A lawyer who admitted filming a girl in a cubicle at a Belfast leisure centre
but had a voyeurism charge against him dropped could face a retrial.

At the trial, Magistrate Fiona Bagnall said she was satisfied Ritchie Shaw
MacRitchie, 31, had recorded the act for sexual gratification.

However, she said she was dismissing the charge because the girl had not been
filmed carrying out a private act.

The Public Prosecution Service is to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

A PPS spokesman said they had asked the magistrate to explain her decision to
the Court of Appeal.

Legal grounds

Her case will relate to the legal grounds on which she based her decision not to
convict.

It is understood that Mr MacRitchie and his legal advisers have been informed of
the intention to appeal his acquittal.

Mr MacRitchie, from Omeath, County Louth, was accused of using his phone to film
the 17-year-old in a unisex changing room at the Falls Leisure Centre last
October.

However, earlier this month, the magistrate said that as the young woman had
been wearing her swimsuit, rather than being naked, or in her underwear, the
voyeurism charge could not stand.

As a result she said she had no alternative but to accede to a defence
application to dismiss the voyeurism charge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7062543.stm

What a bastard!  That lawyer deserves to serve 25 years!  I'd wonder about the
judge...  She was not naked...  so that's alright then?  FFS!!!  

What say you?

Ray

The Catholic Church (in Northern Ireland) set a precedent in relation to 
secret filmng of changing rooms which was not very unhelpful.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4513287.stm

In order to protect teachers, they (PPSNI) had to close the goal-posts 
to effectively legalize the clandestine filming of changing rooms.

The distinction with MacRitchie case was that the latter had obvious 
elements of sexual intent. However, to reduce the amount of material 
which *can be used as child pornography*, it is preferable if secret 
filming of children be prohibited.

We have (as usual) a teaching union problem.

G.

On 25 Oct, 19:54, Gregory  wrote:
> The Catholic Church (in Northern Ireland) set a precedent in relation to
> secret filmng of changing rooms which was not very unhelpful.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4513287.stm
>
> In order to protect teachers, they (PPSNI) had to close the goal-posts
> to effectively legalize the clandestine filming of changing rooms.
>
> The distinction with MacRitchie case was that the latter had obvious
> elements of sexual intent. However, to reduce the amount of material
> which *can be used as child pornography*, it is preferable if secret
> filming of children be prohibited.
>
> We have (as usual) a teaching union problem.
>
> G.

I have heard of parents being told to stop making videos and taking
pictures of their own children at a swiming pool. Especially very
young children who may not have any clothes on at all.  Clearly sexual
intent has to be proved and I cannot see it being easy to introduce
legislation for this. After all how do you prove a persons intent.

freeireland wrote:
> On 25 Oct, 19:54, Gregory  wrote:
> 
>>The Catholic Church (in Northern Ireland) set a precedent in relation to
>>secret filmng of changing rooms which was not very unhelpful.
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4513287.stm
>>
>>In order to protect teachers, they (PPSNI) had to close the goal-posts
>>to effectively legalize the clandestine filming of changing rooms.
>>
>>The distinction with MacRitchie case was that the latter had obvious
>>elements of sexual intent. However, to reduce the amount of material
>>which *can be used as child pornography*, it is preferable if secret
>>filming of children be prohibited.
>>
>>We have (as usual) a teaching union problem.
>>
>>G.
> 
> 
> I have heard of parents being told to stop making videos and taking
> pictures of their own children at a swiming pool. Especially very
> young children who may not have any clothes on at all.  Clearly sexual
> intent has to be proved and I cannot see it being easy to introduce
> legislation for this. After all how do you prove a persons intent.
> 

There is an institutional lack of understanding of human rights & 
privacy issues within British teaching. They are contempuous of minimum 
international standards.

The 'teachers' I often deal with have cameras hidden in the schoolgirls 
changing room. It is intolerable behavior. I get two or three complaints 
re: England & Wales per month.

Sexual intent, at the point of orgiin, is often irrelevant to the issue 
of child pornography. When it is distributed to Japan (for big bucks) it 
will definitely be sexual then.

British teachers should stop increasing the level of child pornography.

That is my position.

G.

Der Weiße Wolf @iol.ie> wrote:

<snip>

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7062543.stm
> 
> What a bastard!  That lawyer deserves to serve 25 years!  I'd wonder about the
> judge...  She was not naked...  so that's alright then?  FFS!!!
> 
> What say you?
> 
> Ray

I'd say she's seventeen and looks good in a swimsuit.

Like the judge said, the voyeurism charge cannto stand.

You ol' rabble-rouser, you...

M.

