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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tefal said:
this is you isnt it hurf?

BNBh3vE.jpg
Click to expand...


You just know that if a guy was doing this in his underwear, he'd be arrested....

Oh and "Reverse Rape" because I dont find her attractive.... Come on, gimme a break!!!



Finally for hurfdurf - I've never once seen you defend victims of male rape. And no, your posts dont accommodate this as they are quite clearly directed to female victims and the rape culture aimed at women...
 
Last night I was walking through the toon and I was some dirt old man like 50-60 take his phone out and snap a picture from behind of these 3 "ladies" who weren't wearing a whole lot.

I just thought you dirty *******.

Maybe I should have told the girls he was a pervy **** but I guess in public you have right to take photos?
 
Malevolence said:
A 17 month sentence for that is a joke, wasn't it only last month that some **** got a mere 5 months for raping a five year old?
Click to expand...

No he got a suspended sentence.
I am still awaiting response from that court, and the matter is with the home secretary currently, to see if the decision should be referre to the court of appeal.
It is meant to be determined this month, but as yet I have heard nothing further.
 
What i do wonder is how the press get away with obvious upskirt shots from low angles being published in national press, just because the woman in the picture is a celeb.
 
Must admit I'm pretty surprised to see people posting that the guy doesn't deserve a criminal record for this. While he didn't physically assault sexually anyone, there is no doubt that when you take an up-skirt shot without a womans consent that you ARE violating them, and if you do over 600 then you pose a real potential risk to women in society. You do not have a right to take photos up anyone's skirt without their consent.
 
Richdog said:
Must admit I'm pretty surprised to see people posting that the guy doesn't deserve a criminal record for this. While he didn't physically assault sexually anyone, there is no doubt that when you take an up-skirt shot without a womans consent that you ARE violating them, and if you do over 600 then you pose a real potential risk to women in society. You do not have a right to take photos up anyone's skirt without their consent.
Click to expand...

I agree its wrong but why should he go to jail and a newspaper photographer who has taken over 600 upskirt shots of women without their consent not be jailed as well?
 
Greebo said:
I agree its wrong but why should he go to jail and a newspaper photographer who has taken over 600 upskirt shots of women without their consent not be jailed as well?
Click to expand...

1-who is this reporter you speak of?
2-did he do the same to 12 year olds?
2- did he do it for sexual gratification?

I wouldn't want that pervert around my children.
 
Last edited:
Greebo said:
I agree its wrong but why should he go to jail and a newspaper photographer who has taken over 600 upskirt shots of women without their consent not be jailed as well?
Click to expand...

What does physical assault have to do with receiving a jail sentence? Do you think physical contact is necessary to break laws or be convicted? If so you have a severe lack of understanding of the various nature of crimes.

And what do you mean by the reporter who took 600 photos of upskirt shots without consent? I didn't see that, and if he did then of course he would deserve punishing too.
 
Richdog said:
Must admit I'm pretty surprised to see people posting that the guy doesn't deserve a criminal record for this. While he didn't physically assault sexually anyone, there is no doubt that when you take an up-skirt shot without a womans consent that you ARE violating them, and if you do over 600 then you pose a real potential risk to women in society. You do not have a right to take photos up anyone's skirt without their consent.
Click to expand...

I've never said that. Don't think anyone else has. Just that he shouldn't be in prison. I think i for one stated he needs mental help several times
 
Swap the underwear fetish for a foot fetish, a man is caught with 600+ photos of women's and girls feet. It sexually arouses him.

Is that worth of a prison sentence?

I think the issue is for a lot of people is where is that line? age wise it is easy, but the act itself...
 
Dis86 said:
I've never said that. Don't think anyone else has. Just that he shouldn't be in prison. I think i for one stated he needs mental help several times
Click to expand...

Yes, because "mental help" always works with sexual perverts? Clearly he never had a deterrent in the time before he was caught doing it, and being locked in jail and the other inmates knowing he is a borderline nonce may help with that.

AHarvey said:
Swap the underwear fetish for a foot fetish, a man is caught with 600+ photos of women's and girls feet. It sexually arouses him.

Is that worth of a prison sentence?

I think the issue is for a lot of people is where is that line? age wise it is easy, but the act itself...
Click to expand...

You don't think that a photo under a skirt is more invasive than a foot? I mean, really, including children no less?

I am genuinely sometimes baffled by the opinions I read on this forum, because common sense seems to be an increasingly rare commodity.
 
Last edited:
AHarvey said:
Swap the underwear fetish for a foot fetish, a man is caught with 600+ photos of women's and girls feet. It sexually arouses him.

Is that worth of a prison sentence?

I think the issue is for a lot of people is where is that line? age wise it is easy, but the act itself...
Click to expand...

Well I imagine the line is that 600+ women would consider their underwear, hidden beneath clothing, a private thing that they do not wish others to see in public. If people are walking about barefoot then they clearly have made a choice to make that part of themselves publicly visible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom