Laurence Fox. The twat.

[scifisam]

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.

Wasn't she in a car?

 

[editor]

Cos the more it is shared the less likely the chance he’ll be prosecuted.

That's really not true at all. A libel can be shared many times, but in most cases the police will only go for the high profile person originating it,

 

[existentialist]

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.

There is a suggestion that it might have been "edited"

 

[agricola]

Because that was before the change in law.

What do you think the questions are???

Whether these circumstances are actually covered by the legislation in question, for a start. They might, but I have my doubts as expressed here already.

 

[WouldBe]

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?

Not sure it matters if it was a "public" photo as it was taken without consent.

 

[cupid_stunt]

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?

It seemed to have been taken in 'public', I think sites probably took down the photo when the up-skirting Act was introduced 'just in case', despite the fact that seems to only apply to the person taking the photo, not to those sharing it.

The earlier Act, that covers the sharing of images, was clearly designed to prevent revenge porn, as in an ex-lover sharing what had been 'private' images, that doesn't seem the case here.

Sadly, I think this probably falls somewhere between what was intended by the two Acts.

 

[existentialist]

It seemed to have been taken in 'public', I think sites probably took down the photo when the up-skirting Act was introduced 'just in case', despite the fact that seems to only apply to the person taking the photo, not to those sharing it.

The earlier Act, that covers the sharing of images, was clearly designed to prevent revenge porn, as in an ex-lover sharing what had been 'private' images, that doesn't seem the case here.

Sadly, I think this probably falls somewhere between what was intended by the two Acts.

Fox is still a cunt for posting it, though. I know you know this.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Not sure it matters if it was a "public" photo as it was taken without consent.

You don't need consent to photograph anyone in a 'public' place.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Fox is still a cunt for posting it, though. I know you know this.

Totally, I would love to see him done, I am just convinced he will be, from the outline of the two Acts given in the media, and having seen the photo.

 

[Orang Utan]

You don't need consent to photograph anyone in a 'public' place.

Unless it’s an upskirt photo

 

[WouldBe]

You don't need consent to photograph anyone in a 'public' place.

Not sure that would apply in the case of nudity.

 

[brogdale]

You don't need consent to photograph anyone in a 'public' place.

That's correct, but in a private car there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[scifisam]

Whether these circumstances are actually covered by the legislation in question, for a start. They might, but I have my doubts as expressed here already.

They clearly are though.

WTF is up with people today?

 

[agricola]

They clearly are though.

WTF is up with people today?

Sorry, has he been arrested and charged?

 

[Orang Utan]

It’s got me wondering. Would it now be illegal to post that famous still of Paul Scholes’ bits coming out of his shorts as he fell during a live broadcast of a football match?

 

[cupid_stunt]

Unless it’s an upskirt photo

Up the upskirt law only seems to apply to the person taking it, not to it being shared, you yourself have pointed this out.

 

[Orang Utan]

Up the upskirt law only seems to apply to the person taking it, not to it being shared, you yourself have pointed this out.

You were talking about the taking of it though.

 

[Orang Utan]

They clearly are though.

WTF is up with people today?

They just have different brains and different thought processes

 

[cupid_stunt]

Not sure that would apply in the case of nudity.

Of course it does, if you chose to be nude in a public place, that's your choice, and that doesn't stop someone taking a photo*, nor sharing it, the intention of the 'revenge porn' Act is very clear, that photo doesn't to fit as 'revenge porn'.

* perhaps it does for kids,

 

[cupid_stunt]

That's correct, but in a private car there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy.

With the door open, on what would seem a public road?

 

[cupid_stunt]

They clearly are though.

WTF is up with people today?

Can you please point to where 'these circumstances are actually covered by the legislation'?

Because nothing posted here, or in the media, makes that clear at all.

 

[scifisam]

They just have different brains and different thought processes

Shit ones. "Oh no, maybe he can argue he thought he had consent." Ridiculous. They're going on ignore.

 

[scifisam]

Can you please point to where 'these circumstances are actually covered by the legislation'?

Because nothing posted here, or in the media, makes that clear at all.

It was a private photo of a part of the body generally considered sexual that (given the accompanying text) was definitely posted in order to cause upset to the subject of the photo. But I give up, somehow that's not clear enough for you and agricola.

 

[brogdale]

With the door open, on what would seem a public road?

Upskirting?

 

[Orang Utan]

Shit ones. "Oh no, maybe he can argue he thought he had consent." Ridiculous. They're going on ignore.

That’s not what’s being said.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

This prurient discussion is making me extremely uncomfortable.

 

[existentialist]

This prurient discussion is making me extremely uncomfortable.

I saw the picture. It made me feel very uncomfortable. I can't imagine what it made the person in the picture feel like.

And I cannot see any motive for Fox posting it that was not anything other than also making the person in it feel uncomfortable.

I've no idea where that sits, legally, but I hope that there is some way in which he can be held to account for what, in any reasonable mind, has to be a deliberate attempt to cause distress and discomfort.

 

[scifisam]

That’s not what’s being said.

Er, yes, it's precisely what one person has said.

I genuinely give up - this is really frustrating. Thread's going on ignore.

 

[cupid_stunt]

It was a private photo of a part of the body generally considered sexual that (given the accompanying text) was definitely posted in order to cause upset to the subject of the photo. But I give up, somehow that's not clear enough for you and agricola.

As I've pointed out what he's done sadly appears to fall in a gap between two very different Acts, with very different intentions, with a link to the article that quoted crimes under those Acts.

If you know different, please quote and link to which Act would apply here.

 

[agricola]

It was a private photo of a part of the body generally considered sexual that (given the accompanying text) was definitely posted in order to cause upset to the subject of the photo. But I give up, somehow that's not clear enough for you and agricola.

Would you please at least read the legislation in question? You might realise that this is not the open and shut case you appear to think it is.