On 26 Oct, 00:27, Gregory  wrote:
> freeireland wrote:
> > On 25 Oct, 19:54, Gregory  wrote:
>
> >>The Catholic Church (in Northern Ireland) set a precedent in relation to
> >>secret filmng of changing rooms which was not very unhelpful.
>
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4513287.stm
>
> >>In order to protect teachers, they (PPSNI) had to close the goal-posts
> >>to effectively legalize the clandestine filming of changing rooms.
>
> >>The distinction with MacRitchie case was that the latter had obvious
> >>elements of sexual intent. However, to reduce the amount of material
> >>which *can be used as child pornography*, it is preferable if secret
> >>filming of children be prohibited.
>
> >>We have (as usual) a teaching union problem.
>
> >>G.
>
> > I have heard of parents being told to stop making videos and taking
> > pictures of their own children at a swiming pool. Especially very
> > young children who may not have any clothes on at all.  Clearly sexual
> > intent has to be proved and I cannot see it being easy to introduce
> > legislation for this. After all how do you prove a persons intent.
>
> There is an institutional lack of understanding of human rights &
> privacy issues within British teaching. They are contempuous of minimum
> international standards.
>
> The 'teachers' I often deal with have cameras hidden in the schoolgirls
> changing room. It is intolerable behavior. I get two or three complaints
> re: England & Wales per month.
>
> Sexual intent, at the point of orgiin, is often irrelevant to the issue
> of child pornography. When it is distributed to Japan (for big bucks) it
> will definitely be sexual then.
>
> British teachers should stop increasing the level of child pornography.
>
> That is my position.
>
> G.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What about the case when someone has a 1 year old child on a public
beach who as 1 year old children do strip of and start playing in the
sand. When a parent starts taking pictures and puts them on a web site
for their parents and family who are distributed all around the world
to see.  The problem legislators have is they have to introduce
legislation that as you correctly say can allow children to be
protected however it must also take into consideration thouse whos
intentions are quite innocent.  What happes if for example your
walking down the beach with a friend and take a snap of her. You post
the pic on the web for all to see however in the background a naked
child is playing on the beach.

Of course the current situation with legislation does not fully
protect children, however the legislation for this type of thing is
not very straight forward and has to take all cases into account.

Michael O'Neill wrote:

> Der Weiße Wolf @iol.ie> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7062543.stm
>>
>> What a bastard!  That lawyer deserves to serve 25 years!  I'd wonder
>> about the judge...  She was not naked...  so that's alright then?  FFS!!!

It's nothing to do with the magistrate, it's what the Sexual Offences Act 
says. I agree, the circumstances sound indecent, but taking photos of 
someone who is wearing a bikini isn't an offence.

>> What say you?
>>
>> Ray
>
> I'd say she's seventeen and looks good in a swimsuit.
>
> Like the judge said, the voyeurism charge cannto stand.
>
> You ol' rabble-rouser, you...

Looks to me as thought the magistrate (a woman) got it right. In any case 
the maximum penalty she could impose is a fine and six months inside. I 
assume the appeal is an attempt to change the law by setting a legal 
precedent of some kind.

http://www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_5#pt1-pb18-l1g67

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Costing the Earth: The Wind Rush
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/rams/costingtheearth_20070830.ram

Falcon wrote:
> 
> Michael O'Neill wrote:
> 
> > Der Weiße Wolf @iol.ie> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7062543.stm
> >>
> >> What a bastard!  That lawyer deserves to serve 25 years!  I'd wonder
> >> about the judge...  She was not naked...  so that's alright then?  FFS!!!
> 
> It's nothing to do with the magistrate, it's what the Sexual Offences Act
> says. I agree, the circumstances sound indecent, but taking photos of
> someone who is wearing a bikini isn't an offence.
> 
> >> What say you?
> >>
> >> Ray
> >
> > I'd say she's seventeen and looks good in a swimsuit.
> >
> > Like the judge said, the voyeurism charge cannto stand.
> >
> > You ol' rabble-rouser, you...
> 
> Looks to me as thought the magistrate (a woman) got it right. In any case
> the maximum penalty she could impose is a fine and six months inside. I
> assume the appeal is an attempt to change the law by setting a legal
> precedent of some kind.

Sure what's the point of cameras on mobile phones if its not to get
upskirt shots in the wimmen's changing rooms?

Look out for next year's must-have accessory - an extensible handle.

M.

Michael O'Neill wrote:
> Falcon wrote:
> 
>>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Der Weiße Wolf @iol.ie> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7062543.stm
>>>>
>>>>What a bastard!  That lawyer deserves to serve 25 years!  I'd wonder
>>>>about the judge...  She was not naked...  so that's alright then?  FFS!!!
>>
>>It's nothing to do with the magistrate, it's what the Sexual Offences Act
>>says. I agree, the circumstances sound indecent, but taking photos of
>>someone who is wearing a bikini isn't an offence.
>>
>>
>>>>What say you?
>>>>
>>>>Ray
>>>
>>>I'd say she's seventeen and looks good in a swimsuit.
>>>
>>>Like the judge said, the voyeurism charge cannto stand.
>>>
>>>You ol' rabble-rouser, you...
>>
>>Looks to me as thought the magistrate (a woman) got it right. In any case
>>the maximum penalty she could impose is a fine and six months inside. I
>>assume the appeal is an attempt to change the law by setting a legal
>>precedent of some kind.
> 
> 
> Sure what's the point of cameras on mobile phones if its not to get
> upskirt shots in the wimmen's changing rooms?
> 
> Look out for next year's must-have accessory - an extensible handle.
> 
> M.


That is more or less where it is at. I can't see Minister Ruane doing 
the needful, that would piss off her friends.

On 28 Oct, 18:38, Gregory  wrote:
> Michael O'Neill wrote:
> > Falcon wrote:
>
> >>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>
> >>>Der Weiße Wolf @iol.ie> wrote:
>
> >>><snip>
>
> >>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7062543.stm
>
> >>>>What a bastard!  That lawyer deserves to serve 25 years!  I'd wonder
> >>>>about the judge...  She was not naked...  so that's alright then?  FFS!!!
>
> >>It's nothing to do with the magistrate, it's what the Sexual Offences Act
> >>says. I agree, the circumstances sound indecent, but taking photos of
> >>someone who is wearing a bikini isn't an offence.
>
> >>>>What say you?
>
> >>>>Ray
>
> >>>I'd say she's seventeen and looks good in a swimsuit.
>
> >>>Like the judge said, the voyeurism charge cannto stand.
>
> >>>You ol' rabble-rouser, you...
>
> >>Looks to me as thought the magistrate (a woman) got it right. In any case
> >>the maximum penalty she could impose is a fine and six months inside. I
> >>assume the appeal is an attempt to change the law by setting a legal
> >>precedent of some kind.
>
> > Sure what's the point of cameras on mobile phones if its not to get
> > upskirt shots in the wimmen's changing rooms?
>
> > Look out for next year's must-have accessory - an extensible handle.
>
> > M.
>
> That is more or less where it is at. I can't see Minister Ruane doing
> the needful, that would piss off her friends.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

why don't they just make the cubicles from floor to ceiling?

freeireland wrote:
> On 28 Oct, 18:38, Gregory  wrote:
> 
>>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>>
>>>Falcon wrote:
>>
>>>>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>>
>>>>>Der Weiße Wolf @iol.ie> wrote:
>>
>>>>><snip>
>>
>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7062543.stm
>>
>>>>>>What a bastard!  That lawyer deserves to serve 25 years!  I'd wonder
>>>>>>about the judge...  She was not naked...  so that's alright then?  FFS!!!
>>
>>>>It's nothing to do with the magistrate, it's what the Sexual Offences Act
>>>>says. I agree, the circumstances sound indecent, but taking photos of
>>>>someone who is wearing a bikini isn't an offence.
>>
>>>>>>What say you?
>>
>>>>>>Ray
>>
>>>>>I'd say she's seventeen and looks good in a swimsuit.
>>
>>>>>Like the judge said, the voyeurism charge cannto stand.
>>
>>>>>You ol' rabble-rouser, you...
>>
>>>>Looks to me as thought the magistrate (a woman) got it right. In any case
>>>>the maximum penalty she could impose is a fine and six months inside. I
>>>>assume the appeal is an attempt to change the law by setting a legal
>>>>precedent of some kind.
>>
>>>Sure what's the point of cameras on mobile phones if its not to get
>>>upskirt shots in the wimmen's changing rooms?
>>
>>>Look out for next year's must-have accessory - an extensible handle.
>>
>>>M.
>>
>>That is more or less where it is at. I can't see Minister Ruane doing
>>the needful, that would piss off her friends.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
> 
> 
> why don't they just make the cubicles from floor to ceiling?
> 


You have the correct insight into their risk management. Zero-thought at 
the planning and building stages.

I am not settling for a retro-fit modesty screen.

The thing is getting ripped out, if it saves one kid from being 'put on 
the net' it is worth 500,000, worth a million.

I will possibly have to take the city to court to get everything ripped 
out. The pervert lawyer was not the first issue.

The deal with paedophiles is that they're often happy enough to get 
within 18 inches of their prey. You know, the auto eroticism gig, it is 
enough they can hear or sense the kids.

Some get an erection when they see a kid's bike.

It is quite appalling.

G.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:54:17 GMT, Gregory  wrote:

>
>The Catholic Church (in Northern Ireland) set a precedent in relation to 
>secret filmng of changing rooms which was not very unhelpful.
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4513287.stm
>
>In order to protect teachers, they (PPSNI) had to close the goal-posts 
>to effectively legalize the clandestine filming of changing rooms.
>
>The distinction with MacRitchie case was that the latter had obvious 
>elements of sexual intent. However, to reduce the amount of material 
>which *can be used as child pornography*, it is preferable if secret 
>filming of children be prohibited.
>
>We have (as usual) a teaching union problem.
>
>G.


I have a problem with almost every union in existance (lefties)

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
When anyone asks me about the Irish character, I say look at the trees.
Maimed, stark and misshapen, but ferociously tenacious - Edna O'Brien
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:06:28 GMT, Gregory 
wrote:

>freeireland wrote:
>> On 28 Oct, 18:38, Gregory  wrote:
>> 
>>>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>>>
>>>>Falcon wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Der Weiße Wolf @iol.ie> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7062543.stm
>>>
>>>>>>>What a bastard!  That lawyer deserves to serve 25 years!  I'd wonder
>>>>>>>about the judge...  She was not naked...  so that's alright then?  FFS!!!
>>>
>>>>>It's nothing to do with the magistrate, it's what the Sexual Offences Act
>>>>>says. I agree, the circumstances sound indecent, but taking photos of
>>>>>someone who is wearing a bikini isn't an offence.
>>>
>>>>>>>What say you?
>>>
>>>>>>>Ray
>>>
>>>>>>I'd say she's seventeen and looks good in a swimsuit.
>>>
>>>>>>Like the judge said, the voyeurism charge cannto stand.
>>>
>>>>>>You ol' rabble-rouser, you...
>>>
>>>>>Looks to me as thought the magistrate (a woman) got it right. In any case
>>>>>the maximum penalty she could impose is a fine and six months inside. I
>>>>>assume the appeal is an attempt to change the law by setting a legal
>>>>>precedent of some kind.
>>>
>>>>Sure what's the point of cameras on mobile phones if its not to get
>>>>upskirt shots in the wimmen's changing rooms?
>>>
>>>>Look out for next year's must-have accessory - an extensible handle.
>>>
>>>>M.
>>>
>>>That is more or less where it is at. I can't see Minister Ruane doing
>>>the needful, that would piss off her friends.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>> 
>> 
>> why don't they just make the cubicles from floor to ceiling?
>> 
>
Having the small gap means it's easier to clean the floor, water
drains away etc.

>
>You have the correct insight into their risk management. Zero-thought at 
>the planning and building stages.
>
>I am not settling for a retro-fit modesty screen.

Lisburn has put rubber strips on which now go to the floor. I guess
they've decided cleaning is less important than preventing such
antics.

--
George
Alas poor sig, I knew it well.

Egroeg the Niffirg wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:06:28 GMT, Gregory 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>On 28 Oct, 18:38, Gregory  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Falcon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>Der Weiße Wolf @iol.ie> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7062543.stm
>>>>
>>>>>>>>What a bastard!  That lawyer deserves to serve 25 years!  I'd wonder
>>>>>>>>about the judge...  She was not naked...  so that's alright then?  FFS!!!
>>>>
>>>>>>It's nothing to do with the magistrate, it's what the Sexual Offences Act
>>>>>>says. I agree, the circumstances sound indecent, but taking photos of
>>>>>>someone who is wearing a bikini isn't an offence.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>What say you?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ray
>>>>
>>>>>>>I'd say she's seventeen and looks good in a swimsuit.
>>>>
>>>>>>>Like the judge said, the voyeurism charge cannto stand.
>>>>
>>>>>>>You ol' rabble-rouser, you...
>>>>
>>>>>>Looks to me as thought the magistrate (a woman) got it right. In any case
>>>>>>the maximum penalty she could impose is a fine and six months inside. I
>>>>>>assume the appeal is an attempt to change the law by setting a legal
>>>>>>precedent of some kind.
>>>>
>>>>>Sure what's the point of cameras on mobile phones if its not to get
>>>>>upskirt shots in the wimmen's changing rooms?
>>>>
>>>>>Look out for next year's must-have accessory - an extensible handle.
>>>>
>>>>>M.
>>>>
>>>>That is more or less where it is at. I can't see Minister Ruane doing
>>>>the needful, that would piss off her friends.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>
>>>why don't they just make the cubicles from floor to ceiling?
>>>
>>
> Having the small gap means it's easier to clean the floor, water
> drains away etc.
> 




The UK has to get out of the child pornography facilitation business, 
break the bad habits of a century.


> 
>>You have the correct insight into their risk management. Zero-thought at 
>>the planning and building stages.
>>
>>I am not settling for a retro-fit modesty screen.
> 
> 
> Lisburn has put rubber strips on which now go to the floor. I guess
> they've decided cleaning is less important than preventing such
> antics.


I am sure the antics predated the so-called solution.

Rather than the planning.

G.


> 
> --
> George
> Alas poor sig, I knew it well.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:52:19 GMT, Gregory 
wrote:

>Egroeg the Niffirg wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:06:28 GMT, Gregory 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>freeireland wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 28 Oct, 18:38, Gregory  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Falcon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Der Weiße Wolf @iol.ie> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7062543.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What a bastard!  That lawyer deserves to serve 25 years!  I'd wonder
>>>>>>>>>about the judge...  She was not naked...  so that's alright then?  FFS!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's nothing to do with the magistrate, it's what the Sexual Offences Act
>>>>>>>says. I agree, the circumstances sound indecent, but taking photos of
>>>>>>>someone who is wearing a bikini isn't an offence.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What say you?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ray
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'd say she's seventeen and looks good in a swimsuit.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Like the judge said, the voyeurism charge cannto stand.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You ol' rabble-rouser, you...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Looks to me as thought the magistrate (a woman) got it right. In any case
>>>>>>>the maximum penalty she could impose is a fine and six months inside. I
>>>>>>>assume the appeal is an attempt to change the law by setting a legal
>>>>>>>precedent of some kind.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sure what's the point of cameras on mobile phones if its not to get
>>>>>>upskirt shots in the wimmen's changing rooms?
>>>>>
>>>>>>Look out for next year's must-have accessory - an extensible handle.
>>>>>
>>>>>>M.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is more or less where it is at. I can't see Minister Ruane doing
>>>>>the needful, that would piss off her friends.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>why don't they just make the cubicles from floor to ceiling?
>>>>
>>>
>> Having the small gap means it's easier to clean the floor, water
>> drains away etc.
>> 
>
>
>
>
>The UK has to get out of the child pornography facilitation business, 
>break the bad habits of a century.
>
>
>> 
>>>You have the correct insight into their risk management. Zero-thought at 
>>>the planning and building stages.
>>>
>>>I am not settling for a retro-fit modesty screen.
>> 
>> 
>> Lisburn has put rubber strips on which now go to the floor. I guess
>> they've decided cleaning is less important than preventing such
>> antics.
>
>
>I am sure the antics predated the so-called solution.
>
>Rather than the planning.
>
>G.
>
>
>> 
>> --
>> George
>> Alas poor sig, I knew it well.
>

Planning is important. Fail to plan then plan to fail.
I was told that the normal convicts don't mix perverts in jail, not so
much because the perverts are at risk, but because the perverts a
risky bunch. Some are just plain evil and some have used their time in
jail to get very big and strong. The guy I was speaking to told me
that they aren't the weasly little pervert picture stereotype that we
all have in our minds eye.

Much in the same way that some convicts came out of jail with a hat
full of qualifacations.


max.it (the orange cage)

max.it wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:52:19 GMT, Gregory 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Egroeg the Niffirg wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:06:28 GMT, Gregory 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>freeireland wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 28 Oct, 18:38, Gregory  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Falcon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Der Weiße Wolf @iol.ie> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7062543.stm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What a bastard!  That lawyer deserves to serve 25 years!  I'd wonder
>>>>>>>>>>about the judge...  She was not naked...  so that's alright then?  FFS!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's nothing to do with the magistrate, it's what the Sexual Offences Act
>>>>>>>>says. I agree, the circumstances sound indecent, but taking photos of
>>>>>>>>someone who is wearing a bikini isn't an offence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What say you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ray
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'd say she's seventeen and looks good in a swimsuit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Like the judge said, the voyeurism charge cannto stand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You ol' rabble-rouser, you...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Looks to me as thought the magistrate (a woman) got it right. In any case
>>>>>>>>the maximum penalty she could impose is a fine and six months inside. I
>>>>>>>>assume the appeal is an attempt to change the law by setting a legal
>>>>>>>>precedent of some kind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sure what's the point of cameras on mobile phones if its not to get
>>>>>>>upskirt shots in the wimmen's changing rooms?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Look out for next year's must-have accessory - an extensible handle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>M.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is more or less where it is at. I can't see Minister Ruane doing
>>>>>>the needful, that would piss off her friends.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>why don't they just make the cubicles from floor to ceiling?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>Having the small gap means it's easier to clean the floor, water
>>>drains away etc.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>The UK has to get out of the child pornography facilitation business, 
>>break the bad habits of a century.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>You have the correct insight into their risk management. Zero-thought at 
>>>>the planning and building stages.
>>>>
>>>>I am not settling for a retro-fit modesty screen.
>>>
>>>
>>>Lisburn has put rubber strips on which now go to the floor. I guess
>>>they've decided cleaning is less important than preventing such
>>>antics.
>>
>>
>>I am sure the antics predated the so-called solution.
>>
>>Rather than the planning.
>>
>>G.
>>
>>
>>
>>>--
>>>George
>>>Alas poor sig, I knew it well.
>>
> 
> Planning is important. Fail to plan then plan to fail.
> I was told that the normal convicts don't mix perverts in jail, not so
> much because the perverts are at risk, but because the perverts a
> risky bunch. Some are just plain evil and some have used their time in
> jail to get very big and strong. The guy I was speaking to told me
> that they aren't the weasly little pervert picture stereotype that we
> all have in our minds eye.
> 
> Much in the same way that some convicts came out of jail with a hat
> full of qualifacations.
> 
> 
> max.it (the orange cage)



Pro-pedophiles as a philosophy, don't see a moral order in metaphysical 
principles, and they intend to change the world.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:09:36 +0000, Egroeg the Niffirg
 wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:06:28 GMT, Gregory 
>wrote:
>
>>freeireland wrote:
>>> On 28 Oct, 18:38, Gregory  wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Falcon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>Der Weiße Wolf @iol.ie> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7062543.stm
>>>>
>>>>>>>>What a bastard!  That lawyer deserves to serve 25 years!  I'd wonder
>>>>>>>>about the judge...  She was not naked...  so that's alright then?  FFS!!!
>>>>
>>>>>>It's nothing to do with the magistrate, it's what the Sexual Offences Act
>>>>>>says. I agree, the circumstances sound indecent, but taking photos of
>>>>>>someone who is wearing a bikini isn't an offence.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>What say you?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ray
>>>>
>>>>>>>I'd say she's seventeen and looks good in a swimsuit.
>>>>
>>>>>>>Like the judge said, the voyeurism charge cannto stand.
>>>>
>>>>>>>You ol' rabble-rouser, you...
>>>>
>>>>>>Looks to me as thought the magistrate (a woman) got it right. In any case
>>>>>>the maximum penalty she could impose is a fine and six months inside. I
>>>>>>assume the appeal is an attempt to change the law by setting a legal
>>>>>>precedent of some kind.
>>>>
>>>>>Sure what's the point of cameras on mobile phones if its not to get
>>>>>upskirt shots in the wimmen's changing rooms?
>>>>
>>>>>Look out for next year's must-have accessory - an extensible handle.
>>>>
>>>>>M.
>>>>
>>>>That is more or less where it is at. I can't see Minister Ruane doing
>>>>the needful, that would piss off her friends.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>> 
>>> 
>>> why don't they just make the cubicles from floor to ceiling?
>>> 
>>
>Having the small gap means it's easier to clean the floor, water
>drains away etc.
>
>>
>>You have the correct insight into their risk management. Zero-thought at 
>>the planning and building stages.
>>
>>I am not settling for a retro-fit modesty screen.
>
>Lisburn has put rubber strips on which now go to the floor. I guess
>they've decided cleaning is less important than preventing such
>antics.

Some restrooms here have a 1 foot high gap between stalls...  :(

Ray

-- 
****************************************************************************************
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too
high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. - Friedrich Nietzsche
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************

Der Weiße Wolf <rayh<spam>@iol.ie> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:09:36 +0000, Egroeg the Niffirg
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:06:28 GMT, Gregory 
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>freeireland wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 28 Oct, 18:38, Gregory  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Falcon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Michael O'Neill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Der Weiße Wolf @iol.ie> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7062543.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What a bastard!  That lawyer deserves to serve 25 years!  I'd wonder
>>>>>>>>>about the judge...  She was not naked...  so that's alright then?  FFS!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's nothing to do with the magistrate, it's what the Sexual Offences Act
>>>>>>>says. I agree, the circumstances sound indecent, but taking photos of
>>>>>>>someone who is wearing a bikini isn't an offence.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What say you?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ray
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'd say she's seventeen and looks good in a swimsuit.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Like the judge said, the voyeurism charge cannto stand.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You ol' rabble-rouser, you...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Looks to me as thought the magistrate (a woman) got it right. In any case
>>>>>>>the maximum penalty she could impose is a fine and six months inside. I
>>>>>>>assume the appeal is an attempt to change the law by setting a legal
>>>>>>>precedent of some kind.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sure what's the point of cameras on mobile phones if its not to get
>>>>>>upskirt shots in the wimmen's changing rooms?
>>>>>
>>>>>>Look out for next year's must-have accessory - an extensible handle.
>>>>>
>>>>>>M.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is more or less where it is at. I can't see Minister Ruane doing
>>>>>the needful, that would piss off her friends.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>why don't they just make the cubicles from floor to ceiling?
>>>>
>>>
>>Having the small gap means it's easier to clean the floor, water
>>drains away etc.
>>
>>
>>>You have the correct insight into their risk management. Zero-thought at 
>>>the planning and building stages.
>>>
>>>I am not settling for a retro-fit modesty screen.
>>
>>Lisburn has put rubber strips on which now go to the floor. I guess
>>they've decided cleaning is less important than preventing such
>>antics.
> 
> 
> Some restrooms here have a 1 foot high gap between stalls...  :(
> 
> Ray
> 

Mixed gender?

Michael O'Neill wrote:
> Der Weiße Wolf @iol.ie> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7062543.stm
>>
>>What a bastard!  That lawyer deserves to serve 25 years!  I'd wonder about the
>>judge...  She was not naked...  so that's alright then?  FFS!!!
>>
>>What say you?
>>
>>Ray
> 
> 
> I'd say she's seventeen and looks good in a swimsuit.
> 
> Like the judge said, the voyeurism charge cannto stand.
> 
> You ol' rabble-rouser, you...
> 
> M.


That is not a sustainable prospect.

If it is allowed to be that way the amount of child pornography produced 
in Britain will go into over-drive.

It is bad enough as it is. Teachers, care-workers etc. They produce tons 
of the stuff. It can't be left.

The PPS(NI) has to have another go.

With that lawyer.

Gregory

freeireland wrote:
> On 26 Oct, 00:27, Gregory  wrote:
> 
>>freeireland wrote:
>>
>>>On 25 Oct, 19:54, Gregory  wrote:
>>
>>>>The Catholic Church (in Northern Ireland) set a precedent in relation to
>>>>secret filmng of changing rooms which was not very unhelpful.
>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4513287.stm
>>
>>>>In order to protect teachers, they (PPSNI) had to close the goal-posts
>>>>to effectively legalize the clandestine filming of changing rooms.
>>
>>>>The distinction with MacRitchie case was that the latter had obvious
>>>>elements of sexual intent. However, to reduce the amount of material
>>>>which *can be used as child pornography*, it is preferable if secret
>>>>filming of children be prohibited.
>>
>>>>We have (as usual) a teaching union problem.
>>
>>>>G.
>>
>>>I have heard of parents being told to stop making videos and taking
>>>pictures of their own children at a swiming pool. Especially very
>>>young children who may not have any clothes on at all.  Clearly sexual
>>>intent has to be proved and I cannot see it being easy to introduce
>>>legislation for this. After all how do you prove a persons intent.
>>
>>There is an institutional lack of understanding of human rights &
>>privacy issues within British teaching. They are contempuous of minimum
>>international standards.
>>
>>The 'teachers' I often deal with have cameras hidden in the schoolgirls
>>changing room. It is intolerable behavior. I get two or three complaints
>>re: England & Wales per month.
>>
>>Sexual intent, at the point of orgiin, is often irrelevant to the issue
>>of child pornography. When it is distributed to Japan (for big bucks) it
>>will definitely be sexual then.
>>
>>British teachers should stop increasing the level of child pornography.
>>
>>That is my position.
>>
>>G.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
> 
> 
> What about the case when someone has a 1 year old child on a public
> beach who as 1 year old children do strip of and start playing in the
> sand. When a parent starts taking pictures and puts them on a web site
> for their parents and family who are distributed all around the world
> to see.  The problem legislators have is they have to introduce
> legislation that as you correctly say can allow children to be
> protected however it must also take into consideration thouse whos
> intentions are quite innocent.


Well, when MATERIAL IS USED AS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, it doesn't really 
matter about the intent relative to origination.

Naked photos of kids is crtainly the sort of thing that child 
pornogrphers like to distribute.

Secretly filmed is even better.

It is a no-brainer.

Gregory

Falcon wrote:
> Michael O'Neill wrote:
> 
> 
>>Der Weiße Wolf @iol.ie> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/northern_ireland/7062543.stm
>>>
>>>What a bastard!  That lawyer deserves to serve 25 years!  I'd wonder
>>>about the judge...  She was not naked...  so that's alright then?  FFS!!!
> 
> 
> It's nothing to do with the magistrate, it's what the Sexual Offences Act 
> says. I agree, the circumstances sound indecent, but taking photos of 
> someone who is wearing a bikini isn't an offence.




It is illegal to film secretly in shower-cubicles with sexual intent. 
That was definitely the intention and promise of the SOA 2003.

The idea that he picked the wrong moment (to early or too late) to do so 
is a bit of a red-herring.

Filming kids changing in shower cubicles is child pornography.

However the legislation was written in the knowledge that the British 
teaching profession were a bit off the rails.

Secret filming was not outlawed *directly* because British teachers were 
up to the ears in all sorts of perverted stuff.

Brit teachers make their US counter-parts seem almost well-behaved.

G.

Gregory wrote:

> That is not a sustainable prospect. 
> If it is allowed to be that way the amount of child pornography produced 
> in Britain will go into over-drive. 
> It is bad enough as it is. Teachers, care-workers etc. They produce tons 
> of the stuff. It can't be left.
> The PPS(NI) has to have another go.
> With that lawyer.

"However, earlier this month, the magistrate said that as the young 
woman had been wearing her swimsuit, rather than being naked, or in her 
underwear, the voyeurism charge could not stand."

By cherry picking some mitigating circumstances, rather than considering 
the deed on its own merits, the judge gave the defence loads more wiggle 
room than necessary.

"However, she said she was dismissing the charge because the girl had 
not been filmed carrying out a private act."

Although the changing room was considered *unisex,* the user must have 
an expectation of a degree of privacy. What the girl was wearing and 
what, if anything, she was doing in the changing room is irrelevant. The 
tone set by the judge, if sustained by the appellate, will only open the 
door to a dizzying array of circumstantial *interpretations,* especially 
for cases lacking a strong defence. The revolving door will become the 
standard...

Turlough wrote:
> Gregory wrote:
> 
>> That is not a sustainable prospect. If it is allowed to be that way 
>> the amount of child pornography produced in Britain will go into 
>> over-drive. It is bad enough as it is. Teachers, care-workers etc. 
>> They produce tons of the stuff. It can't be left.
>> The PPS(NI) has to have another go.
>> With that lawyer.
> 
> 
> "However, earlier this month, the magistrate said that as the young 
> woman had been wearing her swimsuit, rather than being naked, or in her 
> underwear, the voyeurism charge could not stand."
> 
> By cherry picking some mitigating circumstances, rather than considering 
> the deed on its own merits, the judge gave the defence loads more wiggle 
> room than necessary.


The PPS(NI) were given instructions by the Home Office that teachers 
were to be treated leniently and the sexual intent aspects were to be 
absolute and provable, no room for speculation.

For the same reason our planned prosecutions against strip clubs (re: 
CCTV) collapsed. In other words if they're using children, the CCTV 
becomes child pornography ( and evidence in general) etc.

The British teaching profession is a road-block in this area. With that 
sort of cherry-picking culture it is not surprising that magistrates are 
behaving very oddly.


> 
> "However, she said she was dismissing the charge because the girl had 
> not been filmed carrying out a private act."
> 
> Although the changing room was considered *unisex,* the user must have 
> an expectation of a degree of privacy. What the girl was wearing and 
> what, if anything, she was doing in the changing room is irrelevant. The 
> tone set by the judge, if sustained by the appellate, will only open the 
> door to a dizzying array of circumstantial *interpretations,* especially 
> for cases lacking a strong defence. The revolving door will become the 
> standard...

It would make prosecutions difficult to begin with, impossible,

if a guy puts a camera in a changing room, say in a kids store, he is 
not committing a crime unless the PPS(NI) can see into his head and get 
a signed confession. If he is a teacher, he will walk, in fact he 
becomes the victim!

Gregory

Gregory wrote:

[...]
> Secret filming was not outlawed *directly* because British teachers were
> up to the ears in all sorts of perverted stuff.

Good grief. It didn't take you long to lose your mind again, did it?

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Costing the Earth: The Wind Rush
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/rams/costingtheearth_20070830.ram

Falcon wrote:
> Gregory wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>Secret filming was not outlawed *directly* because British teachers were
>>up to the ears in all sorts of perverted stuff.
> 
> 
> Good grief. It didn't take you long to lose your mind again, did it?
> 

That's a bit previous,

The Home Office told me. That was the only reason given.

We had to walk away from a child pornography prosecution re: a strip 
club in England apparently because of a teaching union.

A prosecution against a strip-club using kids was definitely called off 
because of the potential 'teacher' precedent. CCTV to be treated as 
child pornography. Not in the public interest.

The police declined to collect the CCTV because of the same advice.

That was precisely how I was informed. I do accept that was indeed the 
reason. In the USA they arrest thousands of teachers, how many do you 
think they should be arresting in Great Britain?

Do you think the Brits keep stats?

:o))

Gregory



PRESS RELEASE ESMOND BIRNIE MLA UUP SOUTH BELFAST

11 July 2006

INCREDIBLE NONSENSE FROM THE DfES & HOME OFFICE

THE GOVT. DO KEEP TRACK OF SEXUAL OFFENDING BY EDUCATORS, HOWEVER 
APPARENTLY THEY HAVE DECIDED TO PRETEND THEY DO NOT

At the height of the registered sex offenders who were working in school 
scandal, the DfES were desperately sending out bulletins to LEAs 
demanding the immediate halt to system wide CRB checks. The DfES were 
patently doing the precise opposite of what might be expected of the 
department.

It was perhaps hardly surprising ( a few months later), that of 58 
schools surveyed by OFSTED, 55 did not have a record of each member of 
staff stating whether their identity, qualifications or criminal records 
had been checked and, if so, when and by whom.

What OFTSED actually discovered, in plain and simple language, was that 
a 'recorded' vetting system may not exist within the DfES system, the 
implications for Northern Ireland remain unclear.

The Ulster Unionist Party has struggled for months to clarify the 
relationship of our own system in Northern Ireland as it relates to 
larger models in Britain. The response given to Lord Laird indicates 
that the DfES are in no hurry to provide bona fide answers to valid 
questions.

The written answer to Lord Laird by Lord Adonis is remarkable within the 
described context of one scandal quickly followed by another, it is 
quite amazing.

The starting point for any teacher vetting system has to involve 
comprehensive data collection. The DfES and Home Office do have access 
to the information and they should have provided Lord Laird of 
Artigarvan with a credible response.

