FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swinging Support and Advice > Being filmed without permission

Being filmed without permission

By *horey OP Man over a year ago

Calne

I had a meet yesterday with a couple and another single guy. When I arrived she was on the bed naked wearing a blindfold and her husband stayed in a room next door. The idea was we gave her a 4 hands massage and see where things led to. So far so good. Weirdly though every five minutes or so her husband would come into the room and make a random comment about a sports result or something in the news in a very loud voice and then leave again. After a few times of this I realised what he was doing...he was speaking in a loud voice to distract us from the fact that there was a video camera on the bedside cabinet and each time he was changing the shot. At this point I made my excuses (didn't mention the camera) and left.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I had a meet yesterday with a couple and another single guy. When I arrived she was on the bed naked wearing a blindfold and her husband stayed in a room next door. The idea was we gave her a 4 hands massage and see where things led to. So far so good. Weirdly though every five minutes or so her husband would come into the room and make a random comment about a sports result or something in the news in a very loud voice and then leave again. After a few times of this I realised what he was doing...he was speaking in a loud voice to distract us from the fact that there was a video camera on the bedside cabinet and each time he was changing the shot. At this point I made my excuses (didn't mention the camera) and left.

Why didnt you mention it? I'd have played hell and wanted the footage destroying in front of me.

Its a dangerous thing to do. Some people could start kicking 7 kinds of shite out of him.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes I'd be annoyed, it's a complete breach of privacy and trust. I'd be telling them to delete and destroy all footage asap.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I would be annoyed too..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It is against the law to film someone without consent. So yes I'd of been pissed.. And I'd of told them I was pissed.. And made them wipe it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *he Hobbit And MeCouple over a year ago

southampton

[Removed by poster at 25/03/16 11:16:58]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *he Hobbit And MeCouple over a year ago

southampton

[Removed by poster at 25/03/16 11:19:26]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

If they use it elsewhere they could find themselves in deep trouble with the law.

Are you still in contact with them?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes.....i had a meet with a single fem. lead upstairs and straight on it. While fucking a bloke fell out the wardrobe with camera

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Completely out of order. We like pics and vids of our vids, but we'd never do it with out some one's permission. I'm amazed you kept your cool.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes.....i had a meet with a single fem. lead upstairs and straight on it. While fucking a bloke fell out the wardrobe with camera

Shouldn't laugh but.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Totally out if order. I would have said something and demanded the video be deleted x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Horrible.

And what about the other single guy? I would have told them off and had the tape destroyed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

I'd have been furious.

Those who've said it's illegal are correct. It comes under the voyeurism section of the Sex Act, if I remember correctly.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It is against the law to film someone without consent. So yes I'd of been pissed.. And I'd of told them I was pissed.. And made them wipe it "

No it's not against the law to film anyone at any time both sound and video . There is no regulation regarding cctv and video recording l

In this case it is wrong . I think some law about distributing pronographic material and it needs to be categorised first

However the only people that usually complain about being filmed are Those that were up to no good

it is against the law to record their voice only by using a tape recorder . It is acceptable to record telephone conversations with a video camerA

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It is against the law to film someone without consent. So yes I'd of been pissed.. And I'd of told them I was pissed.. And made them wipe it

No it's not against the law to film anyone at any time both sound and video . There is no regulation regarding cctv and video recording l

In this case it is wrong . I think some law about distributing pronographic material and it needs to be categorised first

However the only people that usually complain about being filmed are Those that were up to no good

it is against the law to record their voice only by using a tape recorder . It is acceptable to record telephone conversations with a video camerA

Tell that to you judge who sentenced a man to 8 months in prison and 10 years on the sex offenders register ..for filming himself having sex with women without their consent

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It is against the law to film someone without consent. So yes I'd of been pissed.. And I'd of told them I was pissed.. And made them wipe it

No it's not against the law to film anyone at any time both sound and video . There is no regulation regarding cctv and video recording l

In this case it is wrong . I think some law about distributing pronographic material and it needs to be categorised first

However the only people that usually complain about being filmed are Those that were up to no good

it is against the law to record their voice only by using a tape recorder . It is acceptable to record telephone conversations with a video camerA

Tell that to you judge who sentenced a man to 8 months in prison and 10 years on the sex offenders register ..for filming himself having sex with women without their consent "

*the judge

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It is against the law to film someone without consent. So yes I'd of been pissed.. And I'd of told them I was pissed.. And made them wipe it

No it's not against the law to film anyone at any time both sound and video . There is no regulation regarding cctv and video recording l

In this case it is wrong . I think some law about distributing pronographic material and it needs to be categorised first

However the only people that usually complain about being filmed are Those that were up to no good

it is against the law to record their voice only by using a tape recorder . It is acceptable to record telephone conversations with a video camerA

Actually it depends whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. So you can film people in public without their permission but in a private house you normally can't.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It is against the law to film someone without consent. So yes I'd of been pissed.. And I'd of told them I was pissed.. And made them wipe it

No it's not against the law to film anyone at any time both sound and video . There is no regulation regarding cctv and video recording l

In this case it is wrong . I think some law about distributing pronographic material and it needs to be categorised first

However the only people that usually complain about being filmed are Those that were up to no good

it is against the law to record their voice only by using a tape recorder . It is acceptable to record telephone conversations with a video camerA

Tell that to you judge who sentenced a man to 8 months in prison and 10 years on the sex offenders register ..for filming himself having sex with women without their consent

*the judge "

Or Hulk Hogan

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'd have been furious.

Those who've said it's illegal are correct. It comes under the voyeurism section of the Sex Act, if I remember correctly."

I have cctv in my home and because of what you said I looked it up

It's only an offence if it recorded for the sole and only purpose of distribution or viewing of the person who records . It's only an offence if privacy was expected like in a toilet and your own home etc . You have no right of privacy in my home or any other place

You can have cctv up and you are able to view it back however it's the usage of the footage that's the issue

I can put cctv to protect my home and cars etc that is acceptable . I can't put cctv up to spy on my neighbours . I can't put cctv if I am worried my neighbour is damaging my stuff . But I can put it up to gain evidence if it is damaged by anyone

It's intent of how you intend to use it

I believe that if you have anywhere in your profile or in any mails you say you video meets then you give intent to be videod for The purpose of someone viewing it later

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I have just checked again

It's how you intend to use the footage that commits the offence . And how much privacy was expected by the people filmed

Recording of sound and video is not an offence and certainly recording someone having sex is an offence if you do it to view later .

General recording to protect property or catch people having Sex on it to pass the recording to the police is not . Putting that same footage in YouTube is. An offence

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

i would of took the camera off them and also checked on top of wardrobe, a will look for the 4 handed fuck on youporn

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes.....i had a meet with a single fem. lead upstairs and straight on it. While fucking a bloke fell out the wardrobe with camera

Shouldn't laugh but.....

I said they only had to ask

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"I'd have been furious.

Those who've said it's illegal are correct. It comes under the voyeurism section of the Sex Act, if I remember correctly.

I have cctv in my home and because of what you said I looked it up

You can have cctv up and you are able to view it back however it's the usage of the footage that's the issue

It's intent of how you intend to use it

I believe that if you have anywhere in your profile or in any mails you say you video meets then you give intent to be videod for The purpose of someone viewing it later

Recording a sex session without the involved parties knowing is illegal.

For security, it's fine.

It is, as said, about expectation of privacy.

I can't be arsed to quote the legislation but I'm studying for a Master's in Information Security so please trust me, the situation described in the OP is against current UK law.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'd have been furious.

Those who've said it's illegal are correct. It comes under the voyeurism section of the Sex Act, if I remember correctly.

I have cctv in my home and because of what you said I looked it up

You can have cctv up and you are able to view it back however it's the usage of the footage that's the issue

It's intent of how you intend to use it

I believe that if you have anywhere in your profile or in any mails you say you video meets then you give intent to be videod for The purpose of someone viewing it later

Recording a sex session without the involved parties knowing is illegal.

For security, it's fine.

It is, as said, about expectation of privacy.

I can't be arsed to quote the legislation but I'm studying for a Master's in Information Security so please trust me, the situation described in the OP is against current UK law."

And in the USA which is why Hulk Hogan was just awarded over $100m in a similar case

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

We would hit the friggin roof

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'd have been furious.

Those who've said it's illegal are correct. It comes under the voyeurism section of the Sex Act, if I remember correctly.

I have cctv in my home and because of what you said I looked it up

You can have cctv up and you are able to view it back however it's the usage of the footage that's the issue

It's intent of how you intend to use it

I believe that if you have anywhere in your profile or in any mails you say you video meets then you give intent to be videod for The purpose of someone viewing it later

Recording a sex session without the involved parties knowing is illegal.

For security, it's fine.

It is, as said, about expectation of privacy.

I can't be arsed to quote the legislation but I'm studying for a Master's in Information Security so please trust me, the situation described in the OP is against current UK law."

Your first statement is wrong . It's the intent of the recording that makes it illegal . Someone having sex in my garden that is recorded by my cctv is not an offence . If I recorded the act to play it back later it is that point it becomes an offence

It can't be illegal to record Sex acts , because if it was people would go have sex in a area covered by cctv and then prosecute the owner of the cctv for recording them

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Never did Jeremy Beadle any harm...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"I'd have been furious.

Those who've said it's illegal are correct. It comes under the voyeurism section of the Sex Act, if I remember correctly.

I have cctv in my home and because of what you said I looked it up

You can have cctv up and you are able to view it back however it's the usage of the footage that's the issue

It's intent of how you intend to use it

I believe that if you have anywhere in your profile or in any mails you say you video meets then you give intent to be videod for The purpose of someone viewing it later

Recording a sex session without the involved parties knowing is illegal.

For security, it's fine.

It is, as said, about expectation of privacy.

I can't be arsed to quote the legislation but I'm studying for a Master's in Information Security so please trust me, the situation described in the OP is against current UK law.

It can't be illegal to record Sex acts , because if it was people would go have sex in a area covered by cctv and then prosecute the owner of the cctv for recording them

We're not talking about sex in your garden!

We're talking about sex, in a person's house, involving that person and arranged by that person, which is being intentionally filmed by that person.

I'm not wrong. That is illegal.

Can you really not see the difference between secretly, intentionally filming a sexual encounter you have arranged in your house, and unintentionally filming a sex act in a place in which a sex act would not usually be expected (and is illegal)?

If people go and have sex in front of CCTV in order to sue then that also isn't being filmed without them knowing.

Again, it's about expectation of privacy. In your garden, where they shouldn't be, they can't claim they expected privacy. In front of a CCTV camera, knowing it's there, they clearly can't have an expectation of privacy. In a private house, for an arranged encounter, unless told otherwise, it would be normal to expect it to be private.

It does not matter what the film was to be used for. If it is taken in a private house, without the knowledge of one or more participants, it is illegal. Even if it's for the personal use of the house owner, it is illegal.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ady LickWoman over a year ago

Northampton Somewhere

Omg that is just terrible. I would have been absolutely fuming!!!

Report them to fab not that it will do any good but still...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I would have told the other single guy OP

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's a shame some people don't read posts properly it would save them a lot of time and effort

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"It's a shame some people don't read posts properly it would save them a lot of time and effort"

Quite. And they might actually learn something useful.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes.....i had a meet with a single fem. lead upstairs and straight on it. While fucking a bloke fell out the wardrobe with camera

Shouldn't laugh but.....

I shouldn't laugh either but it sounds like something out of a carry on film!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Am I right to be really pissed about this? If it had been discussed beforehand that they wanted to film and how they were going to use it I probably wouldn't have an issue with it; but they didn't and I've got no idea where that footage might end up."
if you have nothing to hide then what you don't know won't hurt you, it wouldn't bother me really but hey everything is about choices for you it was wrong and so therefore for you it was right to leave what could have been a very sexy situation ce la vie

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I always ask if I can take pics or take a vid id I want to during a meet. Now I'm worrying I've done something illegal

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I always ask if I can take pics or take a vid id I want to during a meet. Now I'm worrying I've done something illegal

If you've asked and gained permission then you've acted responsibly and legally.

Think it's outrageous what OP experienced!! I had a meet with a couple, was giving man a bj and realised he was taking photos of me to send to his wife who was en route. He didn't ask my permission and I was raging. Made him delete was he'd taken and said if he did it again I was outta there.

Filming/ photographing on a meet without consent is so out of order. Makes me so angry

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I always ask if I can take pics or take a vid id I want to during a meet. Now I'm worrying I've done something illegal

If you've asked and gained permission then you've acted responsibly and legally.

Filming/ photographing on a meet without consent is so out of order. Makes me so angry

Surprised you carried on!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I always ask if I can take pics or take a vid id I want to during a meet. Now I'm worrying I've done something illegal

If you've asked and gained permission then you've acted responsibly and legally.

Filming/ photographing on a meet without consent is so out of order. Makes me so angry

That's good then thank you. Unfortunately some people take liberty's. Maybe swingers should now have two bowls at the front door one for carkeys n one for mobile phones

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"if you have nothing to hide then what you don't know won't hurt you"

I wouldn't be OK with my mum or my boss or anyone else I don't want to see my naked body or me engaging in sexual activity.. I'm not Kim Kardashian ( I give a better blowjob) I can't gain respect and a career from having a video of me passed about to who knows what.

It's not about having something to hide as such it is about having a reasonable expectation that what you are doing is private between the consenting adults which are there!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I always ask if I can take pics or take a vid id I want to during a meet. Now I'm worrying I've done something illegal

If you've asked and gained permission then you've acted responsibly and legally.

Filming/ photographing on a meet without consent is so out of order. Makes me so angry

Surprised you carried on!"

He was apologetic enough that I felt it was ok. Had he argued it would have been a different story...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I always ask if I can take pics or take a vid id I want to during a meet. Now I'm worrying I've done something illegal

If you've asked and gained permission then you've acted responsibly and legally.

Filming/ photographing on a meet without consent is so out of order. Makes me so angry

That's good then thank you. Unfortunately some people take liberty's. Maybe swingers should now have two bowls at the front door one for carkeys n one for mobile phones

Not a bad idea that... Clubs certainly don't allow them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I always ask if I can take pics or take a vid id I want to during a meet. Now I'm worrying I've done something illegal

If you've asked and gained permission then you've acted responsibly and legally.

Filming/ photographing on a meet without consent is so out of order. Makes me so angry

Surprised you carried on!

He was apologetic enough that I felt it was ok. Had he argued it would have been a different story..."

Never upset a woman who has your cock in your mouth lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ELLONS AND CREAMWoman over a year ago

stourbridge area

You sure he wasn't talking in code to her to make sure everything was ok ??

Surely his voice would have been on the recording and spoilt it ???

Just a thought

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Not a very erotic porn film if getting news and sports updates every 10 minutes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *horey OP Man over a year ago

Calne

[Removed by poster at 26/03/16 09:43:58]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *horey OP Man over a year ago

Calne

"Omg that is just terrible. I would have been absolutely fuming!!!

Report them to fab not that it will do any good but still...

It wasn't arranged through Fab, but another site. Don't have any contact details for the other guy, no idea who he was.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Just surprised as the OP has posted about being in erotic films in the past, that he didn't just ask for a fee?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If you read the OPs profile you will see this is probably an engine to advertise his photography service. Sorry it's my cynical mind coming to the fore.

I find it very hard to believe there are still people on the fabswingers planet that have not heard of the new laws regarding posting of material without the original person's permission. It is deemed to be an offence and the OP is probably trying to get attention to the fact he runs a service where with the users permission he provides a professional photography service.

Fair play. Not a bad idea. Sorry, just being a cynic.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *longshottMan over a year ago

Limerick

"Yes.....i had a meet with a single fem. lead upstairs and straight on it. While fucking a bloke fell out the wardrobe with camera

I shouldn't laugh but sorry. Must have scared hell out of you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"If you read the OPs profile you will see this is probably an engine to advertise his photography service. Sorry it's my cynical mind coming to the fore.

Fair play. Not a bad idea. Sorry, just being a cynic."

Why? There are loads of people unaware it's even illegal, (in this situation), to film it without posting it anywhere and that law has existed for much longer.

There's nothing to suggest they were filming for anything other than personal use but, (in these circumstances), it's still illegal.

I've no problem believing some people film meets without telling the people they're meeting. I know people it's happened to.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *longshottMan over a year ago

Limerick

I actually think if this was challenged legally allowing for persons being in this scene and taking profiles into account it would make for a very interesting legal case. I will add I would not film anyone and would not like if it was done to me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *horey OP Man over a year ago

Calne

"Just surprised as the OP has posted about being in erotic films in the past, that he didn't just ask for a fee? "

Never been in erotic films, but have been cameraman for a few.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *horey OP Man over a year ago

Calne

"If you read the OPs profile you will see this is probably an engine to advertise his photography service. Sorry it's my cynical mind coming to the fore."

Absolutely not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Sounds shocking

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *enny PR9TV/TS over a year ago

Southport

To see how they sort this out in America just google 'Hulk Hogan and Bubba the Love Sponge Clem'.

Jenny xxx

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aughtywifeandhimCouple over a year ago

luton

Yes he should have informed you before hand , when we play I always inform the guys that I will be taking photos or video for private use . That gives them the choice to have fun or walk away .we haven't had any walk away . And if we are playing either together or solo with other people if they want to take pictures we preferred to be asked . We have no problem it's just polite

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Of course covert recording without notification for illicit purposes is illegal. Morally it's deeply dubious and unacceptable.

As you suggest it seems foolish when asking for permission could mean all was above board. But I suppose the secretive nature was half the appeal?

Notification in itself exonerates certainly in the eyes of data protection. This is an aspect taken very seriously in the world of adult content production. We have to display signage and physically film the process of demonstrating camera positions even tho it's perfectly clear why everyone is there.

Overall I assume the thought was they would get away with it and as such it was worth the risk.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *MaleMan over a year ago

I've met people who obviously had plans to film but I only realised on arriving.

It sometimes doesn't go down well when you say 'no filming' at that point plus the atmosphere it can create in you spoiling their plans. I guess some assume as your a single guy you'll be game for whatever and incapable of saying no.

People filming on the sly I've heard about but as it's only the sly I'm not sure if I've been victim to it lol. It would be interesting if I was to catch someone though

With the rise in amateur porn/real housewife porn I'm sure some aint filming for just personal use either.

You've only got to watch some of the above porn to realise it's probably been secretly filmed. Still/static camera tucked away on a shelf, corner etc at the other side of room

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aughtywifeandhimCouple over a year ago

luton

When we tell the blokes its for private use , it is we do not want to have our faces splashed all over the web . And I'm sure others don't either . We are ok with being in other couples private videos but would not allow single guys to film or take pictures . When I take pictures of wife with guys . Any copies sent to the guys will have her face disguised or not on show

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

We don't believe in violence but could well make an exception for a pair like them. They are just despicable.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Without permission I'd have gone ballistic, that should have been part of a pre meet discussion. You should have stated loudly you didn't give consent and walked out with the camera.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No it's not against the law to film anyone at any time both sound and video .

In this case it is wrong . I think some law about distributing pronographic material and it needs to be categorised first

New law in Ireland can see you imprisoned for 3years for sharing videos/images of sex acts without consent.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Video camera down toilet if it was me!

If they had asked then I wouldn't have minded at all.

I had a couple come round at the weekend. Asked if they could take pics (him take of me and her). Said they would blur my face before posting to another site....I said I didn't care if they blurred it or not...but they had asked and had consent. Totally different to the OP situation. Lucky the "host" still has his gonads...I know a few folks who would rip them off if such occurred to them!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It is against the law to film someone without consent. So yes I'd of been pissed.. And I'd of told them I was pissed.. And made them wipe it "

Its not actually...

There is no law stating you can't film someone.

There are however laws regarding showing the footage on media platforms etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imjohnCouple over a year ago

Clacton on sea, Essex

Its naughty to film others without permission & you can involve the police if the recordings cause you harm or embarrassment.

We need 2 bits of photo ID & model releases signed before we can legally use material we shoot, tube sites are the biggest cause of illegal hardcore films as they pirate every bodys films legal & illegal.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *layfullsamMan over a year ago

Solihull

"Yes.....i had a meet with a single fem. lead upstairs and straight on it. While fucking a bloke fell out the wardrobe with camera

Those bloody speed camera operators just don't give in do they

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"It is against the law to film someone without consent. So yes I'd of been pissed.. And I'd of told them I was pissed.. And made them wipe it

Its not actually...

There is no law stating you can't film someone.

There are however laws regarding showing the footage on media platforms etc.

Yes, there is a law. It comes under the voyeurism section of the Sex Act.

It is illegal to take photos or film anyone without their knowledge in a place they would normally have an expectation of privacy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

I'm clearly going to have to point out the actual legislation.

S67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s67__voyeurism/

It's been law since 2004.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

The sentences for public protection must be considered in all cases. They are designed to ensure that sexual offenders are not released into the community if they present a significant risk of serious harm.

The offence of voyeurism covers cases where someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is secretly observed. The offence may be committed in a number of ways:

- by direct observation on the part of the offender;

- by operating equipment with the intention of enabling someone else to observe the victim;

- by recording someone doing a private act, with the intention that the recorded image will be viewed by the offender or another person; or

- by installing equipment or constructing or adapting a structure with the intention of enabling the offender or another person to observe a private act.

In all cases the observation, or intended observation, must be for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and must take place, or be intended to take place, without the consent of the person observed.

The SOA 2003 defines a 'private act', in the context of this offence, as an act carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and where the victim's genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the person is 'doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public'.

The harm inherent in this offence is intrusion of the victim's privacy. Whilst less serious than non-consensual touching, it may nevertheless cause severe distress, embarrassment or humiliation to the victim, especially in cases where a private act is not simply observed by one person, but where an image of it is disseminated for wider viewing. A higher sentencing starting point is recommended for cases where the offender records and shares images with others.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The sentences for public protection must be considered in all cases. They are designed to ensure that sexual offenders are not released into the community if they present a significant risk of serious harm.

The offence of voyeurism covers cases where someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is secretly observed. The offence may be committed in a number of ways:

- by direct observation on the part of the offender;

- by operating equipment with the intention of enabling someone else to observe the victim;

- by recording someone doing a private act, with the intention that the recorded image will be viewed by the offender or another person; or

- by installing equipment or constructing or adapting a structure with the intention of enabling the offender or another person to observe a private act.

I've no don't on your googling skills...

As I understud it.. it wasn't against the law to film anyone. And I'm sure the act you googled has many grey areas.

