A man took up skirts pictures of a minimum of 630 women and school girls

Status
Not open for further replies.
dalin80 said:
Minimum of 630? So someone went through each picture and tallied a total of at least 630 individual.. erm... foofs.

That's a very weird job, how to you even phrase that on a CV?
Click to expand...

Forensic photographic lingerie analyst?

Either that or they used similar software to what they use for matching other dodgy pictures on the web with what is found on suspects machines, so they load the pictures in and it works out how many unique ones there are and how many close matches.
Which would explain why you might get a result of "at least 630" as the software might have 630 definitely unique images with no close matches.
 
robgmun said:
What i don't get if he had an ‘Addiction’ to female underwear, why did he run the risk of getting caught taking photos when there's literally millions of photos of women of all ages in underwear?
Click to expand...

The risk was probably part of the attraction.
 
insane200 said:
You still can't buy or sell tho ;)

Very odd, did he have a shoe camera or was he very short, having to bend down each time to get a shot must be fairly noticeable .
Click to expand...

He may have just been very very short?

Maybe he walked around on his hands all day?

Let's not just discredit the guy, he's clearly very dedicated.
 
Take a picture of a woman in a bikini - nothing.
Take a picture of a woman in underwear she's inadvertently showing - prison.

WTF?!

Keep in mind that most of these people with have no idea it's happened. Therefore can there be significant harm done by it? What we don't know can't hurt us after all.

Granted, the kids bit is seriously off.
 
A friend of mine (it really wasn't me) tried to sneak a shot of a pretty woman on the tube a whole back with his phone, forgot to turn the flash off. Doh!

Edit - that will teach me to not read properly. Sorry didn't see the school girls part :o
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
Take a picture of a woman in a bikini - nothing.
Take a picture of a woman in underwear she's inadvertently showing - prison.

WTF?!

Keep in mind that most of these people with have no idea it's happened. Therefore can there be significant harm done by it? What we don't know can't hurt us after all.
Click to expand...

Theres this tiny little thing called consent you seem to have forgotten about.

Rape culture alive and well on the OcUK forums everyone.
 
hurfdurf said:
Theres this tiny little thing called consent you seem to have forgotten about.

Rape culture alive and well on the OcUK forums everyone.
Click to expand...

Please explain how unknowingly having a photo taken (when fully clothed) is the same as having someone shove their penis in you.
 
Last edited:
We have a poster who completely normalised non consensual male sexual behaviour who is now trying to defend himself by claiming that simply because a penis wasn't inserted into someone that that some how makes it ok.
 
hurfdurf said:
Theres this tiny little thing called consent you seem to have forgotten about.

Rape culture alive and well on the OcUK forums everyone.
Click to expand...

sooo the newspapers have consent for all those crotch shot getting out of car pics of celebs?

or the photos taken on their hotel balcony/private beach with massive telescopic lens?


so the guy who took this?

snipppy :p

(ann hathaway vags in google :p

and the guys who published it in the national press dont get anything?
 
Last edited:
No, what Dis said was that if they were unaware of the photographer, then they're unaware of any harm.

My personal view is that it's still harmful as its invading their privacy and dignity in a gross way. The fact he's done it to so many people in shops without changing facilities (Clinton cards et al) does make me wonder how no one spotted him sooner though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom