BS: Phantasyfile

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.