But thanks for taking the time to look

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 30/03/16 14:07:15]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes I'd be annoyed, it's a complete breach of privacy and trust. I'd be telling them to delete and destroy all footage asap."

More than that; it is against the law. You would have been within your rights to destroy the camera.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes I'd be annoyed, it's a complete breach of privacy and trust. I'd be telling them to delete and destroy all footage asap.

More than that; it is against the law. You would have been within your rights to destroy the camera. "

Or just take the memory card out...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

The offence of voyeurism covers cases where someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is secretly observed. The offence may be committed in a number of ways:

- by direct observation on the part of the offender;

- by operating equipment with the intention of enabling someone else to observe the victim;

- by recording someone doing a private act, with the intention that the recorded image will be viewed by the offender or another person; or

- by installing equipment or constructing or adapting a structure with the intention of enabling the offender or another person to observe a private act.

I've no don't on your googling skills...

As I understud it.. it wasn't against the law to film anyone. And I'm sure the act you googled has many grey areas.

But thanks for taking the time to look

I'm doing a Master's degree in Information Security. We're studying this and revenge porn at the moment.

The scenario described in the OP is illegal. It is illegal to film anyone performing a sexual act in a place where they would expect privacy without their permission, for the purposes of sexual gratification. That, in a nutshell, is exactly the situation the OP described.

So, as you understood it, you were wrong. I posted this info, including the Act and the section very early on in the thread, if you'd bothered to read it, rather than wading in with your ill-informed and frankly wrong "understanding".

There is a law. It's pretty clearly worded but if you can't understand it, you can take the advice of those people on this thread that are better informed than you. Feel free to admit you were wrong any time, once you've done trying to be patronising.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes.....i had a meet with a single fem. lead upstairs and straight on it. While fucking a bloke fell out the wardrobe with camera

Did he try to sell you any insurance

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estlands4Man over a year ago

Sidmouth

"Yes.....i had a meet with a single fem. lead upstairs and straight on it. While fucking a bloke fell out the wardrobe with camera

Did he try to sell you any insurance

Did someone mention insurance? It's still on my fab bucket list to sell someone some insurance on fab!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"Yes.....i had a meet with a single fem. lead upstairs and straight on it. While fucking a bloke fell out the wardrobe with camera

Did he try to sell you any insurance

Or say "Fuck me, what happened? A second ago I was filming a documentary in Narnia. Where am I?"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *awtynNiceCouple over a year ago

…

Your totally entitled to be pissed off and this should have been discussed and permission granted before hand. We often like to film our meets for our own use only and we always ask permission during a social meet and confirm again during the play meet as privacy and respect is crucial in the scene. Most people are happy when asked but if not then we would just accept their wishes and continue having fun X

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The offence of voyeurism covers cases where someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is secretly observed. The offence may be committed in a number of ways:

- by direct observation on the part of the offender;

- by operating equipment with the intention of enabling someone else to observe the victim;

- by recording someone doing a private act, with the intention that the recorded image will be viewed by the offender or another person; or

- by installing equipment or constructing or adapting a structure with the intention of enabling the offender or another person to observe a private act.

I've no don't on your googling skills...

As I understud it.. it wasn't against the law to film anyone. And I'm sure the act you googled has many grey areas.

But thanks for taking the time to look

I'm doing a Master's degree in Information Security. We're studying this and revenge porn at the moment.

Is the air thin up there on your high horse hahaha ...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *longshottMan over a year ago

Limerick

The offence of voyeurism covers cases where someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is secretly observed. The offence may be committed in a number of ways:

- by direct observation on the part of the offender;

- by operating equipment with the intention of enabling someone else to observe the victim;

- by recording someone doing a private act, with the intention that the recorded image will be viewed by the offender or another person; or

- by installing equipment or constructing or adapting a structure with the intention of enabling the offender or another person to observe a private act.

I've no don't on your googling skills...

As I understud it.. it wasn't against the law to film anyone. And I'm sure the act you googled has many grey areas.

But thanks for taking the time to look

I'm doing a Master's degree in Information Security. We're studying this and revenge porn at the moment.

Is the air thin up there on your high horse hahaha ...

The point that is reality I think is that we all have the right to the law however to go to court can be prohibitively expensive or morally impractical in this case.

It is there for the law to afford s justice if we can afford the justice of the law.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The offence of voyeurism covers cases where someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is secretly observed. The offence may be committed in a number of ways:

- by direct observation on the part of the offender;

- by operating equipment with the intention of enabling someone else to observe the victim;

- by recording someone doing a private act, with the intention that the recorded image will be viewed by the offender or another person; or

- by installing equipment or constructing or adapting a structure with the intention of enabling the offender or another person to observe a private act.

I've no don't on your googling skills...

As I understud it.. it wasn't against the law to film anyone. And I'm sure the act you googled has many grey areas.

But thanks for taking the time to look

I'm doing a Master's degree in Information Security. We're studying this and revenge porn at the moment.

Is the air thin up there on your high horse hahaha ...

The point that is reality I think is that we all have the right to the law however to go to court can be prohibitively expensive or morally impractical in this case.

It is there for the law to afford s justice if we can afford the justice of the law."

Totally agree

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes.....i had a meet with a single fem. lead upstairs and straight on it. While fucking a bloke fell out the wardrobe with camera

Then he woke up lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Yes.....i had a meet with a single fem. lead upstairs and straight on it. While fucking a bloke fell out the wardrobe with camera

Pmsl, sorry but I did laugh

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

The offence of voyeurism covers cases where someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is secretly observed. The offence may be committed in a number of ways:

- by direct observation on the part of the offender;

- by operating equipment with the intention of enabling someone else to observe the victim;

- by recording someone doing a private act, with the intention that the recorded image will be viewed by the offender or another person; or

- by installing equipment or constructing or adapting a structure with the intention of enabling the offender or another person to observe a private act.

