Man films Child on phone in Asda
Richard McKenzie
johannes
Richard McKenzie wrote:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-12579311
Sounds harsh, but why was he stalking the child in the store? That
alone seems out of order.
Nigel Oldfield
>
> Sounds harsh, but why was he stalking the child in the store? That
> alone seems out of order.
Because he can? - not 'stalking' BTW.
WM
Richard McKenzie
wrote:
'Because he can' werent you the one on the radio who mentioned
copyright infringement of some peado aware website site used pictures
from the Sun. Because if it were filmed inside a superstore unless
there is a public interest issue then im sure he is breaking the law.
Mike Ross
wrote:
Stalking? That seems to me to mean an ongoing course of obsessional conduct
against a victim who has made it clear they don't wish any contact.
I have NO idea how this came to be a criminal matter; Asda, whilst private
property, is a 'public place' where you have no expectation of privacy. It's
perfectly legal to take photos there(1). If the property owners or their
representatives ask you to desist, you must desist. If they ask you to leave,
you must leave. Those are the only remedies. I have no idea how the police came
to be involved; the correct response would have been 'He's taking photos? That's
not yet a criminal offence, it's a civil matter Sir. Ask him to leave the
premises, if you like - if he refuses we'll attend to prevent BoP."
I have no idea why the procurator charged, why the idiot pleaded guilty, and why
the court accepted the plea!
(1) unless the photos are criminal in nature of course, e.g. voyeuristic
so-called 'up-skirt' photos.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his brother.
Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame.
For one person, in the dark, where no one will ever know or see.'
Nigel Oldfield
>copyright infringement of some peado aware website site used pictures
>from the Sun. Because if it were filmed inside a superstore unless
>there is a public interest issue then im sure he is breaking the law.
They are his images, he is the CR holder.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
> and why
> the court accepted the plea!
DC, BotP, those were the 'offences'.
WM
johannes
"Forrest, of Bingham Crossway, Edinburgh, admitted conducting himself in
a disorderly manner, following and videoing the girl on his phone and
committing a breach of the peace."
Sounds like stalking to me.
Ian Jackson
<add9aff0-9cca-4564...@a28g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
Richard McKenzie <richardm...@googlemail.com> writes
pictures of children. Nor does the fact that this is done in a
supermarket make it illegal. Of course, in the present pedophilophobic
climate, doing so can be construed (in certain circumstances, possibly
with some justification) to be breaking some other law - which is what
appears to have happened here.
--
Ian
Nigel Oldfield
> a disorderly manner, following and videoing the girl on his phone and
> committing a breach of the peace."
>
> Sounds like stalking to me.
Well you are incorrect, legally.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
> pictures of children. Nor does the fact that this is done in a supermarket
> make it illegal. Of course, in the present pedophilophobic climate, doing
> so can be construed (in certain circumstances, possibly with some
> justification) to be breaking some other law - which is what appears to
> have happened here.
> --
> Ian
It happens ;)
WM
johannes
Whatever. Surely it is worrying for the little girl to be followed around
and videoed by a stranger. Sounds like stalking to me.
Nigel Oldfield
>>
>> WM
>
> Whatever. Surely it is worrying for the little girl to be followed around
> and videoed by a stranger.
Did she know?
>Sounds like stalking to me.
Such are these times.
WM
johannes
Would you be happy if someone you didn't know followed you around in a
supermarket and video'd you?
Nigel Oldfield
>>
>> WM
>
> Would you be happy if someone you didn't know followed you around in a
They do, it is called CCTV :)
In general terms, not a problem at all - I would be flattered ;)
WM
Big Les Wade
>I have NO idea how this came to be a criminal matter; Asda, whilst
>private property, is a 'public place' where you have no expectation of
>privacy. It's perfectly legal to take photos there(1). If the property
>owners or their representatives ask you to desist, you must desist. If
>they ask you to leave, you must leave. Those are the only remedies. I
>have no idea how the police came to be involved; the correct response
>would have been 'He's taking photos? That's not yet a criminal offence,
>it's a civil matter Sir. Ask him to leave the premises, if you like -
>if he refuses we'll attend to prevent BoP."
>
>I have no idea why the procurator charged, why the idiot pleaded
>guilty, and why the court accepted the plea!
It's because it was Scotland. Their primitive legal system has left them
with some offences created in the Dark Ages in order to legalise the
lynching of suspected witches.
What the guy did would not have been an offence in England. Although
he'd probably have been pursued by a procession of honest but angry
townsfolk bearing blazing torches and pitchforks, until he sought refuge
in a derelict windmill where they would burn him to death while he
shouted "Gaaaah! Gaaaah!" at them.
--
Les
johannes
Nigel Oldfield wrote:
>
> > Such are these times.
> >>
> >> WM
> >
> > Would you be happy if someone you didn't know followed you around in a
> > supermarket and video'd you?]
>
> They do, it is called CCTV :)
I know you would say that. With CCTV there is no strange man following you
around. It is the apparent interest from the man following her around,
and emphasized by his video filming, that is worrying to the little girl.