Dr. Esmond Birnie MLA UUP South Belfast




Child Protection: Teachers

Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many teachers have been (a) convicted, or (b) cautioned for child 
pornography or sexual abuse in (i) England, and (ii) Northern Ireland 
over the past five years.[HL6515]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and 
Skills (Lord Adonis): The Department for Education and Skills does not 
record the numbers of teachers cautioned or convicted for child 
pornography or sexual abuse. The Home Office has data relating to the 
total number of individuals cautioned or convicted, though these are not 
broken down by profession.

Turlough wrote:
> Gregory wrote:
>
>> That is not a sustainable prospect.
>> If it is allowed to be that way the amount of child pornography
>> produced in Britain will go into over-drive.
>> It is bad enough as it is. Teachers, care-workers etc. They produce
>> tons of the stuff. It can't be left.
>> The PPS(NI) has to have another go.
>> With that lawyer.

> "However, earlier this month, the magistrate said that as the young
> woman had been wearing her swimsuit, rather than being naked, or in
> her underwear, the voyeurism charge could not stand."

> By cherry picking some mitigating circumstances, rather than
> considering the deed on its own merits, the judge gave the defence
> loads more wiggle room than necessary.

The difference between wearing a swimsuit - in which she was presumably
going to go out in public - and wearing underwear or nothing at all - is not
a technicality, it's fundamental. If the room was unisex, one assumes that
she had a private cubicle. If she were secretly filmed in the cubicle, that
is obviously voyeurism. If she were filmed in a public area, that's being
sleazy.


> "However, she said she was dismissing the charge because the girl had
> not been filmed carrying out a private act."

> Although the changing room was considered *unisex,* the user must have
> an expectation of a degree of privacy. What the girl was wearing and
> what, if anything, she was doing in the changing room is irrelevant.
> The tone set by the judge, if sustained by the appellate, will only
> open the door to a dizzying array of circumstantial
> *interpretations,* especially for cases lacking a strong defence. The
> revolving door will become the standard...




-- 



J/

SOTW: "Pinball Wizard" - McFly

Westprog wrote:
> Turlough wrote:
> 
>>Gregory wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That is not a sustainable prospect.
>>>If it is allowed to be that way the amount of child pornography
>>>produced in Britain will go into over-drive.
>>>It is bad enough as it is. Teachers, care-workers etc. They produce
>>>tons of the stuff. It can't be left.
>>>The PPS(NI) has to have another go.
>>>With that lawyer.
> 
> 
>>"However, earlier this month, the magistrate said that as the young
>>woman had been wearing her swimsuit, rather than being naked, or in
>>her underwear, the voyeurism charge could not stand."
> 
> 
>>By cherry picking some mitigating circumstances, rather than
>>considering the deed on its own merits, the judge gave the defence
>>loads more wiggle room than necessary.
> 
> 
> The difference between wearing a swimsuit - in which she was presumably
> going to go out in public - and wearing underwear or nothing at all - is not
> a technicality, it's fundamental. If the room was unisex, one assumes that
> she had a private cubicle. If she were secretly filmed in the cubicle, that
> is obviously voyeurism. If she were filmed in a public area, that's being
> sleazy.


So the guy with the camera being slipped under the booth was after what 
exactly, only swimwear or whatever his camera captured?

The fundamental thing, the technical imperative is to prevent perverts 
flooding the world with voyeur cam porn relating to children etc.

The UK (& CEOP) is not helping.

G.

Gregory wrote:
...
> So the guy with the camera being slipped under the booth was after
> what exactly, only swimwear or whatever his camera captured?

I'd like to think that such actions were punishable in some way, but that
doesn't make the actual picture taken pornographic.


> The fundamental thing, the technical imperative is to prevent perverts
> flooding the world with voyeur cam porn relating to children etc.


If the worst material out there consisted of older teenagers in swimsuits,
there wouldn't be that bad a problem.

-- 



J/

SOTW: "Good Evening Mr. Waldheim " - Lou Reed

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:19:13 -0400, Turlough  wrote:

>Gregory wrote:
>
>> That is not a sustainable prospect. 
>> If it is allowed to be that way the amount of child pornography produced 
>> in Britain will go into over-drive. 
>> It is bad enough as it is. Teachers, care-workers etc. They produce tons 
>> of the stuff. It can't be left.
>> The PPS(NI) has to have another go.
>> With that lawyer.
>
>"However, earlier this month, the magistrate said that as the young 
>woman had been wearing her swimsuit, rather than being naked, or in her 
>underwear, the voyeurism charge could not stand."
>
>By cherry picking some mitigating circumstances, rather than considering 
>the deed on its own merits, the judge gave the defence loads more wiggle 
>room than necessary.
>
>"However, she said she was dismissing the charge because the girl had 
>not been filmed carrying out a private act."
>
>Although the changing room was considered *unisex,* the user must have 
>an expectation of a degree of privacy. What the girl was wearing and 
>what, if anything, she was doing in the changing room is irrelevant. The 
>tone set by the judge, if sustained by the appellate, will only open the 
>door to a dizzying array of circumstantial *interpretations,* especially 
>for cases lacking a strong defence. The revolving door will become the 
>standard...

Watch that judge...  

Sickness isn't confined... Evil has no boundaries!

Ray



-- 
****************************************************************************************
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed
 by the tribe.  If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning
yourself. - Friedrich Nietzsche
****************************************************************************************
Email  : rayh(removeSPAM)@iol.ie : Website: http://www.eirefirst.com
****************************************************************************************