BS: Phantasyfile

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 29 May 15 - 07:45 PM

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

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: 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: 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: Ed T
Date: 29 May 15 - 01:04 PM

"Wasting away in pantyville"

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: 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?