BS: Phantasyfile

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: 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: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jun 15 - 11:59 AM

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


GfS

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,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: 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,Jon
Date: 03 Jun 15 - 04:46 AM

Probably very fair comment Terribus.

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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Jun 15 - 06:30 AM

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

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: 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: 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 - 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 - 04:43 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 - 04:42 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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,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: 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,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: akenaton
Date: 31 May 15 - 07:25 PM

Do these girls look familiar Jon?

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: 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 - 06:46 PM

Here you go Jon

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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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