BS: Phantasyfile

Subject: BS: Phantasyfile?
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 15 - 10:51 AM

Just read in our local paper that some poor inadequate has been surreptitiously taking photos of schoolgirls on school busses putting them on his computer and fantasising about them.

The guy seems to have psychiatric problems, as he broke down several times in court....the Sheriff put him on the sex offenders register and will sentence him next week.

Is this a thought crime? Seems to me psychiatric help should be the order, not criminalisation?

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: meself
Date: 29 May 15 - 11:35 AM

Depends - what is the specific law that he has (presumably) broken? If, for instance, the law says that it is illegal to take photos of minors without permission, then he has broken that law, and it is not a 'thought crime' ....

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Ed T
Date: 29 May 15 - 01:04 PM

"Wasting away in pantyville"

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 15 - 01:54 PM

Yes maybe that's it meself, but I suppose everyone with a camera has inadvertently taken snaps with minors in them?

Can it be that to fantasise is the crime?

It just seems a strange one to be in our little local paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: meself
Date: 29 May 15 - 02:37 PM

Yes - but there are lots of laws that most of us have inadvertently or knowingly broken; e.g., against trespassing, jaywalking, loitering, prowling, public drunkenness, creating a disturbance, living off the avails - whoops! not that one - but no one would bother laying a charge unless there was perceived to be some related problem, e.g., invasion of privacy, preventing someone from getting a good night's sleep, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST
Date: 29 May 15 - 03:14 PM

There will be two schools of thought here I would imagine.
1. Boys will be boys.
2. What if it was YOUR daughter he had photographed?

Ding, ding. Round 1.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 15 - 07:45 PM

I am a good friend of the editor, I shall ask his views.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 15 - 03:55 AM

Link, please. Having fantasies is not a crime. Nor is taking photographs in public places. There is more to this that we are being led to believe.

Pete. Go back to look who started the thread and then have a good think about your last statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:21 AM

Apparently the man travelled on buses which were also used by pupils from the local secondary school.
He used his mobile phone to surreptitiously take pics of schoolgirls...not indecent.
One of the girls thought he was acting strangely and reported to her parents, who went to the police.
The police traced the guy and found the pics on his computer...he broke down and admitted to viewing the pics and fantasising about them.

He was charged, appeared in court, placed on sex offenders register and will be sentenced next week.
Still think this is more of a job for psychiatric services than criminal justice.

BTW.....Why do some of you think I cannot be trusted? I never knowingly lie and give my views plainly.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:28 AM

Not saying you cannot be trusted, ake. Just that there is more to this than you have said. None of the actions you have detailed above are grounds for a court case as far as I can see. If you provide a link to somewhere giving details of the case we may be able to determine what he has really been tried for.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 May 15 - 04:42 AM

If this has been reported in the press it should be a simple matter to provide a link to the article, why the reticence to provide one.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: LadyJean
Date: 30 May 15 - 08:45 PM

There is something about school uniforms that attracts a certain (loathesome) sort of man. My old school uniform was an English style gym slip. A potato sack would have been more flattering and more alluring. It was one of the few garments I have ever owned that made me look flat chested. Two of my sister's classmates were mistaken for nuns.
But there was a certain type of male, (We called them perverts and dirty old men) who found the things attractive.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Musket
Date: 31 May 15 - 06:39 AM

There are usually assessments made as part of pleadings that can decide whether someone is fit to plead or fit to serve sentence.

Violating the person of a minor by taking photographs of them for fantasising, if it can be proven beyond doubt is in itself in contravention of a number of laws so in principle is a matter for the criminal courts.

Mental illness is not necessarily the same as personality disorder. In order for a psychiatric assessment to diagnose mental illness it must be either a curative or palliative condition. If personality disorder were an illness then any crime could easily be seen as irrational.

The two aspects of this case that those charged with dealing with it must ask themselves are; is he a danger to himself or others? Does society need protecting from him?

Courts don't get it right all the time and as a past prison health inspector I have seen many people jailed for exhibiting their mental illness and in forensic care, I have seen many bad people for whom their personality rather than an illness caused the event that put them in hospital.

As ever, if this is to be debated, more information, preferably objective information is needed.

In the meantime, just leave your camera at home eh Akenaton?

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 May 15 - 06:47 AM

Violating the person of a minor by taking photographs of them for fantasising, if it can be proven beyond doubt is in itself in contravention of a number of laws so in principle is a matter for the criminal courts.

That is interesting and something I was unaware of. It does mean that my question was warranted though as there is obviously more to this than meets the eye and, as you say, more objective information is required. I do suspect the issue has been raised with a certain agenda in mind but I am willing to be proved wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 15 - 06:49 AM

No other information is available other than what has been reported, except in the court records.

Perhaps the guy had previous convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 May 15 - 06:57 AM

We haven't read the report though Akenaton, for reasons only known to yourself you have refused to put a link to the article. A link requested by both Dave and I.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 15 - 08:31 AM

The only information I have not given is the man's name, I don't think it is appropriate to do so on an open forum and it would not aid discussion.
There is no link to the article available as far as I can see.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Ed T
Date: 31 May 15 - 08:37 AM

If the information is in the public domain, as you indicated in the OP, what would be the problem? IMO, it seems a bit sketchy, and is odd to open a thread with little information, seemingly for discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 31 May 15 - 08:44 AM

Not much to go on ake but as a side issue, I do worry about other people's interpretation of "thought" and photography. I must admit regular photos taken on the bus seems a bit weird to me but we seem to live in an age where even taking a shot of a kid smiling and eating an ice cream on the end of Cromer pier could be seen by some as being perverted rather than say trying to capture a happy atmosphere.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Raggytash
Date: 31 May 15 - 08:45 AM

Akenaton,

Presumably you opened the thread in order that a discussion could take place. However with such limited information as you have deigned to provide no one can offer any objective thoughts into the case.

If as you state this has been reported in your local newspaper the individuals name and location is in the public domain and if as you say it has been reported in the press there is every likelihood of that newspaper having a website presence. Each newspaper from the Aberdeen Evening Express through the alphabet down to the West Lothian News has a website.

One is then drawn to conclude that you have some hidden agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 15 - 09:02 AM

Raggytash ...I think you are paranoid.

I have searched and found no link, the information I have provided is condensed from the court report. There is nothing else of interest in the report other than personal details of the accused.

What on earth would my "hidden agenda" be in this case.

Guest jon makes some interesting comments on this subject

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 15 - 10:50 AM

Ake, can you give us the name of the newspaper, and
the city it's associated with?

Assuming (as I do assume) that the newspaper has a
web presence, someone here should be able to find
its site, and go from there.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 May 15 - 11:10 AM

Name the newspaper and the article and let people look for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Ed T
Date: 31 May 15 - 12:06 PM

Could this be the man, that cannot be named? Or, another?


Man of mystery? 

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Ed T
Date: 31 May 15 - 12:15 PM

I suspect taking pictures of folks in a public area is not an illegal act. The issue may have a legal implication when you use these photos for a variety of purposes?


Taking photographs of children in public has become a fraught issue 

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 15 - 12:29 PM

Hi Dave.....there is a website, but no link to court proceedings.

I don't like to give personal details of the man involved, only his name has been reported, as I don't think that is relevant to this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 15 - 12:33 PM

No Ed, that is not the man but I think the circumstances are similar.

Perhaps we could get on with discussing whether or not this is a crime and stop obsessing about my motives for starting the thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 May 15 - 12:48 PM

Based on the information given there is nothing to discuss. With the exception of yourself we know nothing of the case and cannot discern for ourselves whether or not a crime has been committed. Thus we have to rely upon the opinion of the sheriff who had access to the facts of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Ed T
Date: 31 May 15 - 12:48 PM

I dont believe I commented on your motives-if that comment was pointed towards me.

Regardless, I supplied a link to stimulate potential discussion, if the case is similar.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 15 - 01:02 PM

No I didn't mean you Ed, and the link you provided is interesting and relevant.


We seem to be determined to obliterate childhood, paedophilia is extremely rare and our children are being constrained by media induced panic....according to your article.

The man in the local paper obviously has problems regarding teenage girls, but I don't know if "fantasising" could be called a crime in the legal sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Ed T
Date: 31 May 15 - 01:13 PM

I suspdct the crime of voyeurism could come into play?


Voyeurism- "spying" on people for sexual stimulation. 

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 31 May 15 - 01:25 PM

Interesting article Ed.

I don't think we have any of me from primary school sports days but maybe not too many parents thought to take them and there were not many of us. My year consisted of 3 boys and 2 girls.

I do remember the father of a child the year younger than me used to come with a fancy camera. We never thought "perverted" but used to think he was just "flashy/posing". I got to know this son (now RIP - brain tumour) better in my adult years. His father (and son followed in to) was an optician who I guess had a general interest in devices with good lenses.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 15 - 01:32 PM

Hmm yes, but I suppose if the pictures were not indecent, the culprit would have to admit "fantasising" for a crime to have been committed.

So the crime is actually the fantasy element?

In the case which I referred to the suspect did in fact admit to "fantasising"

The whole thing seems a bit Orwellian to me.

I thought "voyeurism" was simply a perversion, but I can see how it could be a public nuisance.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 May 15 - 02:22 PM

Perhaps we could get on with discussing whether or not this is a crime

How do we know if it is a crime or not seeing as we have little or no information to go on? Maybe we could discuss the case of the man in Keighley who did something unsavoury and was arrested for it? Or the man in Skipton who may or may not have crapped on the town hall steps? Or maybe we could just make something up and pretend it is a court case?

What a ridiculous premise. Give us some information and then it may just be a discussion point but until them it is nothing but speculation and gossip.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 31 May 15 - 02:32 PM

Argyll.. I remember it for a couple of childhood holidays, first one when I was under 10 and based on a farm in Southend near Campbeltown.


Had a great time.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 15 - 05:09 PM

Yes Jon, Argyll is indeed beautiful.
I am in Southend quite often, although I live quite a distance away in road mileage......"Oh...Mull of Kintyre" :0).

Come back and see us some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 15 - 05:52 PM

Totally OT, ake. But would you know where Carskey beach is. And would my memory be correct? I think that was the one with a herd of cattle and a white bull called Ferdinand.

We stopped at a farm called "High Catterdale" which we jokingly called "Low Doggerdale". Very nice and friendly.

I think I've only visited Scotland thrice. First was largely down that "bottom end". Second largely on Skye (Oh the far far Cullins?) with a boat trip which IIRC called on Uist before Lewis/Harris?

Last one was a failed attempt to get to John O Groats on a motorbike with a friend. It was 81 and we were on the dole and skint. Had to turn back and wound up stopping a night in Callandar. We'd hagglled the B&B down to our pretty near last £5 each and in the AM, we had this big bloke pretty near standing over us suggesting we ate all of the porridge, bacon, etc. he'd prepared, (quite correctly) suggesting this would be our last chance of a decent meal before getting home to (then) Wales and that we needed to eat. Rekon he fed us the room's cost in food!

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 15 - 06:22 PM

I'm going down to Carradale tomorrow, I'll get some info. I have friends who have lived there for ever. Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 15 - 06:36 PM

Cheers. Now you say Caradle, I'm wondering whether that was the place with the long flat beech with cattle on.

Anyway, I look forward to the info, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Penny S.
Date: 31 May 15 - 06:39 PM

What occurs to me is that the word fantasising is being used instead of something else, and that something else is more obviously sexual and might imply a step on the way to something which might be more interfering with the girls in some way.
What do you think fantasising means in this context?

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 15 - 06:46 PM

Here you go Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 31 May 15 - 06:52 PM

At least memory is correct in thinking there was a Carskey beach then ake! I don't think that was the one where we saw cattle.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 15 - 06:59 PM

Fantasising was the word used in the report Penny.

Don't know what was in the mans head, but the "fantasising" may or may not have been of a sexual nature.

I don't know if the law should pry into our private thoughts, I have known adult men in the building trade who "fancied" girls much younger.

I agree with Lady Jean in finding such behaviour "loathsome", but would hesitate to criminalise them for being weak and stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 31 May 15 - 07:25 PM

Do these girls look familiar Jon?

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 31 May 15 - 07:28 PM

"What do you think fantasising means in this context?"

For me, maybe going somewhere I don't want to go? Please don't get me wrong here. I have only had a sexual relationship with one woman and I was in my late 30s then. Still you can fall madly in love with your own "ideal woman" (have done that twice). The one I (biblically speaking) "knew" turned out to have a bf in prison and things got rather messy...

For me, maybe a fantasy could be that first small step or something that leads to a pit you don't know how (or by that time perhaps even don't want (eg. after I was "in love") to get out of.

Any of that thinking is of course just me and how I've found life.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 31 May 15 - 07:36 PM

At least I see some cattle in one ake but otherwise, not at the momenet, There may be an old slide or two (parents had a 50s/60s brownie and most got shot to slide) I can find.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 01 Jun 15 - 01:01 PM

With just the bare details, a sentence does seem a bit heavy handed. I would have thought that a severe warning and/or help would be more appropriate IMO.                      Enjoyed the pics ake.   Wife and I had a lovely holiday in a lodge at Inveraray ....memories !.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Jun 15 - 03:00 PM

The first point to be borne in mind is that different jurisdictions have different laws. It is possible that English and Scottish law differ in this area, and since Ake says "sheriff" we can be pretty sure that the events took place in Scotland. It is very likely that US law (or laws, since different states have different laws too) is so different that commentary from a US perspective is almost certainly irrelevant.

The second is that without a better clue as to what crime was held to have been committed it is very hard to form a view as to what was going on.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 02:35 AM

Not to worry, Ake. I've just had a look through a box of slides. Not the best of pictures (which would have been taken with a Kodak Brownie 44) and I might have mirrored the image but this one is marked Carradale. I'd suggest late 60s.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 03:57 AM

Thanks Jon, I guess Ferdinand is the big white fellow?
Sorry, I could not get any further info about "High Catterdale", as I had to change my plans due to extreme weather. I'll contact you later
Thanks for the chat...Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 04:09 AM

Yep. Or at least that's what we called him... I'm pretty sure we didn't invent the name but I'm not sure our source would have been reliable.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 04:16 AM

From back in the fifties I have a memory of a famous "Ferdinand the bull", perhaps from a film or popular song/

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 04:42 AM

Cut and paste from Wikipedia: -

"In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place,[citation needed] and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted.[citation needed] However, landowners are permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography.[citation needed] Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square, have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes without the written permission of the Mayor,[1] or the Squares' Management Team and paying a fee,[2] and permission is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Royal Parks.[3]

Persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment.[4]

It is a criminal offence (contempt) to take a photograph in any court of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal, or to publish such a photograph. This includes photographs taken in a court building, or the precincts of the court.[5] Taking a photograph in a court can be seen as a serious offence, leading to a prison sentence.[6][7] The prohibition on taking photographs in the precincts is vague. It was designed to prevent the undermining of the dignity of the court, through the exploitation of images in low brow 'picture papers'.[8]

Photography of certain subject matter is restricted in the United Kingdom. In particular, the Protection of Children Act 1978 restricts making or possessing pornography of under-18s, or what looks like pornography of under-18s. However, the taking of photographs of children in public spaces is not illegal.

It is an offence under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to publish or communicate a photograph of a constable (not including PCSOs), a member of the armed forces, or a member of the security services, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. There is a defence of acting with a reasonable excuse, however the onus of proof is on the defence, under section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000. A PCSO cited Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to prevent a member of the public photographing him. Section 44 actually concerns stop and search powers.[9] However, in January 2010 the stop-and-search powers granted under Section 44 were ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

Following a prolonged campaign, including a series of demonstrations by photographers dealt with by Police Officers and PCSOs, the Metropolitan Police was forced to issue updated legal advice which now confirms that 'Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel' and that 'The power to stop and search someone under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 no longer exists.'[10]

It is also an offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to take a photograph of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. There is an identical defence of reasonable excuse. This offence (and possibly, but not necessarily the s.58A offence) covers only a photograph as described in s.2(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2006. As such, it must be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to look at the surrounding circumstances. The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful.[11]"

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 04:43 AM

Further cut and paste from Wikipedia: -

"Photography and privacy[edit]

"No photographs" sticker. Designed for persons at conferences who do not want any digital likeness of them taken, including video, photography, audio, etc.
A right to privacy exists in the UK law, as a consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This can result in restrictions on the publication of photography.[28][29][30][31][32]

Whether this right is caused by horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 or is judicially created is a matter of some controversy.[33] The right to privacy is protected by Article 8 of the convention. In the context of photography, it stands at odds to the Article 10 right of freedom of expression. As such, courts will consider the public interest in balancing the rights through the legal test of proportionality.[30]

A very limited statutory right to privacy exists in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. This right is held, for example, by someone who hires a photographer to photograph their wedding. The commissioner,[34] irrespective of any copyright which he does or does not hold in the photograph[34] of a photograph which was commissioned for private and domestic purposes, where copyright subsists in the photograph, has the right not to have copies of the work issued to the public,[35] the work exhibited in public[36] or the work communicated to the public.[37] However, this right will not be infringed if the rightholder gives permission. It will not be infringed if the photograph is incidentally included in an artistic work, film, or broadcast.[38]"

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 04:44 AM

The relevant footnotes are as follows:

Human Rights Act 1998 sections 2 & 3
Jump up ^ Human Rights Act 1998 Schedule 1, Part 1, Article 8
^ Jump up to: a b Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB)
Jump up ^ Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22
Jump up ^ Murray v Express Newspapers Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 446
Jump up ^ J. Morgan, 'Privacy in the House of Lords, Again' (2004), 120 Law Quarterly Review 563, 565

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 04:53 AM

The list of offences to which the Sex Offenders Act 1997 applied is here -

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/51/schedule/1

It may have been further amended by the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 05:08 AM

But guidance here increases my puzzlement.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/

Bored with this now unless we can have some FACTS...

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 05:54 AM

To quote from something I read in school (possibly Faber book of comic verse)

It is the Lord that sends the wind to blow girls skirts up high.
But God is just,
And sends the dust,
To blind the bad man's eye.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 06:30 AM

Sorry,
That bit of doggerel was me, without cookie.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 09:18 AM

Nope, twerp, Mither, the stuff I do, which does not include sex crime, I know without looking up. Keep banging the rocks together. At least I pointed people at some relevant information.

Maybe you should change lawyers. And no, I am not taking on any new litigation at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Musket
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 11:27 AM

Pity. I was going to suggest you to the other side....

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 11:49 AM

Oh you'd wish you didn't...

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Musket
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 04:04 PM

They are on the back foot. I am suing them for breach of contract. Capsticks seem to be dragging them deeper but if you'd take over, I could enjoy the entertainment if we get as far as trial.

Tell you what, given your politics, you'd be rooting for the small guy not the corporate faceless eh? I will be selling "Musket vs faceless buggers" if you remind me of your size. I know the neck has to get over your head mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 15 - 04:35 AM

"I must admit regular photos taken on the bus seems a bit weird to me"

Let me see now let us have a look at those who made a career out doing something similar every day for years on the New York Subway:

Bruce Davidson - Subway - photographic record of subway passengers from 1980 to 1986 - work highly acclaimed.

Reinier Gerritsen - "The Last Book" - for 13 weeks over the course of three years Gerritsen travelled the underground from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. taking pictures of people on the subway reading books - work highly acclaimed.

Walker Evans - "Subway Portrait" - between 1938 and 1941 he secretly photographed passengers using a hidden camera - work highly acclaimed.

Dare say there are many other examples elsewhere in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Jun 15 - 04:46 AM

Probably very fair comment Terribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Musket
Date: 03 Jun 15 - 08:07 AM

But probably wasn't in court for admitting taking photos of minors to wank over...

zzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Jun 15 - 10:05 AM

A link posted by Ed T contained the following (my emphasis):

Even if the actual offense was rather innocent, if you had no idea what the legal ramifications were, you could still be facing jail time, and a permanent criminal record.

This reflects the time-honored maxim that "Ignorance of the law is
no excuse."

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Jun 15 - 10:49 AM

"But probably wasn't in court for admitting taking photos of minors to wank over..."- was probably busy at home wanking over such photos?

Just speculating ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jun 15 - 11:59 AM

Must be genetic....give them 'equal rights'....


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 03 Jun 15 - 02:25 PM

I was curious about this thread and the lack of information that the original poster gave when asking for opinions on this subject.

Using the premise that this was recent, it wasn't very difficult to find it in a local newspaper.

The man in question was not named at this point, but was born in 1944, and lives in Strachur. Is this the one?

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jun 15 - 05:54 PM

Don't think so Mr Sole, certainly not from Strachur, but if you have a link please print it.

You may be getting confused with another case involving a driving instructor who was abusing teenage boys, I think the paper said he came from the Kilmun area.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jun 15 - 10:15 AM

I tried very hard to find a link to the article, there was none available.

If Mr Sole is genuine, I invite him to supply a link to the cases he is talking about, if there is no link available some detail of the case he is referring to would be useful.......he mentions Strachur, a village not far from where I live, he mentions !944, a year not far from my birth date.

I read the local paper every week and have never seen an article containing this information.....until he give more information on the actual case as I have done, I will consider him a troll....he has posted as a troll on other threads using vocabulary and phrasing not unlike "team musket".    I smell a rat!

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 15 - 10:56 AM

I smell an R Sole.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jun 15 - 02:54 PM

No Mr. Sole???
Then maybe it isn't 'genetic'....
What??...No gene???
This sounds all too familiar.....let's make up a study that says that both exist!
We have a precedent...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jun 15 - 07:08 PM

Moderators leave accusations that Musket is posting as someone else but remove Musket's rebuttal.

Nice.

If the duty moderator would kindly say why they are yet again protecting two rather nasty people who post homophobic hatred but delete anything by a gay man slighted by them, regardless of the subject?

Mudcat eh? Still proud of your association with Max's sick venture Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jun 15 - 07:40 PM

Few have fallen out with Max as much as I did over some concerns yet when I closed Folkinfo, he genuinely offered to do anything he could to help. I'm not sure I've always agreed with Joe either on everything (and I was a mod here way back) but I would actually like to meet him one day.

I am shall I say these days unsure of where the bottom section goes but largely I hope stay out of rows.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Jun 15 - 06:37 AM

From Akenaton

"If Mr Sole is genuine, I invite him to supply a link to the cases he is talking about, if there is no link available some detail of the case he is referring to would be useful"

This is from a man who has repeatedly refused to provide details to even start a meaningful debate. Pot, Kettle, Black spring to mind.

A previous post I put on has duly been deleted, possibly at Akenaton's request.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 15 - 07:47 AM

Ehmm no Raggytash, Akenaton stated very early on that the details he had were from Court Records and that apart from the man's name he had provided all the information contained in that report - even after having stated this, those posting to this thread continued to witter on demanding links to non-existent newspaper articles and castigating Akenaton for not producing them - It can hardly be his fault that those people obviously cannot read or comprehend the English language.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Jun 15 - 08:06 AM

Teribus,

I refer to you the latter part of Akenaton statement:

"if there is no link available some detail of the case he is referring to would be useful"

This is exactly what I, and others, have been asking for from Akenaton. He has provided such little detail that any meaningful debate is impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jun 15 - 08:07 AM

Tell you what, ake. Scan the article from the local paper and upload it somewhere. Or if that is something you cannot do, send me the paper by post and I will scan it and post the location here. Happy to send you my address via PM. Just ask.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Raggytash
Date: 05 Jun 15 - 08:52 AM

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you Dave. I wonder about his reticence to provide information though.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jun 15 - 11:51 AM

I have no further details, and the paper of two weeks ago has been binned. Whenever the sentence is given, I will be able to furnish more details.

In the meantime, perhaps you could badger Mr Sole who seems to have some information which I don't posses, like the guys address and age.

The only problem, is that Mr Sole does not appear to have the slightest idea what the case he refers to is about.

How do you manage to live with yourselves, continually having your idiocies exposed must surely have some effect on even the zombies who constitute and support "Team Musket"

This expose will not cease until you learn how to behave in debate.....make it easy on yourselves.....spend some time reading and absorbing a little material from outside the "Twilight Zone"

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 05 Jun 15 - 12:28 PM

Strange that you were unwilling to provide any information when you started this thread on the 29th May. Presumably you still had the paper then. Then also on the 29th you were going to speak with the Editor who you maintained was "a good friend". Furthermore as you took such an interest in the case I find it difficult to reconcile your seemingly great interest with such a complete lack of recall of information.

As I said, strange.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jun 15 - 02:59 PM

Not strange at all, Raggy, just typical for ake. I strongly suspect something to do with thought police and his infamous liberal agenda. Quite right to not hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jun 15 - 05:17 PM

As a matter of fact, the editor is a good friend and worked with me for a spell before going on to further education. His father also worked as a builder with me for a large part of his working life.

They are from one of the longest established families in this area.

Unfortunately I have been unable to contact him.
I doubt if he would be willing to say anything further to the court report until sentence has been passed.

Raggytash, I provided as much information as was available, what are you getting at?

I found the case interesting, in that it seemed to bring the issue of "thought crime" into the equation.... I also said that there was the possibility of the guy may have had previously offended.....all will be revealed by the sheriff after sentence has been passed, try to be patient.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 05 Jun 15 - 05:21 PM

Just one further point Akenaton. In your earlier posts (29th May) you indicated clearly quite that sentence was going to be past this week. Your quote:

"the Sheriff put him on the sex offenders register and will sentence him next week".

In your last post you state:

"Whenever the sentence is given, I will be able to furnish more details".

As I have said, Strange.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jun 15 - 05:21 PM

Dave will have to hold his breath for a satisfyingly long time before I respond to any of the inane claptrap he has been using recently

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jun 15 - 05:28 PM

There was no court report in the paper this week.

Isn't that strange?......Or then again perhaps there just wasn't space?


I'm beginning to think you don't trust me :0).......oh ye of little faith, I never knowingly lie.

You have fallen amongst bad company methinks, they influence you too much.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jun 15 - 05:33 PM

Claptrap? I suppose scanning documents and posting them could be deemed claptrap by someone who does not understand technology. Or basic human nature. Still, I offered to help. I can do no more if the document in question does not actually exist...

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jun 15 - 06:36 PM

It gets better.

I'm rather enjoying this.

I'll give my regards to this "ginger minger" (no fucking idea either?) if Terribulus gives his regards to the late Oswald Mosley.

It isn't too difficult to be prosaic. Terribulus manages it with his style and Akenaton? Just seems to be instinctive.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 03:05 AM

So you can find no examples of me posting Homophobic hatred then Musktwat?

Thanks for confirming that.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Musket
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 04:25 AM

Plenty of examples of you defending Akenaton, thanks for asking.

Just click on the blue text saying Teribus and go from there. To be fair, you have to wade through lots of cut and paste waffle from right wing websites. (Google a paragraph at random and you can even find the website Terribulus is impressed by.)

I notice your umbrage at suggestions of homophobia but you seem contented to be associated with right wing militaristic and history revision fodder. It's a bit like old Adolf denying he was a vegetarian.
😴

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 04:41 AM

Musket is back.
Personal abuse without actual contribution is back.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 05:45 AM

"Musket is back. Personal abuse without actual contribution is back."

And this is?

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 05:49 AM

This is referring to the fact that Musket only does abuse, not debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 05:54 AM

An observation?

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 06:42 AM

Odd that Professor because to me it seems just like "Personal abuse without actual contribution is back"

Might just be me ............. though I doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 07:38 AM

So anyone who complains about personal abuse is automatically guilty of it.

Thanks Raggy, for sharing your ludicrous misapprehensions with us.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 07:52 AM

"Prosaic"?.....well I suppose we could "garnish" our factual contributions with lies, misrepresentations, obscenities, foul language and abuse, but why should we sink to your level?

It is much more satisfying to watch you thrash about as your ideologies are forensically dismembered.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 11:08 AM

The court report is freely available from the PF website if anyone is interested.

Akenaton said that he never knowingly lies. Well considering what he put after I tried to help the thread, I will work on the basis that "knowingly" includes comprehending or understanding. That lets him off the hook for most of what I have read in this and other recent threads.

No wonder so many don't bother with this tripe. My hat off to Dave The Gnome, Musket, Raggytash and Greg. Although why any of you four think you can ever educate such lunatics is beyond me.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Musket
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 11:54 AM

Keep trying Keith. I said a long time ago that you are not capable of debate.

Your trolling yet also withering attack just indicates you aren't getting any nearer to knowing what debate is.

Any chance of more info Akenaton? Or can we let balance of probability fill in the gaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 12:12 PM

The court report is freely available from the PF website if anyone is interested.

Why not post a link then R Sole?

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 01:33 PM

I don't know what the PF website is, all I have ever had is the report in the local paper, which I have provided, condensed, but accurate.

Mr Sole, perhaps you could provide a link to the Strachur dweller aged about 69 whom you referenced earlier.
I am certain this is a pack of lies, as I would have heard of it, I know everyone almost everyone in Strachur and surrounding areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 01:35 PM

Oh, FFS, why ask R Sole why he (or she) does not post a link when ake has miserably failed to do so at every opportunity. You really do show yourself up to be terminally biased at times, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 02:27 PM

Ake said that his story was not available on line.
Guest R Sole said his story "is freely available from the PF website if anyone is interested."

I am interested Dave, so what is your criticism?

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 15 - 09:11 PM

Keith - the Gnome is not worried about some R Sole putting up links, just like the Gnome is not bothered about the lies, half truths and misrepresentations and myths put up by "his team" - they only post on this forum to "take the piss" - honestly just cannot see why we bother with them - the rest of the community of this forum told them all in no uncertain terms what they think of their efforts in a thread not so long ago - might have thought that it should have registered - probably too thick to notice.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Musket
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 03:54 AM

Quick! Man the barricades!

Gosh. The Mudcat community prefers the lies, revision and distasteful right wing claptrap of Tertibulus and Keith A Hole of Hertford. That particular pair seem to get on with the posts emanating from the keyboard of Akenaton too.

Yeah, keep convincing yourself fool.

