Laurence Fox. The twat.

[brogdale]

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.

Why do you think that?

 

[Orang Utan]

Why do you think that?

Cos the more it is shared the less likely the chance he’ll be prosecuted. But i’m repeating myself and agricola here, so I don’t know what else I’m supposed to explain.

 

[Orang Utan]

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).

We know where the image is from and where he got it though
Are people not reading about this?

 

[brogdale]

Cos the more it is shared the less likely the chance he’ll be prosecuted. But i’m repeating myself and agricola here, so I don’t know what else I’m supposed to explain.

OK, i just didn't know what aspect of the law covered what you're saying and I still don't really understand the basis for your thinking.

 

[The39thStep]

I’m not sure of the time dates however I saw a tweet with the same photo (not a retweet of Fox’s) from a Burnley fash called Jake Hepple. It’s now ‘disappeared’.

 

[Orang Utan]

OK, i just didn't know what aspect of the law covered what you're saying and I still don't really understand the basis for your thinking.

You don’t understand that if, say, one million people share an image, the likelihood of any individual being prosecuted will be reduced significantly?

 

[brogdale]

You don’t understand that if, say, one million people share an image, the likelihood of any individual being prosecuted will be reduced significantly?

Well, it depends upon the law viewing posts/re-posts as indistinguishable, doesn't it? I don't know enough about the relevant law to comment which is why I asked about what was giving you the certainty?

 

[agricola]

We know where the image is from and where he got it though
Are people not reading about this?

Sorry, I've just read where the image has come from - if this gets that far, it is going to be one that the Court ends up defining if this situation falls under the scope of this legislation.

 

[Balbi]

The image has been taken down before I believe, wasn't exactly circulated widely and Fox's intent in posting it is extremely clear - to harass and denigrate the subject before a larger audience than have seen the image before, as part of his ongoing harassment of the individual.

Even if he didn't take the image, he's probably ticking enough boxes here for it to go before the judge.

 

[Rob Ray]

You don’t understand that if, say, one million people share an image, the likelihood of any individual being prosecuted will be reduced significantly?

If they're a key source of spreading it or in a position where exemplary sentencing might be advantageous (eg. it's a high-profile opportunity to show the law is serious) it may make prosecution more likely rather than less. Fox's desperate need to stay in the limelight will be doing him no favours here.

 

[Orang Utan]

I don’t think he’d get prosecuted under the newer upskirting law, but for intimate image abuse ie revenge porn. The former legislation prohibits the taking of intimate photos without the victim’s knowledge. The latter covers a wider range of abuse, including the sharing of such images

 

[existentialist]

If they're a key source of spreading it or in a position where exemplary sentencing might be advantageous (eg. it's a high-profile opportunity to show the law is serious) it may make prosecution more likely rather than less. Fox's desperate need to stay in the limelight will be doing him no favours here.

And, let's face it, it wouldn't be a surprise, given his goading of the Met, if they were small-minded enough to want to make a point at his expense.

 

[scifisam]

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.

It is that simple though. There's absolutely no way he could claim he had reasonable belief that this photo, of someone he's never had a sexual relationship with - a photo that was already removed from other sites - might possibly have been posted with the victim's consent. Especially since the text of the tweet makes it very clear that he was intending to upset her.

You and OU have weird reasoning here.

 

[cupid_stunt]

I don’t think he’d get prosecuted under the newer upskirting law, but for intimate image abuse ie revenge porn. The former legislation prohibits the taking of intimate photos without the victim’s knowledge. The latter covers a wider range of abuse, including the sharing of such images

According this, indeed.

Upskirting was made a criminal offence in England and Wales in 2019, having already been criminalised in Scotland in 2010.

The law, under the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019, applies to anyone who operates equipment or records an image under another person’s clothing without that person’s consent, with the intention of viewing, or enabling another person to view, their genitals.

It applies where the purpose is to obtain sexual gratification or to cause humiliation, distress or alarm.

Offenders can face a maximum sentence of two years in prison in the most serious cases.

The sharing of private, sexual materials, either photos or videos, of another person without their consent and with the purpose of causing embarrassment or distress is classed as a sexual offence – also known as revenge porn – under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

The original photo of Ms Kaur had been removed from picture sites after upskirting was made a criminal offence. The picture was taken without her consent or knowledge.

The earlier 2015 Act would indeed seem most likely to apply in this case, but it's debatable as to if it was 'private', as it appears the photo was taken in a public place, rather than, say, a bedroom. There's plenty of wiggle room there, and Fox probably knew that when he posted it.

Met Police investigating Laurence Fox over Narinder Kaur upskirting photo

Upskirting is a criminal offence and carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison

inews.co.uk

 

[brogdale]

I don’t think he’d get prosecuted under the newer upskirting law, but for intimate image abuse ie revenge porn. The former legislation prohibits the taking of intimate photos without the victim’s knowledge. The latter covers a wider range of abuse, including the sharing of such images

This basic (solicitor's) guide that I just looked at seems to indicate that Fox could well face prosecution:

 

[Orang Utan]

fingers crossed, then!

 

[scifisam]

According this, indeed.





The earlier 2015 Act would indeed seem to apply in this case

Met Police investigating Laurence Fox over Narinder Kaur upskirting photo

Upskirting is a criminal offence and carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison

inews.co.uk

And that also makes it clear that people commenting on the tweet to tell him to take it down will not be prosecuted.

 

[Orang Utan]

And that also makes it clear that people commenting on the tweet to tell him to take it down will not be prosecuted.

i don't think anyone was suggesting that

 

[two sheds]

And, let's face it, it wouldn't be a surprise, given his goading of the Met, if they were small-minded public-spirited enough to want to make a point at his expense.

 

[scifisam]

i don't think anyone was suggesting that

Agricola did.

 

[cupid_stunt]

This basic (solicitor's) guide that I just looked at seems to indicate that Fox could well face prosecution:

View attachment 422873

But, it didn't appear to be a 'private' photo, as in taken by a former lover in a bedroom, it appeared to have been taken in a 'public' place, where she was sitting and just happen to be wearing a very short skirt and no knickers.

 

[eatmorecheese]

He exudes the desire for 'martyrdom' for some grifting bollocks. I really hope he gets it. A nasty, thick public school bully, but he isn't very good (even) at that.

Sad little melt.

 

[agricola]

It is that simple though. There's absolutely no way he could claim he had reasonable belief that this photo, of someone he's never had a sexual relationship with - a photo that was already removed from other sites - might possibly have been posted with the victim's consent. Especially since the text of the tweet makes it very clear that he was intending to upset her.

You and OU have weird reasoning here.

It isn't weird reasoning - there are very real questions as to whether the legislation would support a conviction for these set of circumstances. I mean, the other sites didn't get prosecuted for publishing the photo to begin with.

 

[agricola]

But, it didn't appear to be a 'private' photo, as in taken by a former lover in a bedroom, it appeared to have been taken in a 'public' place, where she was sitting and just happen to be wearing a very short skirt and no knickers.

The problem is that the definition of "intimate state" could cover that; it could even apply if she had been wearing underwear.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Just got back from not voting for the twat

 

[Orang Utan]

It isn't weird reasoning - there are very real questions as to whether the legislation would support a conviction for these set of circumstances. I mean, the other sites didn't get prosecuted for publishing the photo to begin with.

I think the paparazzi agencies that used to sell those kind of photos removed them as sion as the law was passed

 

[scifisam]

It isn't weird reasoning - there are very real questions as to whether the legislation would support a conviction for these set of circumstances. I mean, the other sites didn't get prosecuted for publishing the photo to begin with.

Because that was before the change in law.

What do you think the questions are???

 

[Kaka Tim]

he is of course totally justified in his actions cos she was being unplesant to him, but she doesnt get arreseted - oh no - its the straight white guy who gets persecuted by Khans thought police- again ...

 

[brogdale]

But, it didn't appear to be a 'private' photo, as in taken by a former lover in a bedroom, it appeared to have been taken in a 'public' place, where she was sitting and just happen to be wearing a very short skirt and no knickers.

Interesting point. If, as I read, that following the new law it had been taken down from UK sites, then it could be argued that it was not a 'public' photo? I dunno?

 

[WouldBe]

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

Just take a selfie.