I've no don't on your googling skills...

As I understud it.. it wasn't against the law to film anyone. And I'm sure the act you googled has many grey areas.

But thanks for taking the time to look

I'm doing a Master's degree in Information Security. We're studying this and revenge porn at the moment.

Is the air thin up there on your high horse hahaha ...

The point that is reality I think is that we all have the right to the law however to go to court can be prohibitively expensive or morally impractical in this case.

It is there for the law to afford s justice if we can afford the justice of the law."

The cost would be a good point if this were a civil offence. It isn't it's a CRIMINAL offence.

You understand the difference, and why cost isn't an issue to the victim here, right?

At least up on this high horse I've got a fucking clue what I'm on about.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

The offence of voyeurism covers cases where someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is secretly observed. The offence may be committed in a number of ways:

- by direct observation on the part of the offender;

- by operating equipment with the intention of enabling someone else to observe the victim;

- by recording someone doing a private act, with the intention that the recorded image will be viewed by the offender or another person; or

- by installing equipment or constructing or adapting a structure with the intention of enabling the offender or another person to observe a private act.

I've no don't on your googling skills...

As I understud it.. it wasn't against the law to film anyone. And I'm sure the act you googled has many grey areas.

But thanks for taking the time to look

I'm doing a Master's degree in Information Security. We're studying this and revenge porn at the moment.

Is the air thin up there on your high horse hahaha ...

The point that is reality I think is that we all have the right to the law however to go to court can be prohibitively expensive or morally impractical in this case.

It is there for the law to afford s justice if we can afford the justice of the law.

Totally agree"

You would.

Go find out the difference between civil and criminal offences. I'm sure you can Google.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

The offence of voyeurism covers cases where someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is secretly observed. The offence may be committed in a number of ways:

- by direct observation on the part of the offender;

- by operating equipment with the intention of enabling someone else to observe the victim;

- by recording someone doing a private act, with the intention that the recorded image will be viewed by the offender or another person; or

- by installing equipment or constructing or adapting a structure with the intention of enabling the offender or another person to observe a private act.

I've no don't on your googling skills...

As I understud it.. it wasn't against the law to film anyone. And I'm sure the act you googled has many grey areas.

But thanks for taking the time to look

I'm doing a Master's degree in Information Security. We're studying this and revenge porn at the moment.

Is the air thin up there on your high horse hahaha ...

It's adequate for my brain to work.

What's your excuse?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The offence of voyeurism covers cases where someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is secretly observed. The offence may be committed in a number of ways:

- by direct observation on the part of the offender;

- by operating equipment with the intention of enabling someone else to observe the victim;

- by recording someone doing a private act, with the intention that the recorded image will be viewed by the offender or another person; or

- by installing equipment or constructing or adapting a structure with the intention of enabling the offender or another person to observe a private act.

I've no don't on your googling skills...

As I understud it.. it wasn't against the law to film anyone. And I'm sure the act you googled has many grey areas.

But thanks for taking the time to look

I'm doing a Master's degree in Information Security. We're studying this and revenge porn at the moment.

Is the air thin up there on your high horse hahaha ...

It's adequate for my brain to work.

What's your excuse?"

My brain works fine I just responded to your condescending " I guess I'll have to post the legislation " attitude...

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong or anything. You seem to love pointing out your right though...bet your a joy to talk too lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rs DCouple over a year ago

far

Your bitching about him filming you. At the end of the day his letting you feel his wife up ffs and you moaning bout being filmed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Your bitching about him filming you. At the end of the day his letting you feel his wife up ffs and you moaning bout being filmed."

Hahahah so true...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"My brain works fine I just responded to your condescending " I guess I'll have to post the legislation " attitude...

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong or anything. You seem to love pointing out your right though...bet your a joy to talk too lol"

Really? Because if you'd bothered to read, you would have found the legislation detailed very early on in the thread and you wouldn't have had to state your incorrect "understanding" as fact.

So apparently I did have to actually quote the legislation.

You have no problem admitting you are wrong? No, it shows...

I expect you also point out you're right when you've specified actual facts and people continue to state their incorrect "understanding" as fact, and then argue when it's pointed out that they're wrong!

And as for condescending, the implication that I had to have googled for the information, (because nobody could possibly know more than you), wasn't condescending at all!

You were wrong. Get over it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Your bitching about him filming you. At the end of the day his letting you feel his wife up ffs and you moaning bout being filmed."

He's "letting him feel his wife up"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *razedcatMan over a year ago

London / Herts

This is an act of voyeurism, which is indeed a criminal offence.

However, I suspect a great deal of voyeurism goes unprosecuted, particularly in these sort of circumstances. Many people would prefer to keep the fact they were involved in a hotwife/cuckolding threesome under wraps.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"My brain works fine I just responded to your condescending " I guess I'll have to post the legislation " attitude...

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong or anything. You seem to love pointing out your right though...bet your a joy to talk too lol

Really? Because if you'd bothered to read, you would have found the legislation detailed very early on in the thread and you wouldn't have had to state your incorrect "understanding" as fact.

So apparently I did have to actually quote the legislation.

You have no problem admitting you are wrong? No, it shows...

And as for condescending, the implication that I had to have googled for the information, (because nobody could possibly know more than you), wasn't condescending at all!

You were wrong. Get over it."

Did you actually read the opening post. The legislation you googled and pasted would not stand up in a court of law ...the CPS would not pursue it...

The guy entered a house of his own volition and performed sex acts in THEIR house...in THEIR bedroom.

No where does it state they posted or uploaded the footage anywhere.

So it was for there private use (it would be fair to assume).

If the guy was that bothered he should have took it up with the couple there and then.

The CPS would not touch this with a barge pole.

But your studying law so you know it all..please forgive me!

If I was wrong I'd just say it..fact is the legislation you pasted in this case has too many variables and grey areas to be that easy to prosecute... If it went down that route.

But don't let my opinion on the subject derail your argument...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"My brain works fine I just responded to your condescending " I guess I'll have to post the legislation " attitude...

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong or anything. You seem to love pointing out your right though...bet your a joy to talk too lol

Really? Because if you'd bothered to read, you would have found the legislation detailed very early on in the thread and you wouldn't have had to state your incorrect "understanding" as fact.

So apparently I did have to actually quote the legislation.

You have no problem admitting you are wrong? No, it shows...

And as for condescending, the implication that I had to have googled for the information, (because nobody could possibly know more than you), wasn't condescending at all!

You were wrong. Get over it.

Did you actually read the opening post. The legislation you googled and pasted would not stand up in a court of law ...the CPS would not pursue it...

The guy entered a house of his own volition and performed sex acts in THEIR house...in THEIR bedroom.

No where does it state they posted or uploaded the footage anywhere.

So it was for there private use (it would be fair to assume).

If the guy was that bothered he should have took it up with the couple there and then.

The CPS would not touch this with a barge pole.

But your studying law so you know it all..please forgive me!

If I was wrong I'd just say it..fact is the legislation you pasted in this case has too many variables and grey areas to be that easy to prosecute... If it went down that route.

But don't let my opinion on the subject derail your argument...

Did you read the legislation?

It doesn't matter whether they posted or uploaded it. The act of filming it without consent, in a place where privacy would normally be expected, for sexual gratification makes it illegal. Just filming it.

The legislation, which I pasted, to save you the bother of having to look it up to see what it says, is the CPS's own guidelines.

Apparently you didn't read what I'm studying either.

No wonder you can't comprehend the situation.

Your points have already been addressed in several posts but you continue to ignore the facts, which have been backed up with evidence.

You are still wrong.

But you have no problem admitting that, of course.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

Oh, and there are no grey areas. The situation described in the OP is very clear and is a CRIMINAL offence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

Again:

The offence of voyeurism covers cases where someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is secretly observed. The offence may be committed...by:

- by recording someone doing a private act, with the intention that the recorded image will be viewed by the offender or another person

...

RECORDING IT is a crime. It doesn't matter if it's for personal use. It doesn't matter if it's uploaded. It doesn't matter if it's seen by one person or 100 or 1 million.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Again:

The offence of voyeurism covers cases where someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is secretly observed. The offence may be committed...by:

- by recording someone doing a private act, with the intention that the recorded image will be viewed by the offender or another person

...

RECORDING IT is a crime. It doesn't matter if it's for personal use. It doesn't matter if it's uploaded. It doesn't matter if it's seen by one person or 100 or 1 million."

I really wouldn't waste the time.. Some people will never admit to being wrong... even when they know they are...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Again:

The offence of voyeurism covers cases where someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is secretly observed. The offence may be committed...by:

- by recording someone doing a private act, with the intention that the recorded image will be viewed by the offender or another person

...

RECORDING IT is a crime. It doesn't matter if it's for personal use. It doesn't matter if it's uploaded. It doesn't matter if it's seen by one person or 100 or 1 million."

The CPS WOULD NEVER PERSUE IT!!!

If it doesn't get to court guess what no crime.

your a wannabe legal genius. I can read what the legislation you copied and pasted just fine. Would it stand up in court?? Not at all...he has no assumption of privacy in THEIR house (bedroom).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"Again:

The offence of voyeurism covers cases where someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is secretly observed. The offence may be committed...by:

- by recording someone doing a private act, with the intention that the recorded image will be viewed by the offender or another person

...

RECORDING IT is a crime. It doesn't matter if it's for personal use. It doesn't matter if it's uploaded. It doesn't matter if it's seen by one person or 100 or 1 million.

The CPS WOULD NEVER PERSUE IT!!!

If it doesn't get to court guess what no crime.

your a wannabe legal genius. I can read what the legislation you copied and pasted just fine. Would it stand up in court?? Not at all...he has no assumption of privacy in THEIR house (bedroom).

Yes, he does

You. Are. Wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"Again:

The offence of voyeurism covers cases where someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is secretly observed. The offence may be committed...by:

- by recording someone doing a private act, with the intention that the recorded image will be viewed by the offender or another person

...

RECORDING IT is a crime. It doesn't matter if it's for personal use. It doesn't matter if it's uploaded. It doesn't matter if it's seen by one person or 100 or 1 million.

I really wouldn't waste the time.. Some people will never admit to being wrong... even when they know they are...

Completely pointless even trying to explain to someone incapable of understanding.

Enough people have said it's illegal, the legislation has been posted, so anyone who hasn't got it by now just isn't going to.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255439/BBC-producer-Benjamin-Wilkins-jailed-secretly-filming-sexual-encounters.html

Oh look, a man was jailed for covertly filming sex acts in his own home for his own gratification. He didn't publish the footage anywhere.

The report clearly shows that people _do_ normally have an expectation of privacy during sex acts in someone else's house.

I'm sure with my superb Google skills I could find many more cases.

But I'm sure I'll hear more about exceptions, grey areas and nonsense.

The fact is, it's illegal. It's a sexual offence and as the report shows, it can land you in prison and on the sex offenders register.

The CPS not only can but do touch it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

http://news.sky.com/story/750885/peeping-tom-arrests-double-in-four-years

Again, makes it clear filming sex acts covertly in a private place, for sexual gratification, is illegal and people are arrested and charged.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255439/BBC-producer-Benjamin-Wilkins-jailed-secretly-filming-sexual-encounters.html

Oh look, a man was jailed for covertly filming sex acts in his own home for his own gratification. He didn't publish the footage anywhere.

