ (in the vein of the regular ‘Tit Monday’ thread here on HOL) - legal or illegal? This is why law needs to be carefully considered.

For the record...I don’t deliberately take photos of strangers, but presumably AP magazine wasn’t promoting illegal activity in encouraging its readers to do so.

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 17 Jun 18 8.56am
Originally posted by YT A while ago I was trying to learn photography while at college. The guy leading the course would bring in his copies of ‘Amateur Photographer’ magazine. In one edition was an article, with loads of photos, basically saying that if you can’t afford to hire a model, there are plenty of pretty ladies to be photographed while you are ‘out and about’. Then there were many examples, and I have to say that a number of them merited (ahem) ‘closer inspection’ and ‘a full report in the morning’ (Reference - Woody Allen in ‘Sleeper’). My point of course is that any law will have to be very careful to specify what candid photography is illegal and what is not. A chance shot of an inner thigh through a split skirt or of a pair of barely contained ‘puppies’ (in the vein of the regular ‘Tit Monday’ thread here on HOL) - legal or illegal? This is why law needs to be carefully considered. For the record...I don’t deliberately take photos of strangers, but presumably AP magazine wasn’t promoting illegal activity in encouraging its readers to do so. I would think the issue of consent will play a factor here. Did the lady give consent? If not then you may or not have committed a crime but you are on shaky ground. I heard the journalist who started all this she was up skirted by a couple of guys at a festival. She had no idea they had taken a photo until she saw one of them waving his phone about. She grabbed it and realised that he had also shared it with his mates nearby who were all having a good laugh. She went to the police who told her as the image wasn't that explicit there was nothing they could do. Assuming she is telling the truth this was a disgusting act by a group of men old enough to know better. Like any law it will need to be drafted so that it is not abused. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 17 Jun 18 8.56am

Originally posted by YT

A while ago I was trying to learn photography while at college. The guy leading the course would bring in his copies of ‘Amateur Photographer’ magazine.

For the record...I don’t deliberately take photos of strangers, but presumably AP magazine wasn’t promoting illegal activity in encouraging its readers to do so.

I would think the issue of consent will play a factor here. Did the lady give consent? If not then you may or not have committed a crime but you are on shaky ground.

I heard the journalist who started all this she was up skirted by a couple of guys at a festival. She had no idea they had taken a photo until she saw one of them waving his phone about. She grabbed it and realised that he had also shared it with his mates nearby who were all having a good laugh. She went to the police who told her as the image wasn't that explicit there was nothing they could do.

Assuming she is telling the truth this was a disgusting act by a group of men old enough to know better. Like any law it will need to be drafted so that it is not abused.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 17 Jun 18 9.08am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Wasn't this however the last opportunity for an objection? That's how I took the BBC's article. Hence looking at your link that's the third reading.....However, we are told that this bill 'sailed through the house' with no debate. That would be rushed legislation. Essentially I just want to know that this bill contains common sense provisions within it. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Jun 2018 1.05pm) So you are arguing without any knowledge The law has been in place in Scotland for nine years. It may be clear by now how it works and the new draft has learned lessons from nine years of practice In the social media age what is done cannot be undone. This is an issue that has morphed hugely in recent years.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 17 Jun 18 9.08am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Wasn't this however the last opportunity for an objection? That's how I took the BBC's article.

Hence looking at your link that's the third reading.....However, we are told that this bill 'sailed through the house' with no debate. That would be rushed legislation.

Essentially I just want to know that this bill contains common sense provisions within it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Jun 2018 1.05pm)

So you are arguing without any knowledge

The law has been in place in Scotland for nine years. It may be clear by now how it works and the new draft has learned lessons from nine years of practice

In the social media age what is done cannot be undone. This is an issue that has morphed hugely in recent years.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 17 Jun 18 9.19am
Originally posted by Mapletree So you are arguing without any knowledge The law has been in place in Scotland for nine years. It may be clear by now how it works and the new draft has learned lessons from nine years of practice In the social media age what is done cannot be undone. This is an issue that has morphed hugely in recent years. Ok Maple, tell me what provisions within the bill cover my concerns over teenage boys. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

17 Jun 18 9.19am

Originally posted by Mapletree

So you are arguing without any knowledge

The law has been in place in Scotland for nine years. It may be clear by now how it works and the new draft has learned lessons from nine years of practice

In the social media age what is done cannot be undone. This is an issue that has morphed hugely in recent years.

Ok Maple, tell me what provisions within the bill cover my concerns over teenage boys.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 17 Jun 18 9.23am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Ok Maple, tell me what provisions within the bill cover my concerns over teenage boys. I am not the OP You said punishments are ridiculously harsh. I am sure you had reason to believe so. I just haven’t seen them. Maximum sentences and practice are of course very different things. Habitual offenders, especially if children are concerned, should be dealt with harshly.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 17 Jun 18 9.23am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Ok Maple, tell me what provisions within the bill cover my concerns over teenage boys.

I am not the OP

You said punishments are ridiculously harsh. I am sure you had reason to believe so. I just haven’t seen them. Maximum sentences and practice are of course very different things. Habitual offenders, especially if children are concerned, should be dealt with harshly.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 17 Jun 18 9.51am
Originally posted by Mapletree I am not the OP You are commenting and criticising, as is your right. The order in which it is done is moot. Originally posted by Mapletree You said punishments are ridiculously harsh. I am sure you had reason to believe so. I just haven’t seen them. Maximum sentences and practice are of course very different things. Habitual offenders, especially if children are concerned, should be dealt with harshly. So in fact you know nothing yourself. You can't answer about possible provisions so to criticise my raising of concerns about them.....Well, that's just you and your childish dislike of me. In the light of your own lack of knowledge you are in fact a hypocrite to criticise anyone for commenting 'without knowledge'. This is an opinion forum and it's a ridiculous point to make. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jun 2018 9.54am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

17 Jun 18 9.51am

Originally posted by Mapletree

I am not the OP

You are commenting and criticising, as is your right. The order in which it is done is moot.

Originally posted by Mapletree

So in fact you know nothing yourself. You can't answer about possible provisions so to criticise my raising of concerns about them.....Well, that's just you and your childish dislike of me.

In the light of your own lack of knowledge you are in fact a hypocrite to criticise anyone for commenting 'without knowledge'.

This is an opinion forum and it's a ridiculous point to make.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jun 2018 9.54am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH SW2 17 Jun 18 10.43am
Originally posted by Mapletree I am not the OP You said punishments are ridiculously harsh. I am sure you had reason to believe so. I just haven’t seen them. Maximum sentences and practice are of course very different things. Habitual offenders, especially if children are concerned, should be dealt with harshly. I think we know that Stirling doesn't understand the British legal system.
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH

SW2 17 Jun 18 10.43am

Originally posted by Mapletree

I am not the OP

You said punishments are ridiculously harsh. I am sure you had reason to believe so. I just haven’t seen them. Maximum sentences and practice are of course very different things. Habitual offenders, especially if children are concerned, should be dealt with harshly.

I think we know that Stirling doesn't understand the British legal system.

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 17 Jun 18 10.52am
Originally posted by DanH I think we know that Stirling doesn't understand the British legal system. You’ve become a lot more patronising since puberty. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 17 Jun 18 10.52am

Originally posted by DanH

I think we know that Stirling doesn't understand the British legal system.

You’ve become a lot more patronising since puberty.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 17 Jun 18 11.22am
Originally posted by DanH I think we know that Stirling doesn't understand the British legal system. When you fail playing the ball, play the man. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

17 Jun 18 11.22am

Originally posted by DanH

I think we know that Stirling doesn't understand the British legal system.

When you fail playing the ball, play the man.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH SW2 17 Jun 18 11.30am
Originally posted by Cucking Funt You’ve become a lot more patronising since puberty. I have fully got my sass on.
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH

SW2 17 Jun 18 11.30am

Originally posted by Cucking Funt

You’ve become a lot more patronising since puberty.

I have fully got my sass on.

Alert a moderator to this post

braunstoneagle the middle of bumf*** nowhere... 17 Jun 18 11.41am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Could you stop talking utter cobblers. No one on this thread approves of it but some feel that a 2 year sentence is ridiculously harsh. Obviously, if this was part of a pattern of deviant behavior toward women or a multiple offender then more stringent action should be taken but 2 years for taking a picture of someone's gusset is bonkers. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (16 Jun 2018 11.55pm) obviously the 2 year penatly would be for serial offenders. i would fully expect somebody to get put on the sex offenders register for 1st offence tho. i ask again, i dont know if you have a daughter, but what would you want doing if somebody tried to take photos of her chuff without permission? ‘Football isn’t instant coffee. You have to work at it. You must grow the bean, grind it.’ Ian Holloway
Alert a moderator to this post

braunstoneagle

the middle of bumf*** nowhere... 17 Jun 18 11.41am

Send a Private Message to braunstoneagle

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Could you stop talking utter cobblers.

No one on this thread approves of it but some feel that a 2 year sentence is ridiculously harsh.
Obviously, if this was part of a pattern of deviant behavior toward women or a multiple offender then more stringent action should be taken but 2 years for taking a picture of someone's gusset is bonkers.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (16 Jun 2018 11.55pm)

obviously the 2 year penatly would be for serial offenders.

i would fully expect somebody to get put on the sex offenders register for 1st offence tho.

i ask again, i dont know if you have a daughter, but what would you want doing if somebody tried to take photos of her chuff without permission?

‘Football isn’t instant coffee. You have to work at it. You must grow the bean, grind it.’ Ian Holloway

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 10 of 14 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Upskirting

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors