FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Sex in Domino's conviction
Sex in Domino's conviction
Jump to: Newest in thread
BBC News, couple found guilty and due to be sentenced:
A couple had sex against the counter of a pizza delivery shop as staff worked in its kitchen, a court has heard.
Daniella Hirst, 29, and Craig Smith, 31, were captured on CCTV in the Domino's shop in Scarborough in February.
Scarborough Magistrates' Court was played 18 minutes of video that had been captured by the pizza shop's CCTV. 
It showed the couple going into the Domino's shop, on Castle Road, and ordering food. It then showed Ms Hirst performing oral sex on Mr Smith.
The couple were also seen having sex leaning against the shop counter.
Ms Beardshall said: "This offence was in a public place. It was a lengthy incident.
"Members of the public were present as were staff." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It was late night and both were worse for wear after drinking too much .
No one asked them to stop or said they were offended .
Storm in a teacup and something that happens all over the place when the pubs shut .
It's only because an employee released the footage on you tube that it came to court . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It was late night and both were worse for wear after drinking too much .
No one asked them to stop or said they were offended .
Storm in a teacup and something that happens all over the place when the pubs shut .
It's only because an employee released the footage on you tube that it came to court ."
I've heard tales of people fucking in public. I don't believe it happens. Disgusting behaviour.
Sex should occur in the darkness of a marital bedroom. In silence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It was late night and both were worse for wear after drinking too much .
No one asked them to stop or said they were offended .
Storm in a teacup and something that happens all over the place when the pubs shut .
It's only because an employee released the footage on you tube that it came to court ."
I wonder if the employee has been prosecuted for sharing the video? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If you search the ladies name in google images there's some acrobatic moves from the cctv.. Maybe that's why it took so long.
I don't think they've helped themselves in terms of punishment, as it looks like they've done tabloid features exploiting the event.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What the fuck is wrong with people?!
Totally agree ... the employee who leaked the footage and the cps for taking it to court definitely have something wrong with them !
 "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was late night and both were worse for wear after drinking too much .
No one asked them to stop or said they were offended .
Storm in a teacup and something that happens all over the place when the pubs shut .
It's only because an employee released the footage on you tube that it came to court .
I've heard tales of people fucking in public. I don't believe it happens. Disgusting behaviour.
Sex should occur in the darkness of a marital bedroom. In silence. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It was late night and both were worse for wear after drinking too much .
No one asked them to stop or said they were offended .
Storm in a teacup and something that happens all over the place when the pubs shut .
It's only because an employee released the footage on you tube that it came to court ."
I said on one of the other threads how can you charge soneone with outraging public decency if no members of the public were outraged. The implications of this are quite scary. A custodial is ridiculous |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was late night and both were worse for wear after drinking too much .
No one asked them to stop or said they were offended .
Storm in a teacup and something that happens all over the place when the pubs shut .
It's only because an employee released the footage on you tube that it came to court .
I said on one of the other threads how can you charge soneone with outraging public decency if no members of the public were outraged. The implications of this are quite scary. A custodial is ridiculous "
Spot on .... the world has gone crazy ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I've heard tales of people fucking in public. I don't believe it happens. Disgusting behaviour.
Sex should occur in the darkness of a marital bedroom. In silence. "
Indeed; whilst wearing a night shirt and cap.
The gentleman is, of course, allowed to sing 'Shall We Gather at the River'.
Dr Nasty |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It was late night and both were worse for wear after drinking too much .
No one asked them to stop or said they were offended .
Storm in a teacup and something that happens all over the place when the pubs shut .
It's only because an employee released the footage on you tube that it came to court .
I said on one of the other threads how can you charge soneone with outraging public decency if no members of the public were outraged. The implications of this are quite scary. A custodial is ridiculous
Spot on .... the world has gone crazy ! "
Don't get me wrong if staff had noticed amd complained or there had been other customers o
I think the charge but not the potential custodial sentence would have been warranted. But this is ridiculous. Anyone that enjoys outdoor sex or doggong should be concerned about the basis of this conviction and the precedent it sets. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was late night and both were worse for wear after drinking too much .
No one asked them to stop or said they were offended .
Storm in a teacup and something that happens all over the place when the pubs shut .
It's only because an employee released the footage on you tube that it came to court .
I said on one of the other threads how can you charge soneone with outraging public decency if no members of the public were outraged. The implications of this are quite scary. A custodial is ridiculous
Spot on .... the world has gone crazy !
Don't get me wrong if staff had noticed amd complained or there had been other customers o
I think the charge but not the potential custodial sentence would have been warranted. But this is ridiculous. Anyone that enjoys outdoor sex or doggong should be concerned about the basis of this conviction and the precedent it sets."
Yes , and that's why it concerns us .... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It was late night and both were worse for wear after drinking too much .
No one asked them to stop or said they were offended .
Storm in a teacup and something that happens all over the place when the pubs shut .
It's only because an employee released the footage on you tube that it came to court .
I said on one of the other threads how can you charge soneone with outraging public decency if no members of the public were outraged. The implications of this are quite scary. A custodial is ridiculous
Spot on .... the world has gone crazy !
Don't get me wrong if staff had noticed amd complained or there had been other customers o
I think the charge but not the potential custodial sentence would have been warranted. But this is ridiculous. Anyone that enjoys outdoor sex or doggong should be concerned about the basis of this conviction and the precedent it sets."
But surely fucking in an open shop is different to woods/ car parks etc away from town? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It was late night and both were worse for wear after drinking too much .
No one asked them to stop or said they were offended .
Storm in a teacup and something that happens all over the place when the pubs shut .
It's only because an employee released the footage on you tube that it came to court .
I said on one of the other threads how can you charge soneone with outraging public decency if no members of the public were outraged. The implications of this are quite scary. A custodial is ridiculous
Spot on .... the world has gone crazy !
Don't get me wrong if staff had noticed amd complained or there had been other customers o
I think the charge but not the potential custodial sentence would have been warranted. But this is ridiculous. Anyone that enjoys outdoor sex or doggong should be concerned about the basis of this conviction and the precedent it sets.
But surely fucking in an open shop is different to woods/ car parks etc away from town? "
Of course, certainly in my eyes anyway. But the defence for people who go dogging or who have sex discreetly outdoors always seem to use is that they aren't outraging public decency because no 9ne sees them to be outraged. This case questions that. The judge is clear in their commentirety thst the fact that they could have been caight is enough nit just meet the threshold for the charge but also for a custodiAl sentence. The precedent is really scary, this case has potentially changed the offence to "actions which have the potential to outrage public decency". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It was late night and both were worse for wear after drinking too much .
No one asked them to stop or said they were offended .
Storm in a teacup and something that happens all over the place when the pubs shut .
It's only because an employee released the footage on you tube that it came to court ."
.
I've looked I couldn't find it  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It was late night and both were worse for wear after drinking too much .
No one asked them to stop or said they were offended .
Storm in a teacup and something that happens all over the place when the pubs shut .
It's only because an employee released the footage on you tube that it came to court .
I said on one of the other threads how can you charge soneone with outraging public decency if no members of the public were outraged. The implications of this are quite scary. A custodial is ridiculous
Spot on .... the world has gone crazy !
Don't get me wrong if staff had noticed amd complained or there had been other customers o
I think the charge but not the potential custodial sentence would have been warranted. But this is ridiculous. Anyone that enjoys outdoor sex or doggong should be concerned about the basis of this conviction and the precedent it sets.
But surely fucking in an open shop is different to woods/ car parks etc away from town?
Of course, certainly in my eyes anyway. But the defence for people who go dogging or who have sex discreetly outdoors always seem to use is that they aren't outraging public decency because no 9ne sees them to be outraged. This case questions that. The judge is clear in their commentirety thst the fact that they could have been caight is enough nit just meet the threshold for the charge but also for a custodiAl sentence. The precedent is really scary, this case has potentially changed the offence to "actions which have the potential to outrage public decency". "
Ok I see. I thought that if anyone caught dogging by the police was charged anyway as the police officer saw them. Didn't have to be just a member of the public reporting them. If that makes sense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was late night and both were worse for wear after drinking too much .
No one asked them to stop or said they were offended .
Storm in a teacup and something that happens all over the place when the pubs shut .
It's only because an employee released the footage on you tube that it came to court .
I said on one of the other threads how can you charge soneone with outraging public decency if no members of the public were outraged. The implications of this are quite scary. A custodial is ridiculous
Spot on .... the world has gone crazy !
Don't get me wrong if staff had noticed amd complained or there had been other customers o
I think the charge but not the potential custodial sentence would have been warranted. But this is ridiculous. Anyone that enjoys outdoor sex or doggong should be concerned about the basis of this conviction and the precedent it sets.
But surely fucking in an open shop is different to woods/ car parks etc away from town?
Of course, certainly in my eyes anyway. But the defence for people who go dogging or who have sex discreetly outdoors always seem to use is that they aren't outraging public decency because no 9ne sees them to be outraged. This case questions that. The judge is clear in their commentirety thst the fact that they could have been caight is enough nit just meet the threshold for the charge but also for a custodiAl sentence. The precedent is really scary, this case has potentially changed the offence to "actions which have the potential to outrage public decency".
Ok I see. I thought that if anyone caught dogging by the police was charged anyway as the police officer saw them. Didn't have to be just a member of the public reporting them. If that makes sense."
I think in the eyes of the law this situation is no different to somebody being caught by cctv pissing in the street. It's clearly very different though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