By the way, I know I am not Scotch, wear skirts or drink turbo lager out of a paper bag but even I saw PF in the Scottish justice sense. There again, the fools think R Sole must be me whilst I think the fools must be R Soles.

If he wants to get the Musket log in, he needs two references for starters. Oh, and stop disagreeing with me on the music threads (in my other log in name) regarding origin of certain lyrics.

Still. His (or her?) genuine post I read that was pounced upon by the usual jackals did ask a good question.

What the flying fuck is this thread about? To date, it seems to be defending perversion and attacking some poor sod who came on to be helpful to what I can see. His reaction was good though.

He seems to have the usual subjects weighed up.
😆

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 04:06 AM

If he wants to get the Musket log in, he needs two references for starters. Oh, and stop disagreeing with me on the music threads (in my other log in name) regarding origin of certain lyrics.

The Guest R Sole has not posted to any music thread.
Not under that name anyway, and how would you know about other names he uses?

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 04:21 AM

they only post on this forum to "take the piss" - honestly just cannot see why we bother with them

And you fall for it every time :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 04:30 AM

Just an aside Teribus, why are you determined to try and create a "team" of people on the other side of debate from yourself. I have said on previous threads I have no idea who any of the Muskets are, I don't know Greg or Steve Shaw or R Sole and I don't think I know anyone else who posts to these threads. I have clearly stated Dave the Gnome and I have met on a few occasions and have enjoyed playing music together on them. I think we have actually exchanged about a dozen words regarding Mudcat which were basically to say that we should ignore idiots. Full stop. I think there was a tacit agreement that you fell into that category.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 05:32 AM

" I think we have actually exchanged about a dozen words regarding Mudcat which were basically to say that we should ignore idiots. Full stop." - Raggytash

Now that begs the rather obvious question Raggy - Why having come to that conclusion - neither of you acted on it?

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 06:31 AM

Probably the same reason I pick scabs and scratch itches.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 06:45 AM

Teribus did not create the "team".....the Muskets did.

They have since attracted a coterie of people who believe the same myths as they do, never contradict anything they say and join in the abuse of all who dare to question their ideology.

Teribus, Keith, myself and various others disagree fundamentally about many subjects....we come here to broaden our horizons, not be fitted with blinkers!

We share the view, that on this forum all issues can be discussed without the hindrance of ideological shackles or political correctness.
There should be no room here for people dedicated to "taking the piss", it is lazy and cowardly.....and defeats the purpose of this section.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 07:27 AM

Oh everyone knows you eschew political correctness. It shines like a burning mosque or synagogue so often in the contributions from some of your "friends"

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Musket
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 07:29 AM

Err.. Three people post, often disagree and the club rules are simple.

Make it difficult for those who trawl irrelevant posts to discredit views.

Terribulus and Keith A of Hertford are the most persistent offenders and the more a group log in winds them up, the better it is for debate.

Akenaton? If he comes here to broaden his horizons, he needs new glasses. Homophobes don't deserve respect, they are below normal people and dogs.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 07:45 AM

If you were hoping to wind me up by creating clones, you lose.
I just find it funny, and strange that you get such gratification from it.

Make some more!
As many as you like.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: GUEST,Musket Mk IV
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 08:02 AM

That's four to you Keith.

Sorry to you other Muskets I could not resist!!

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 08:18 AM

Yay!
Bring out more Muskets!

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 10:50 AM

No. Silly I sn't the right word. When Akenaton states his marriage is more legitimate than Musket's, his wish to broaden his mind isn't quite what it seems."

My stance is that I oppose the legislation to redefine the institution of marriage to accommodate a tiny sexual minority, just as I opposed the criminalisation of homosexuality forty years ago.

When you repeatedly call me a homophobe, you force me to call you a liar.....I have given multiple reasons for my stance all backed by studies and official statistics.

Rather than post abuse do what this forum was designed for and debate the points which form the foundation of my stance.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 10:52 AM

"When Terribulus insists that Israel has the right to bomb schools"

Something that Teribus has never insisted - unless of course Musktwat you can provide the post in which I "insisted" that. Now that is going to elicit another non-response from the popguns - the accusation was after all just more Musktwat Made Up Shit.

As for winding people up it would appear that you guys are the only people on this forum making complete and utter cnuts {Anag.} of yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Phantasyfile
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 15 - 10:58 AM

"But Keith never did"
Yes he did - the cultural implants that you claimed did exactly that
Jim Carroll