Lawrence Fox is a total loser

[Vinty]

If Fox didn't actually take the photograph why is he being charged with an up skirting offence.
What about the person who originally took the photograph and published it online, aren't they liable.

 

[blup]

If Fox didn't actually take the photograph why is he being charged with an up skirting offence.
What about the person who originally took the photograph and published it online, aren't they liable.

The papz that took it weren't committing an offence back then, and its now presumably available on tne web. The offence is not about the picture, its about sharing it to humiliate the victim.

 

[noseall]

Fox is just another bargain basement,- publicity hound - gobshite, from the same stable as Katie Hopkins.
Swamp scum.

 

[motorbiking]

If Fox didn't actually take the photograph why is he being charged with an up skirting offence.
What about the person who originally took the photograph and published it online, aren't they liable.

Apparently he isn't. He's been charged with sec 66A.

The papz that took it weren't committing an offence back then, and its now presumably available on tne web. The offence is not about the picture, its about sharing it to humiliate the victim.

not the "victim" the recipient.

 

[MNW67]

Apparently he isn't. He's been charged with sec 66A.

Thanks. I had never heard of it. Here it is:

66A Sending etc photograph or film of genitals​

(1) A person (A) who intentionally sends or gives a photograph or film of any person’s genitals to another person (B) commits an offence if —

(a) A intends that B will see the genitals and be caused alarm, distress or humiliation, or

(b) A sends or gives such a photograph or film for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and is reckless as to whether B will be caused alarm, distress or humiliation.

 

[motorbiking]

Thanks. I had never heard of it. Here it is:

discussed the details on p10 with IT minion, who misunderstood the elements of the crime.

 

[IT Minion]

Apparently he isn't. He's been charged with sec 66A.

not the "victim" the recipient.

In this case it's doing both.

The recipient is being sent materials to harass them (making them the victim) and they're also the person pictured and would under current law have been the victim of up skirting. But since it predates that law the up skirting wasnt illegal.

 

[MNW67]

discussed the details on p10 with IT minion, who misunderstood the elements of the crime.

Sounds like a slam dunk. LF is such a sad man.

 

[IT Minion]

He's an utter waste of oxygen and was absolutely using an image of a woman's genitals to bully her online but that may not be illegal. Just unconscionable.

 

[MNW67]

He's an utter waste of oxygen and was absolutely using an image of a woman's genitals to bully her online but that may not be illegal. Just unconscionable.

I think it is obvious that he intended her to see it and be caused humiliation. Guilty!!!

 

[motorbiking]

I think it is obvious that he intended her to see it and be caused humiliation. Guilty!!!

maybe. I'm not so sure it's a slam dunk.

Its not enough that she was humiliated, because it was a picture of her.

 

[blup]

not the "victim" the recipient.

I reckon she’s both in this scenario.

 

[blup]

Let’s hope the judge is better than this one

 

[MNW67]

Its not enough that she was humiliated, because it was a picture of her.

That might be the crux of it then. So, are you saying that the humiliation caused specifically by it being a picture of her genitals has to be ruled out as a factor?

 

[motorbiking]

That might be the crux of it then. So, are you saying that the humiliation caused specifically by it being a picture of her genitals has to be ruled out as a factor?

It’s not a relevant factor for this specific offence. There is another offence of threatening or actually disclosing intimate images. But that doesn’t fit either, because this cannot be described as intimate images.

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015

An Act to make provision about how offenders are dealt with before and after conviction; to create offences involving ill-treatment or wilful neglect by a person providing health care or social care; to create an offence of the corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges...

www.legislation.gov.uk