Laurence Fox. The twat.

[brogdale]

Someone in the replies to the victim said that this is not the first time they'd seen the image which to me at least implies it came from elsewhere.

If the law says that distributing such images is illegal, i don't really see how provenance matters, tbh.

 

[brogdale]

thread needs some legal advice, methinks

 

[agricola]

Does the relevant law cater for such nuance?

It has got to be a private sexual image, so if he has taken it and shared it then it seems fairly clear and probably would still be so if it was shared with him by someone who took it (and then obviously used to embarrass / harass (edit) though the offence is made out just by posting it).

I think beyond that (for such an image) we'd really need a Court to define whether sharing it when far removed from the taker would make this offence out; I mean if that was the case anyone who shared that tweet or commented on it might be at risk.

 

[Orang Utan]

It was an image that had been put up elsewhere and then taken down, because of its illegality. He then chose to repost it.

 

[Orang Utan]

If he remembers to vote.

It would he beautiful but not surprising if he himself was barred from voting because he could not provide the appropriate ID

 

[WouldBe]

Someone in the replies to the victim said that this is not the first time they'd seen the image which to me at least implies it came from elsewhere.

But apparently the image has been removed elsewhere and fox went to the trouble of finding it to post it.

 

[brogdale]

I mean if that was the case anyone who shared that tweet or commented on it might be at risk.

Really have no knowledge here, but surely not the commenting bit? I mean plenty of folk, including our own here, told him to take it down etc.

 

[Orang Utan]

But apparently the image has been removed elsewhere and fox went to the trouble of finding it to post it.

Which indicates he saved it, the shifty little perv

 

[brogdale]

Which indicates he saved it, the shifty little perv

An offence in itself?

 

[Orang Utan]

Really have no knowledge here, but surely not the commenting bit? I mean plenty of folk, including our own here, told him to take it down etc.

Replying directly to a tweet is akin to sharing it as it shows up in your folllowers’ feeds

 

[brogdale]

Replying directly to a tweet is akin to sharing it as it shows up in your folllowers’ feeds

Oh, right.
So literally telling someone to take down the offending tweet is risky?

 

[scifisam]

It has got to be a private sexual image, so if he has taken it and shared it then it seems fairly clear and probably would still be so if it was shared with him by someone who took it (and then obviously used to embarrass / harass (edit) though the offence is made out just by posting it).

I think beyond that (for such an image) we'd really need a Court to define whether sharing it when far removed from the taker would make this offence out; I mean if that was the case anyone who shared that tweet or commented on it might be at risk.

The link posted up above states outright that you don't need to have taken the pic yourself, simply sharing it is illegal. There's no debate about it at all.

 

[Dystopiary]

It would he beautiful but not surprising if he himself was barred from voting because he could not provide the appropriate ID

We would definitely give it "Don't you know who I am?!"

 

[Orang Utan]

Oh, right.
So literally telling someone to take down the offending tweet is risky?

I don’t know, but it would certainly contribute to making it more visible to Twitter users

 

[editor]

I really think this upskirt image could have the biggest repercussions for Fox. He's distributed illegal sexual content, and caused intentional alarm and distress. And probably something else I can't think of right now.

 

[DaveCinzano]

What's he so angry about?

• The offside rule
• Increasingly adulterated chang
• Uppity women
• The Silent Holocaust against rich white dudes
• Traffic calming schemes
• Custody arrangements
• Never getting the BAFTA for Lewis
• Robertson's jam coming over all woke
• Love, peace and understanding
• Controlled Parking Zones
• Shrinkflation meaning Wagon Wheels are both smaller AND more expensive
• You can't even say 'manhole cover' these days
• The thought of dying alone

New additions:

• THEY'RE THE REAL RACISTS
• I refused to stand under their rules and the judge still said I was guilty
• Apparently posting harmless photos of women I disagree with makes me some sort of nonce but if they weren't looking for attention they wouldn't wear makeup/brush their hair/perform basic ablutions on a daily basis
• If you add up the Scrabble values of Sadiq Khan's name you get 26, or 2 and 6, which is half-a-crown, which means he thinks he is a prince which is disgusting and unpatriotic and anyway more like a maharajah, and it's also the number of letters in the alphabet (the PROPER ANGLO-SAXON ONE, amirite?) and if you divide 6 by 2 you get 3, representing the Holy Trinity, so he's also blaspheming against our Lord and Saviour Calvin, and «SNIIIIIIIIIFF» when you think about it (anyone got any Optrex?) zzzzzz

 

[DaveCinzano]

Why are they describing him as a ReformUK politician?

Weapons-grade trolling with a straight face

 

[MickiQ]

Shrinkflation meaning Wagon Wheels are both smaller AND more expensive

To be honest he and I see absolutely eye to eye about this

 

[DaveCinzano]

Shrinkflation meaning Wagon Wheels are both smaller AND more expensive

To be honest he and I see absolutely eye to eye about this

It's like the Psychopathy Checklist: we all recognise some of them in ourselves - the red flag is when it's most or all of them

 

[LeytonCatLady]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you another of Foxy's many sock puppets!

 

[cupid_stunt]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you another of Foxy's many sock puppets!

TBF I doubt they are sock puppet accounts of Fox, he has plenty of loons that worship, follow, and support him.

 

[brogdale]

TBF I doubt they are sock puppet accounts of Fox, he has plenty of loons that worship, follow, and support him.

Yep, he's a very strong cunt magnet.

 

[LeytonCatLady]

TBF I doubt they are sock puppet accounts of Fox, he has plenty of loons that worship, follow, and support him.

I know. I just sometimes feel better pretending there's less arseholes in the world than there are.

 

[LeytonCatLady]

Yep, he's a very strong cunt magnet.

Well, that's somewhat debatable...

 

[existentialist]

Well, that's somewhat debatable...

I think that may comment be in a somewhat different context...

 

[brogdale]

Well, that's somewhat debatable...

Oh, you know...

 

[agricola]

The link posted up above states outright that you don't need to have taken the pic yourself, simply sharing it is illegal. There's no debate about it at all.

It is not that simple - as was said earlier, the more public the image was before Fox posted it the more likely it is that a defence would be successful (this is a defence under the legislation where the suspect has a reasonable belief that the victim consented to it being shared). If he doesn't have such reasonable belief, and/or if the image wasn't publicly available then a defence would be less likely to succeed.

I must say though that if he does go before a Court on this it is probably likely to end up in a "what did Parliament intend" argument, as the legislation could be read in various ways.

 

[tim]

It would he beautiful but not surprising if he himself was barred from voting because he could not provide the appropriate ID

Fucking woke passports and Driving Licences. Khan and his cronies trying to make me register where and how I travel.

This Fox will not be tracked!

Burn, Burn, Burn, Baby! Yeah!

 

[Orang Utan]

agricola Yes, unfortunately the wide sharing and replying to of his tweet has made it a certainty that he won’t be prosecuted for this.

 

[agricola]

agricola Yes, unfortunately the wide sharing and replying to of his tweet has made it a certainty that he won’t be prosecuted for this.

It is really hard to say what will happen without knowing what the image is and where he got it.

I still think that if its a private photo sent to him by a friend, or taken by him, which is not in general circulation and wasn't intended to be circulated then he is more likely to get done (much more so if it was he who took it) - the legislation was clearly publicized as further criminalizing that behaviour. If it is something else than that then I am doubtful, especially because as you say the law would also apply to those who shared / replied to it as well (and in many cases did so knowing the victim did not want it published).