Nigel Oldfield
No, it could have been BotP (or prevention of). Enough to get him away, bang
him up and then let him go.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
>> > supermarket and video'd you?]
>>
>> They do, it is called CCTV :)
>
> I know you would say that. With CCTV there is no strange man following you
> around.
How do you know what the 'operative' (or his mates, later) is up to?
>It is the apparent interest from the man following her around,
> and emphasized by his video filming, that is worrying to the little girl.
Is it, how and so what?
WM
Brave New Britain
<jo...@sizef22777727556itter.com> wrote:
>Nigel Oldfield wrote:
>>
>> > "Forrest, of Bingham Crossway, Edinburgh, admitted conducting himself in
>> > a disorderly manner, following and videoing the girl on his phone and
>> > committing a breach of the peace."
>> >
>> > Sounds like stalking to me.
>>
>> Well you are incorrect, legally.
>Whatever. Surely it is worrying for the little girl to be followed around
>and videoed by a stranger. Sounds like stalking to me.
At this rate, it'll soon be a 'breach of the peace' to 'look at
someone in a funny way' or even to be 'in possession of an offensive
wife'.
We should oppose any such extension of the use of law to regulate
ordinary behaviour most vigorously.
--
Brave New Britain
Nigel Oldfield
> ordinary behaviour most vigorously.
It is a very long-standing tactic.
WM
johannes
Breach of the peace, at the minimum.
Richard McKenzie
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:47:48 +0000, johannes <j...@sizef22777727556itter.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Richard McKenzie wrote:
>
> >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-12579311
>
> >Sounds harsh, but why was he stalking the child in the store? That
> >alone seems out of order.
>
> Stalking? That seems to me to mean an ongoing course of obsessional conduct
> against a victim who has made it clear they don't wish any contact.
>
> I have NO idea how this came to be a criminal matter; Asda, whilst private
> property, is a 'public place' where you have no expectation of privacy. It's
> perfectly legal to take photos there(1). If the property owners or their
> representatives ask you to desist, you must desist. If they ask you to leave,
> you must leave. Those are the only remedies. I have no idea how the police came
> to be involved; the correct response would have been 'He's taking photos? That's
> not yet a criminal offence, it's a civil matter Sir. Ask him to leave the
> premises, if you like - if he refuses we'll attend to prevent BoP."
>
> I have no idea why the procurator charged, why the idiot pleaded guilty, and why
> the court accepted the plea!
>
> (1) unless the photos are criminal in nature of course, e.g. voyeuristic
> so-called 'up-skirt' photos.
>
> Mike
> 'No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his brother.
> Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame.
> For one person, in the dark, where no one will ever know or see.'
I didnt realise while on instore it is deemed a public place.
Richard McKenzie
I thought it wouldnt be long before you came out with this, akin to
your possessing indecent images of children does not harm anyone.
Richard McKenzie
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:35:43 +0000, johannes
>
If he inadvertently filmed her yes but to follow her about another
thing
Nigel Oldfield
>
> Breach of the peace, at the minimum.
Eh, yes. But it is her family who should be arrested if any breach occurs.
He is acting within the Statutes (inc HRA).
WM
Nigel Oldfield
>
> WM
>I thought it wouldnt be long before you came out with this, akin to
your possessing indecent images of children does not harm anyone.
Absolutely, you have evidence otherwise in each case? Even if she *knew* she
was being filmed.
WM
Steve Walker
> Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org> posted
>> I have NO idea how this came to be a criminal matter; Asda, whilst
>> private property, is a 'public place' where you have no expectation
>> of privacy. It's perfectly legal to take photos there(1). If the
>> property owners or their representatives ask you to desist, you must
>> desist. If they ask you to leave, you must leave. Those are the only
>> remedies. I have no idea how the police came to be involved; the
>> correct response would have been 'He's taking photos? That's not yet
>> a criminal offence, it's a civil matter Sir. Ask him to leave the
>> premises, if you like - if he refuses we'll attend to prevent BoP."
>>
>> I have no idea why the procurator charged, why the idiot pleaded
>> guilty, and why the court accepted the plea!
>
> It's because it was Scotland. Their primitive legal system has left
> them with some offences created in the Dark Ages in order to legalise
> the lynching of suspected witches.
>
> What the guy did would not have been an offence in England.
In your opinion. I am quite certain that if this had happened in the ASDA
in Birmingham or Basingstoke, the chap would likely have been successfully
prosecuted for causing Harassment, alarm or distress, contrary to s.5 of the
Public Order Act 1986
johannes
Brave New Britain wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:35:43 +0000, johannes
> <jo...@sizef22777727556itter.com> wrote:
>
> >Nigel Oldfield wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Forrest, of Bingham Crossway, Edinburgh, admitted conducting himself in
> >> > a disorderly manner, following and videoing the girl on his phone and
> >> > committing a breach of the peace."
> >> >
> >> > Sounds like stalking to me.
> >>
> >> Well you are incorrect, legally.
