Laurence Fox
- Thread starter Amplus
- Start date
Fox is a very angry man with far too much time on his hands. It's a shame, with his platform he could probably actually do some good. God help us if he manages to get elected to the London Assembly (slim chance, I know).
The image itself is probably not illegal despite being an invasion of privacy. It sounds like it was taken in public when she got into a car. It was probably before the upskirt law came into place so even the photographer is unlikely to be guilty of upskirting.
But it could be revenge porn.
The offence of 'upskirting' doesn't apply in this case, even if Fox had taken the photo in the 1st place.
Quite understandably the law doesn't protect people who intentionally or recklessly expose their gentials, buttocks or underwear (for example people who go out in short skirts with no underwear and expose their genitals getting out of vehicles to people in normal view.
(Emphasis mine)
www.cps.gov.uk
The other offence that might be relevant is section 188 of the Online safety act 2003 (that only came into force earlier this year)
Which makes it an offence to share or threaten to share 'intimate' photos of a third person without their consent.
I don't think it's been tested in court but I suspect any prosecution under this section wouldn't succeed on the basis of the criteria set out under the Voyeurism Act.
Quite understandably the law doesn't protect people who intentionally or recklessly expose their gentials, buttocks or underwear (for example people who go out in short skirts with no underwear and expose their genitals getting out of vehicles to people in normal view.
(Emphasis mine)
Voyeurism | The Crown Prosecution Service
The other offence that might be relevant is section 188 of the Online safety act 2003 (that only came into force earlier this year)
Which makes it an offence to share or threaten to share 'intimate' photos of a third person without their consent.
I don't think it's been tested in court but I suspect any prosecution under this section wouldn't succeed on the basis of the criteria set out under the Voyeurism Act.
Last edited:
I dunno... if it happened very recently (like being live or basically live) the moron angle could be used to escape consequence, but anything that is perceived as 'a long time ago' is going to be treated with suspicion. It certainly fits the bill for revenge porn.
Last edited:
I've just been watching the Art of Law talking about this. He said there is no case to answer.
ANOTHER Offence by Laurence Fox? Probably Not. But why?
When is it, or is it not, a crime to publish intimate photos of other people? Let's find out.#artoflaw #laurencefox laurence foxDisclaimer: Neither this nor...
youtu.be
I've just been watching the Art of Law talking about this. He said there is no case to answer.
ANOTHER Offence by Laurence Fox? Probably Not. But why?
When is it, or is it not, a crime to publish intimate photos of other people? Let's find out.#artoflaw #laurencefox laurence foxDisclaimer: Neither this nor...
If Narider herself has posted the video online then that makes it almost certain that there would never be a case to answer.
Sends a communication that is grossly offensive, indecent or obscene?
I'm not sure Narider would be to happy for her actions to be labelled (in the legal sense) as offensive, indecent or and or obscene
Last edited:
What a sad little boy. He really doesn't like women does he. At least with him - you can leave him to his own devices in bringing him down.
And it got confirmed how much he'll have to pay for his libel case - £180k
.
And it got confirmed how much he'll have to pay for his libel case - £180k
.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,674
Whether it was legal or not, i'd like to think we can all agree it's a pathetic and disgusting thing for a person to do.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Pics so I can check?
If The image is illegal then possession and publication of it is also illegal, just like child porn
Why would that image be illegal? It was taken before the upskirting law. It was taken in public. It was published in a newspaper at one point and apparently even retweeted by the "victim". An image of a person's genitals is not illegal in the UK. Possessing that picture is not an offence. This is not like child porn.
So it comes down to how, where and why LF has republished, such as what his intentions were in doing so. As I said, this could possibly fall under revenge porn but even that is questionable. But I guess we will find out soon if the police feel any laws were broken.
Absolutely. It's completely scummy.
Stand down fellow GD'ers DP's stepped outside of his SC bubble to offer us his pearls of wisdom.
Slight problem being that, as if often the case, he's talking nonsense.
There's nothing 'illegal' about possessing this image, to be contrasted in different circumstances where publishing/ distributing the image *might* in some circumstances amount to an offence under various acts of parliament (for example it might form part of a 'course of conduct' for harassment in some circumstances).
As I have already shown the taking of this photo definitely would *not* constitute an offence of 'upskirting' as section 1(2) of the Voyeurism Act of 2019 requires that the image to have been taken "in circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would not otherwise be visible".
This means that this act was designed to criminalise people who undertook methods like pointing cameras up skirts, attached cameras to shoes etc to obtain video/ photos that would 'not otherwise be visible' in public.
The law wasn't brought in to protect people who either intentionally exposed their underwear, genitals or buttocks or who made decisions/ acted in a manner where the exposure of the afermentioned things, in normal view, was likely to happen anyway.
IIRC not true, at least the idea that it's all dealt with the same as child porn.
An image can be legal in context and private possession (IE a photo of two consenting adults getting it on), but might be illegal to share without consent, a photo might be legal between two consenting adults but be illegal to share (or at least "publish") even with consent (IIRC BDSM photos often fall into this group). And photos that were taken before a change in the law might be legally ok if the law did not retroactively and explicitly make them illegal as long as you don't reproduce it or share it.
As you say child porn is always illegal, but (and with legal stuff there is always a but), the line between what might be considered child porn and something that is legal can, in some very limited circumstances be blurred. IIRC there are a few BBFC passed films where an underage actor is briefly nude and because the film is BBFC approved it is legal to own*, but using screenshots and clips out of context for it can be illegal. The same applies to some books and pictures where it is "just" nudity in a work of art that was officially published and never banned, IIRC there is for example an album from the 70's with airbrushed naked girl used as part of the cover art, I know of it it (it was something like 10 years before I was born) because I remember the fuss that happened when the organisation that blocks child porn categorized it as such and proceeded to block Wikipedia (back when wiki was fairly new) because they'd got a low res image of the cover used in context on the page about the album.
Then there were the likes of the page 3 girls where the law ended up having to be tightened up because photos were taken to be published on their 18th birthday - IIRC that quickly got an amendment to the law but the original images are legal as they were legal when published.
Basically even what might be thought of as "clear cut" isn't always with the law as they don't necessarily make stuff illegal to the point where you face prosecution for things that were previously legal when they were produced or you did them. It's why so many of the historical sexual offences that the police deal with seem to have "light" sentences that don't make sense today, it's because they're being dealt with under the laws and sentencing guidelines that were in place at the time of the offence (IIRC it's a bit of a nightmare for the judges as they're in some cases using legal guidelines and laws that are 40 years out of date and they need additional training for what might be the only case they ever deal with under those laws).
Sorry going off topic a bit here, but the law is complex, especially when it comes to photos and film, and it's something I've ended up with a bit of an interest in mainly because I started paying attention to how the BBFC made decisions, and various "video nasty" type scares. I've ended up reading an awful lot of the BBFC case studies** on their site about controversial films, or films where the rating and edits have changed over time and to be honest it's actually interesting to see how a film that was banned outright due to an idiot politician getting confused about the title got an uncut 15 many years later, or how a film that was passed at one rating in the 80's might get a higher one now due to language/current guidance (IIRC the study for Watership Down suggests they might have given it a higher rating today as it's been recognised as a bit much for it's current one under todays guide).
*I think there were a handful in the 70's, some of which got DVD's releases and/or are still available on legal streaming services (IIRC there is a Romeo and Juliet with an under age Juliet's bare breasts).
**Seriously they are interesting in a lot of cases, as they can go into the political and cultural circumstances around the ratings and discussions internally and externally regarding the proposed and final ratings, and in the case of sequels or later rereleases how it had changed.
Last edited:
Another thing to consider with this picture is it might have been setup.
The media are notorious for setting up "shocking" pictures with the consent of the person. Because they would pay for the image and it gives publicity to the person involved.
I've seen videos and images like that done before were the person would come out of their house half dressed to take the rubbish out and multiple images would be taken and printed.
The media are notorious for setting up "shocking" pictures with the consent of the person. Because they would pay for the image and it gives publicity to the person involved.
I've seen videos and images like that done before were the person would come out of their house half dressed to take the rubbish out and multiple images would be taken and printed.