>
> >Whatever. Surely it is worrying for the little girl to be followed around
> >and videoed by a stranger. Sounds like stalking to me.
>
> At this rate, it'll soon be a 'breach of the peace' to 'look at
> someone in a funny way' or even to be 'in possession of an offensive
> wife'.
No, I distinguish between merely looking at someone and deliberately following
their steps around in a superstore.
Nigel Oldfield
>
> In your opinion. I am quite certain that if this had happened in the
> ASDA in Birmingham or Basingstoke, the chap would likely have been
> successfully prosecuted for causing Harassment, alarm or distress,
> contrary to s.5 of the Public Order Act 1986
They may try to frighten him with it, but it is likely they would drop it
and go for BotP or let him go.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
>> someone in a funny way' or even to be 'in possession of an offensive
>> wife'.
>
> No, I distinguish between merely looking at someone and deliberately
> following
> their steps around in a superstore.
... and yet both (thank the 'lord') are legal, for now.
WM
Richard McKenzie
there goes the voice of experience
Big Les Wade
Let's look at the relevant text of that section, then.
"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he--
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible
representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment,
alarm or distress thereby."
What threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour did the guy
use? If none, in what way was his behaviour disorderly? If none, what
sign or writing or visible representation did he display that was
threatening, abusive or insulting?
If any of these conditions were fulfilled, which person was likely to be
caused harassment, alarm or distress by being photographed while walking
round a supermarket. How does this person cope with being watched
everywhere on CCTV manned by unknown persons?
--
Les
Nigel Oldfield
> and go for BotP or let him go.
>
> WM
>there goes the voice of experience
Yup, more than once.
WM
Mike Ross
<richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 26, 4:12 pm, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:47:48 +0000, johannes <j...@sizef22777727556itter.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Richard McKenzie wrote:
>>
>> >>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-12579311
>>
>> >Sounds harsh, but why was he stalking the child in the store? That
>> >alone seems out of order.
>>
>> Stalking? That seems to me to mean an ongoing course of obsessional conduct
>> against a victim who has made it clear they don't wish any contact.
>>
>> I have NO idea how this came to be a criminal matter; Asda, whilst private
>> property, is a 'public place' where you have no expectation of privacy. It's
>> perfectly legal to take photos there(1). If the property owners or their
>> representatives ask you to desist, you must desist. If they ask you to leave,
>> you must leave. Those are the only remedies. I have no idea how the police came
>> to be involved; the correct response would have been 'He's taking photos? That's
>> not yet a criminal offence, it's a civil matter Sir. Ask him to leave the
>> premises, if you like - if he refuses we'll attend to prevent BoP."
>>
>> I have no idea why the procurator charged, why the idiot pleaded guilty, and why
>> the court accepted the plea!
>>
>> (1) unless the photos are criminal in nature of course, e.g. voyeuristic
>> so-called 'up-skirt' photos.
>I didnt realise while on instore it is deemed a public place.
It's private property sure, but it's a place to which any memeber of the public
has uninvited access - as opposed to, say, a private home, where you have to
knock on the door and state your business, or an event, which requires a ticket.
Being private property, it allows the owner to, for instance, forbid
photography, or require someone to leave - unlike the public street.
Mike
--
Steve Walker
He was caught furtively photographing a small child in school uniform, and
admitted later that he did this sort of thing regularly for personal
gratification. In the current social climate, I don't believe that many
magistrates or juries would hesitate to find that this was disorderly
behaviour and that it was likely to cause distress to the child and/or their
parent.
F Murtz
>> I have no idea why the procurator charged, why the idiot pleaded guilty,
>> and why
>> the court accepted the plea!
>
>
> WM
>
>
Dirigible contusion? botanical potatos?
Mike Ross
Social climate has nothing to do with it; it appears he effectively was
convicted of the offence of getting caught. If he had been more skilled at
clandestine photography he wouldn't have been caught, and no offence would have
been committed. There certainly wouldn't have been any disorder.
Steve Walker
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 01:14:24 -0000, "Steve Walker"
> Social climate has nothing to do with it; it appears he effectively
> was convicted of the offence of getting caught. If he had been more
> skilled at clandestine photography he wouldn't have been caught, and
> no offence would have been committed. There certainly wouldn't have
> been any disorder.
If you feel that it's OK to use children for sexual titillation, then you
could help to avoid further such convictions by offering him access to your
children. He could come round late at night when they're asleep, and
gently undress them for some really dirty shots, but they would never know
it had happened.
Shall I pass on your details in case he fancies getting a cheap flight over?
johannes
Not legal if it is breach of the peace, as it was in this case.
alang
>
>He was caught furtively photographing a small child in school uniform, and
>admitted later that he did this sort of thing regularly for personal
>gratification. In the current social climate, I don't believe that many
>magistrates or juries would hesitate to find that this was disorderly
>behaviour and that it was likely to cause distress to the child and/or their
>parent.
>
>
School uniforms?
Brave New Britain
In what way? There wasn't a scuffle reported. BoP is a nasty catch-all
offence.
If someone accuses me of "looking at him the wrong way" and kicks off,
there is clearly a breach of the peace, but who is guilty of it? Me,
for 'causing' the incident, or the other bloke for getting physical?
Clearly in this case the sheriff isn't going to prosecute me for
anything, but it's very similar to the reported case; the only
exception being that there was a kid involved rather than a
thick-necked thug.
--
Brave New Britain
johannes
Not just looking in this case, but following the little girl around,
expressing an unwanted interest in the child by video'ing her while
following her around. All these things put together, not just one
thing.
Mentalguy2k8
"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:8su6jv...@mid.individual.net...
Excellent point.
Nigel Oldfield
> > > following
> > > their steps around in a superstore.
>
> > ... and yet both (thank the 'lord') are legal, for now.
> Not legal if it is breach of the peace, as it was in this case.
No, he was not charged for either action.
I suspect that the charges were a consequence of the arrest etc, not
the original camera work, that would would have been arrest for
prevention (well, here in England, it would be), based on the details
in the OP.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
> > was convicted of the offence of getting caught. If he had been more
> > skilled at clandestine photography he wouldn't have been caught, and
> > no offence would have been committed. There certainly wouldn't have
> > been any disorder.
>
> If you feel that it's OK to use children for sexual titillation,
Legal, in this case.
>then you
> could help to avoid further such convictions by offering him access to your
> children.
Legal.
>He could come round late at night when they're asleep,
Legal.
>and
> gently undress them
Legal.
>for some really dirty shots,
You mean indecent, or involving stains. dirt, soil etc?
>but they would never know
> it had happened.
No harm done then.
> Shall I pass on your details in case he fancies getting a cheap flight over?
Nothing illegal about that.
Actually, he was charged because he was caught doing something legal
by other Statute. That is all. That is undeniable. That is how our
establishment works and 'keeps order'.
The rest is a logic fail rant.
WM
Mike Ross
Fuck off. This is a private house and neither he nor you are welcome.
We're not talking about 'using children for sexual titillation', we're
discussing whether or not it's a crime to take clandestine photographs in a
public place.
Steve Walker
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:43:24 -0000, "Steve Walker"
> <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>> Mike Ross wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 01:14:24 -0000, "Steve Walker"
>>
>>> Social climate has nothing to do with it; it appears he effectively
>>> was convicted of the offence of getting caught. If he had been more
>>> skilled at clandestine photography he wouldn't have been caught, and
>>> no offence would have been committed. There certainly wouldn't have
>>> been any disorder.
>>
>> If you feel that it's OK to use children for sexual titillation,
>> then you could help to avoid further such convictions by offering
>> him access to your children. He could come round late at night
>> when they're asleep, and gently undress them for some really dirty
>> shots, but they would never know it had happened.
>>
>> Shall I pass on your details in case he fancies getting a cheap
>> flight over?
>
> Fuck off. This is a private house and neither he nor you are welcome.
>
> We're not talking about 'using children for sexual titillation', we're
> discussing whether or not it's a crime to take clandestine
> photographs in a public place.
Ah, now I understand. You were happy to shout the odds about his right to
photograph and wank over little children (and I imagine you must be proud
that Fat Nige is standing shoulder to shoulder with you on that point) but
only as long as it was someone else's children.
Nigel Oldfield
> photograph and wank over little children (and I imagine you must be proud
> that Fat Nige is standing shoulder to shoulder with you on that point) but
> only as long as it was someone else's children.
Logic fail.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
I refer you to my earlier post on what SF (and you) need to do to
rectify your logic
fails. Only in that way, will you be taken seriously and responded to,
as
such.
> You are *so* boring. So much so, for the first time ever, I'm going to use
> my killfile
Ah, the glorious, bitter-sweet, taste of victory.
WM
BrianW
wrote:
Not much of a victory unless your aim at the outset was to bore us all
to death, you useless fat cunt.
Nigel Oldfield
>
> Not much of a victory unless your aim at the outset was to bore us all
> to death, you useless fat cunt.
... and again.
No, in this issue, the victory is to get trolls to STFU, as much as
possible.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
> expected, but an achievement all the same.
Suck them lemons, troll.
WM
BrianW
wrote:
> > Not the one he probably
> > expected, but an achievement all the same.
>
> Suck them lemons, troll.
No, Nige, a "troll" is someone who posts stuff he doesn't believe just
to provoke a reaction. I can assure you that I full believe that you
are a repulsive, useless sack of shit. I strongly suspect Mike does
too.
totallyconfused
wrote:
And there you have it people....Nigel DOES believe such issues are
Morally correct...without morality there is no reason for many of our
current laws- in his view. But I am sure that Nigel will say that a
'primative' need to protect our children from abuse is a logic fail
and 'emotive'.
Nigel Oldfield
> to provoke a reaction.
Incorrect.
>I can assure you that I full believe that you
> are a repulsive, useless sack of shit. I strongly suspect Mike does
> too.
Well, you are not him, so logic fail, but, I note your second logic
fail, as I can only ever be 1 of the 4 (to you), at best.
You are, of course, entitled to your trolling opinions, however
incorrect they may be.
I gave you get-out clauses and you squandered them. I will continue to
logic and outwit you into oblivion.
I am very patient.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
> Morally correct...without morality there is no reason for many of our
> current laws- in his view.
Indeed.
No 'serious' harm, no law required - that is my position.
>But I am sure that Nigel will say that a
> 'primative' need to protect our children from abuse is a logic fail
> and 'emotive'.
'Abuse', do you mean harm? I should be careful about bringing up
'abusing children', in public, if I were you.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
> you introduced people in my life who did so, and continue to do
> so...
If I think you should be careful, I am *certainly* going to be.
>and the difference between harm and serious harm.. the UK gov't
> can't even define that....
Actually, there is 'guidance', but I certainly can create one.
WM
Steve Walker
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 10:55:43 -0800, BrianW ranted:
Affirmative!
Big Les Wade
>Mike Ross wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 01:14:24 -0000, "Steve Walker"
>
>> was convicted of the offence of getting caught. If he had been more
>> skilled at clandestine photography he wouldn't have been caught, and
>> no offence would have been committed. There certainly wouldn't have
>> been any disorder.
>
>If you feel that it's OK to use children for sexual titillation,
It is in some ways but not in others. For example it is perfectly OK
both morally and legally to obtain sexual arousal from lawfully
published photographs of children. This fact has no relevance to moral
or legal judgements over other, quite different, ways of using children
for sexual titillation.
>then you
>could help to avoid further such convictions by offering him access to your
>children. He could come round late at night when they're asleep, and
>gently undress them for some really dirty shots, but they would never know
>it had happened.
Those are some of the ways in which it is not OK to use children for
sexual titillation. They are irrelevant to discussions of those ways
that are OK, so your attempt at redirection fails.
--
Les
Nigel Oldfield
>
> ..'TC have you ever posted on a website which is also frequented by
> one NLO who calls himself 'WM'...'Yes I have even though I don't
> endorse his opinions...I just enjoy debating'......' 'So you admit to
> conversing with this person?' 'Yes' 'Do you now acknowledge via
> knowing NLO via the internet you came to know one GS?'
> 'I came to know a GS...but not the S you have named' 'So you did not
> know the true identity of GS?' 'Correct' 'Do you have evidence that
> NLO knew the true identity of GS?' Yes'. 'How?'
> 'I was telephoned by Kent police to say that this GS was planning to
> kidnap my child and torture my baby.'
>
> 'If not for NLO/WM would you have any reason to know who GS is? Would
> GS know of you or your child?' 'No'
> 'Were you aware that GS is a RSO?' 'Yes'
> 'What reason were you given that GS is RSO?' 'Operation Ore'
> 'After the event were you shown evidence that GS was not 'operation
> ore'? 'yes'
> 'Do you believe NLO/WM misled you about the true identity of GS and
> his offending history?' 'Yes'..
> Trial Bundle Lever Arch File 4, section F
What is said in court is rarely truth - you know that better than
many.
TY for making your claims concrete - very useful.
WM
totallyconfused
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you claiming the trasnscripts I was asked to read out loud in
court were falsified?
Nigel Oldfield
> court were falsified?
'Better' than that, I will now call you a liar in court (to the best
of your knowledge or not) and I have a number who can testify and
provide archived proof, as such.
I told you to be quiet (I have advised you so many times), but no, you
chose not to. So be it.
WM
totallyconfused
wrote:
See you in court then...can't wait
Nigel Oldfield
Not for me to prosecute you.
Are you so bitter and twisted ('forgetting' who your enemies are, for
an easier life?), that you do not think some have SQL forum comms
archived and *dated* (inc PMs) between you and 'others'? Have you
become that naive and brainwashed?
I strongly-recommend you desist.
WM
totallyconfused
Sorry, forgot to say, I will pull the transcripts of GS and ;B; that
you claim never happened.... that I was never asked to read in court-
according to you....let me know what press you wish to invite....Don't
forget to give me your 'number who can testify' so my solicitor can
deposition them in preparation..and the only 'evidence' of you
'telling me to be quiet' was you calling me drunk or
flakey....including on this site- particularly when I have had more
balls than the average bloke to stand up to you.
I will expect the summons by March 4th at 5pm.....
go for it.
totallyconfused
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have never ever used SQL- nice try
totallyconfused
>
> - Show quoted text -
I will now call you a liar in court (to the best
> of your knowledge or not) and I have a number who can testify and
> provide archived proof, as such.
that is YOU claiming YOU want to take me to court....
Steve Walker
Opinions differ, Les. Only a few weeks ago a poster here was seriously
arguing that it would be OK to sexually penetrate a sleeping child as long
as they weren't aware of this being done to them. That was at Message ID
<419552d1-be9c-4554...@fu15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> in the
thread titled "Gay couple and hotel- some thoughts".
My personal view is that if someone is wanking over a Freemans catalogue
then good luck to them. It must be awful to be sexually attracted to taboo
people or behaviours, and we owe some compassion and dignity to those who
contain their urges.
But if someone is going out looking for children to photograph, follow or
approach for sexual purposes, then this is undeniably going to cause genuine
alarm to the child's parents and can be prosecuted as a public order
offence.
Nigel Oldfield
Oh Lisa, please.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
See above.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
Logic fail.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
> alarm to the child's parents and can be prosecuted as a public order
> offence.
Only in a world (country) of madness.
WM
totallyconfused
wrote:
> > I have never ever used SQL- nice try
>
> Oh Lisa, please.
>
> WM
Don't even know what it is....
Nigel Oldfield
>
> > Oh Lisa, please.
>
> > WM
>
> Don't even know what it is....
'Every time' you have posted on a forum you have 'used' it.
Do you *really* think I am bullshitting you, about this? Have you
really learned so little?
WM
totallyconfused
Nigel Oldfield
>
> Completely.....
Then we are truly done.
WM
BrianW
wrote:
> > No, Nige, a "troll" is someone who posts stuff he doesn't believe just
> > to provoke a reaction.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> >I can assure you that I full believe that you
> > are a repulsive, useless sack of shit. I strongly suspect Mike does
> > too.
>
> Well, you are not him, so logic fail,
Er, no, Wiggy, I said "suspect", not "know", and he has now confirmed
that my suspicion is correct. Fuck, you are a dumb cunt.
> but, I note your second logic
> fail, as I can only ever be 1 of the 4 (to you), at best.
Well, let's see, shall we?
"Repulsive": <looks at http://www.chris-uk.org/pro-paedophile-activist-nigel-oldfield>
Yup, you are a repulsive cunt.
"Useless": you are an unemployed, unemployable benefit-scrounging
cunt. Yup, you are a useless cunt.
"Sack of shit": did you see what I was doing above, calling you a
cunt? Obviously, I'm not saying you are an actual woman's vagina.
After all, how could you be - women's vaginas are highly sought after
and desired. Similarly, I'm not suggesting that you are an actual
sack of shit - merely that you have all the characteristics of one.
> You are, of course, entitled to your trolling opinions, however
> incorrect they may be.
>
> I gave you get-out clauses and you squandered them. I will continue to
> logic and outwit you into oblivion.
>
> I am very patient.
You need to be, Wiggy. You are going to be on the dole, shunned by
society, for a very long time.
totallyconfused
wrote:
Why???? what happened to the'see you in court' above??? (Your words)
Nigel Oldfield
> > > are a repulsive, useless sack of shit. I strongly suspect Mike does
> > > too.
>
> > Well, you are not him, so logic fail,
>
> Er, no, Wiggy, I said "suspect", not "know", and he has now confirmed
> that my suspicion is correct. Fuck, you are a dumb cunt.
Not what I said - logic fail.
> > but, I note your second logic
> > fail, as I can only ever be 1 of the 4 (to you), at best.
>
> Well, let's see, shall we?
>
> "Repulsive": <looks athttp://www.chris-uk.org/pro-paedophile-activist-nigel-oldfield>
> Yup, you are a repulsive
Thats is your opinion and noted (1 thus far).
> "Useless": you are an unemployed, unemployable benefit-scrounging
> cunt. Yup, you are a useless cunt.
Absolutely not, you have no idea how useful I am or will be (1 thus
far).
> "Sack of shit": did you see what I was doing above, calling you a
> cunt? Obviously, I'm not saying you are an actual woman's vagina.
> After all, how could you be - women's vaginas are highly sought after
> and desired. Similarly, I'm not suggesting that you are an actual
> sack of shit - merely that you have all the characteristics of one.
(1 thus far) = 1 overall.
> > I gave you get-out clauses and you squandered them. I will continue to
> > logic and outwit you into oblivion.
>
> > I am very patient.
>
> You need to be, Wiggy. You are going to be on the dole, shunned by
> society, for a very long time.
Logic fail.
WM
Mike Ross
>Mike Ross wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:43:24 -0000, "Steve Walker"
>> <spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Ross wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 01:14:24 -0000, "Steve Walker"
>>>
>>>> Social climate has nothing to do with it; it appears he effectively
>>>> was convicted of the offence of getting caught. If he had been more
>>>> skilled at clandestine photography he wouldn't have been caught, and
>>>> no offence would have been committed. There certainly wouldn't have
>>>> been any disorder.
>>>
>>> If you feel that it's OK to use children for sexual titillation,
>>> then you could help to avoid further such convictions by offering
>>> him access to your children. He could come round late at night
>>> when they're asleep, and gently undress them for some really dirty
>>> shots, but they would never know it had happened.
>>>
>>> Shall I pass on your details in case he fancies getting a cheap
>>> flight over?
>>
>> Fuck off. This is a private house and neither he nor you are welcome.
>>
>> We're not talking about 'using children for sexual titillation', we're
>> discussing whether or not it's a crime to take clandestine
>> photographs in a public place.
>
>Ah, now I understand. You were happy to shout the odds about his right to
>photograph
He can photograph me, or my kids, or yours, in a public place. I'm pretty strong
on photographers rights, as you may have noticed. That's what this is about;
being arrested and charged simply for taking photos in a public place. There was
no indecency or voyeurism or he would have been charged with that; the subject
is irrelevant.
>and wank over little children
If he tries to wank over any little children while I'm present he won't have
anything left to wank with after the attempt.
>(and I imagine you must be proud
>that Fat Nige is standing shoulder to shoulder with you on that point) but
>only as long as it was someone else's children.
I'm not quite clear what you mean by this?
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his brother.
Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame.
For one person, in the dark, where no one will ever know or see.'
BrianW
> >and wank over little children
>
> If he tries to wank over any little children while I'm present he won't have
> anything left to wank with after the attempt.
<waits for fat Wiggy to start doing his Reggie Kray hard man
impression>
Steve Walker
> He can photograph me, or my kids, or yours, in a public place. I'm
> pretty strong on photographers rights, as you may have noticed.
Yes, so am I. But most rights are necessarily qualified and contingent,
and there will always be situations where it is unlawful to exercise a right
(eg to shout Fire! in a crowded theatre). You would not permit an amateur
photographer to freely wander about in the middle of a major fire incident,
I assume?
> That's what this is about; being arrested and charged simply for
> taking photos in a public place. There was no indecency or voyeurism
> or he would have been charged with that; the subject is irrelevant.
No Mike, that is not what this was about. Repeating that comforting myth
will not make it magically true. He was convicted of Disorderly Behaviour,
by virtue of the alarm and distress caused to the child and her parent(s).
He admitted an indecent interest in young, unformed girls, which is why he
was rightly placed upon the SOR.
There is a difference between UK & USA law here. In the UK, the right of
any person to take a photograph, or to exercise their freedom of speech,
does not automatically override the protection which other citizens are
entitled to expect. In the USA, the norious Westboro Church (US soldiers
burn in hell, god hates fags etc) can proudly cause alarm and distress to
bereaved families. In the UK such protests will be accepted up to a point
(eg http://tinyurl.com/yj8aox8) but not beyond that point (eg
http://tinyurl.com/6a764b8).
In the same way, a UK citizen should be able to walk through a park
photographing the squirrels and the children at play, What the law will
not protect is if they closely approach a child and behave in a manner which
causes alarm and distress.
Richard McKenzie
wrote:
Mr Wigwam if your unemployed and are seeking employment then why did
you post your sob story on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfm1rwm-NTw
Any potential employers are hardly going to feel sympathetic are they?
Richard McKenzie
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good god! i have just 'googled' you, your on twitter too!
I just love it how you are able to speak for peados in the collective,
assuming you do know other like minded people did you not have to
disclose them prior to sentencing?
Dissenter
<spam...@beeb.net> wrote:
>Mike Ross wrote:
>> That's what this is about; being arrested and charged simply for
>> taking photos in a public place. There was no indecency or voyeurism
>> or he would have been charged with that; the subject is irrelevant.
>
>No Mike, that is not what this was about. Repeating that comforting myth
>will not make it magically true. He was convicted of Disorderly Behaviour,
>by virtue of the alarm and distress caused to the child and her parent(s).
>He admitted an indecent interest in young, unformed girls, which is why he
>was rightly placed upon the SOR.
There is no such an offence as "having an indecent interest in young,
uniformed girls", or anything remotely like that, that can put anyone
on any register, nor should there be. This is pure crimethink.
>There is a difference between UK & USA law here. In the UK, the right of
>any person to take a photograph, or to exercise their freedom of speech,
>does not automatically override the protection which other citizens are
>entitled to expect. In the USA, the norious Westboro Church (US soldiers
>burn in hell, god hates fags etc) can proudly cause alarm and distress to
>bereaved families. In the UK such protests will be accepted up to a point
>(eg http://tinyurl.com/yj8aox8) but not beyond that point (eg
>http://tinyurl.com/6a764b8).
>
>In the same way, a UK citizen should be able to walk through a park
>photographing the squirrels and the children at play, What the law will
>not protect is if they closely approach a child and behave in a manner which
>causes alarm and distress.
You can't possibly frame a law which allows the former, without
allowing people to follow and photograph a child in a supermarket: the
actions are virtually indistinguishable.
In the case reported on, the child wasn't caused any alarm and
distress: it was the adults who were distressed, and they could also
be distressed by anyone photographing children at play. It's for law
enforcement to stress this by refusing to prosecute anyone
photographing anything, and cautioning anyone likely to harass anyone
photographing their children.
--
Dissenter
Steve Walker
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:03:36 -0000, "Steve Walker"
>> photographing the squirrels and the children at play, What the law
>> will not protect is if they closely approach a child and behave in a
>> manner which causes alarm and distress.
>
> You can't possibly frame a law which allows the former, without
> allowing people to follow and photograph a child in a supermarket: the
> actions are virtually indistinguishable.
Fortunately the action is not the distinguishing characteristic, but rather
the impact of the action upon others in each particular context.
Nigel Oldfield
> > > society, for a very long time.
>
> > Logic fail.
>
> > WM
>
> Mr Wigwam if your unemployed and are seeking employment then why did
> you post your sob story on youtube
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfm1rwm-NTw
I think you will find the content is much wider in scope and not only
relevant to me.
In any case, the issues are not mutually-exclusive - that is your
logic fail.
> Any potential employers are hardly going to feel sympathetic are they?
None that I would wish to work for.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
>
> > Any potential employers are hardly going to feel sympathetic are they?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Good god! i have just 'googled' you, your on twitter too!
I am legion.
> I just love it how you are able to speak for peados (sic) in the collective,
In many ways, yes, in other ways, no ... for you too.
> assuming you do know other like minded people did you not have to
> disclose them prior to sentencing?
Why on Earth would I, then or now?
WM
Nigel Oldfield
> > allowing people to follow and photograph a child in a supermarket: the
> > actions are virtually indistinguishable.
>
> Fortunately the action is not the distinguishing characteristic, but rather
> the impact of the action upon others in each particular context.
Unfortunately, the fabricated impact.
WM
Mike Ross
>Mike Ross wrote:
>
>> He can photograph me, or my kids, or yours, in a public place. I'm
>> pretty strong on photographers rights, as you may have noticed.
>
>Yes, so am I. But most rights are necessarily qualified and contingent,
>and there will always be situations where it is unlawful to exercise a right
>(eg to shout Fire! in a crowded theatre). You would not permit an amateur
>photographer to freely wander about in the middle of a major fire incident,
>I assume?
We wouldn't permit *anyone* to 'wander freely' - not even firefighters - due to
the need to maintain command and safety. It's an emergency scene, the fire chief
has command, it's a paramilitary organisation. You're comparing apples and
anthrax.
>> That's what this is about; being arrested and charged simply for
>> taking photos in a public place. There was no indecency or voyeurism
>> or he would have been charged with that; the subject is irrelevant.
>
>No Mike, that is not what this was about. Repeating that comforting myth
>will not make it magically true. He was convicted of Disorderly Behaviour,
>by virtue of the alarm and distress caused to the child and her parent(s).
Which is pretty much what I said from the start! He was, effectively, convicted
of getting caught; if he had been more skillful and hadn't been caught, no
offence would have been committed.
My issue is when the 'alarm and distress' is justified, and whether it rises to
the level of something criminal. *Anyone* can claim to be 'alarmed and
distressed' by being photographed, but if it's in a public place, and done from
a reasonable range (i.e. not literally shoving the camera in someones face) I
have serious concerns about it ever being criminalised. Can't you see the
slipperly slope potential in this?
>He admitted an indecent interest in young, unformed girls, which is why he
>was rightly placed upon the SOR.
He was very foolish.
>There is a difference between UK & USA law here. In the UK, the right of
>any person to take a photograph, or to exercise their freedom of speech,
>does not automatically override the protection which other citizens are
>entitled to expect. In the USA, the norious Westboro Church (US soldiers
>burn in hell, god hates fags etc) can proudly cause alarm and distress to
>bereaved families. In the UK such protests will be accepted up to a point
>(eg http://tinyurl.com/yj8aox8) but not beyond that point (eg
>http://tinyurl.com/6a764b8).
That's a point about expressive speech, and yes, there is a difference, the US
courts take an extraordinarily dim view of attempts to exercise prior restraint
of speech. This is a Good Thing, in my view. But with respect to photography in
public, the law is essentially the same. You occasionally see cops making
arrests for 'disorderly conduct' (which is the USA is known informally as
'contempt of cop') but charges seldom result, or are pleaded away or reversed on
appeal; those tend to be for people photographing *cops*, however.
>In the same way, a UK citizen should be able to walk through a park
>photographing the squirrels and the children at play, What the law will
>not protect is if they closely approach a child and behave in a manner which
>causes alarm and distress.
As I said, it's a question of balancing rights; *anyone* can claim an attempt to
photograph them causes 'alarm and distress'; if those claims were to be believed
and acted upon by the law, it would seriously curtail public photography, most
especially of celebrities.
Steve Walker
> My issue is when the 'alarm and distress' is justified, and whether
> it rises to the level of something criminal. *Anyone* can claim to be
> 'alarmed and distressed' by being photographed, but if it's in a
> public place, and done from a reasonable range (i.e. not literally
> shoving the camera in someones face) I have serious concerns about it
> ever being criminalised. Can't you see the slipperly slope potential
> in this?
Yes, I wholly agree with those concerns. All those threads about
photographers being harassed last year, I was in there denouncing it right
next to you. And I agree completely that a complaint of 'alarm and
distress' has to be objectively reasonable, it can't just be a pretext for
censorship. The only issue at question is how close is 'too close', how
intrusive is 'too intrusive' and that would be a case-by-case judgement.
I don't think we're a thousand miles apart on this.