The report clearly shows that people _do_ normally have an expectation of privacy during sex acts in someone else's house.

I'm sure with my superb Google skills I could find many more cases.

But I'm sure I'll hear more about exceptions, grey areas and nonsense.

The fact is, it's illegal. It's a sexual offence and as the report shows, it can land you in prison and on the sex offenders register.

The CPS not only can but do touch it."

I could google a million cases where it shows that the CPS dropped cases due to lack of evidence.

You do know that cases differ from case to case don't you??

And no the guy was in their house so had no assumption of privacy ...

You should have your own bit on the forum where you google stuff and paste it on here...

That should pass the day along for you a bit xx

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Most definitely be annoyed. X

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Fact is the guy was in their house by the sounds of it and he accepted there invite.

If he had any suspicious thoughts regarding being filmed he should have said there and then.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255439/BBC-producer-Benjamin-Wilkins-jailed-secretly-filming-sexual-encounters.html

Oh look, a man was jailed for covertly filming sex acts in his own home for his own gratification. He didn't publish the footage anywhere.

The report clearly shows that people _do_ normally have an expectation of privacy during sex acts in someone else's house.

I'm sure with my superb Google skills I could find many more cases.

But I'm sure I'll hear more about exceptions, grey areas and nonsense.

The fact is, it's illegal. It's a sexual offence and as the report shows, it can land you in prison and on the sex offenders register.

The CPS not only can but do touch it.

I could google a million cases where it shows that the CPS dropped cases due to lack of evidence.

You do know that cases differ from case to case don't you??

And no the guy was in their house so had no assumption of privacy ...

You should have your own bit on the forum where you google stuff and paste it on here...

That should pass the day along for you a bit xx"

A lack of evidence doesn't mean there is no law and it isn't illegal ,

And yes, in a private place, even someone else's home, people usually have an expectation of privacy.

The news report above shows that is the case. Your reading comprehension really is very poor if you can't work that out.

You cannot video or photograph someone engaging is a sexual or private act, for sexual gratification, in your own home.

Since I've proved my case, how about you back up yours. Find some evidence to back up your ridiculous claim that people don't have an expectation of privacy when having sex in someone else's home.

I know you'll say you can't be bothered, but really you know you can't.

You know you're wrong. I know you're wrong. Everyone else knows you are wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"Fact is the guy was in their house by the sounds of it and he accepted there invite.

If he had any suspicious thoughts regarding being filmed he should have said there and then."

Fact is, they broke the law, regardless of whether he wanted to take action or involve the police.

Covertly filming him was illegal.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *razedcatMan over a year ago

London / Herts

I see merit on both sides of the argument here.

Whilst voyeurism is an offence, there will be certain instances where the CPS do not believe it to be in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution. This may be one of those instances.

There's also the matter of evidence to consider, too. In context, there would be little to suggest this was an act of voyeurism, beyond a statement and testimony from the victim/s.

Had this filming been of a person stripping in a changing room, the lack of consent is much more apparent, by reference to the circumstances. But here, filming guests in your home having a three-way? A consent defence is more workable, and reasonable doubt very prominent.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Fact is the guy was in their house by the sounds of it and he accepted there invite.

If he had any suspicious thoughts regarding being filmed he should have said there and then.

Fact is, they broke the law, regardless of whether he wanted to take action or involve the police.

Covertly filming him was illegal."

Omg ...it was in THEIR own home... A PLACE HE HAD NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY!!

any other place you would be right.. But it was in their home ...not his...not a hotel room...

You interpretation of the factual legislation is wrong in this case.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Fact is the guy was in their house by the sounds of it and he accepted there invite.

If he had any suspicious thoughts regarding being filmed he should have said there and then.

Fact is, they broke the law, regardless of whether he wanted to take action or involve the police.

Covertly filming him was illegal.

Omg ...it was in THEIR own home... A PLACE HE HAD NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY!!

any other place you would be right.. But it was in their home ...not his...not a hotel room...

You interpretation of the factual legislation is wrong in this case.

No.. You are wrong

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I see merit on both sides of the argument here.

Whilst voyeurism is an offence, there will be certain instances where the CPS do not believe it to be in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution. This may be one of those instances.

There's also the matter of evidence to consider, too. In context, there would be little to suggest this was an act of voyeurism, beyond a statement and testimony from the victim/s.

Hit the nail on the head!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Fact is the guy was in their house by the sounds of it and he accepted there invite.

If he had any suspicious thoughts regarding being filmed he should have said there and then.

Fact is, they broke the law, regardless of whether he wanted to take action or involve the police.

Covertly filming him was illegal.

Omg ...it was in THEIR own home... A PLACE HE HAD NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY!!

any other place you would be right.. But it was in their home ...not his...not a hotel room...

You interpretation of the factual legislation is wrong in this case.

No.. You are wrong "

Ermmm OK ...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I see merit on both sides of the argument here.

Sounds like you've passed the bar already

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I see merit on both sides of the argument here.

Whilst voyeurism is an offence, there will be certain instances where the CPS do not believe it to be in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution. This may be one of those instances.

There's also the matter of evidence to consider, too. In context, there would be little to suggest this was an act of voyeurism, beyond a statement and testimony from the victim/s.

Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"Fact is the guy was in their house by the sounds of it and he accepted there invite.

If he had any suspicious thoughts regarding being filmed he should have said there and then.

Fact is, they broke the law, regardless of whether he wanted to take action or involve the police.

Covertly filming him was illegal.

Omg ...it was in THEIR own home... A PLACE HE HAD NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY!!

any other place you would be right.. But it was in their home ...not his...not a hotel room...

You interpretation of the factual legislation is wrong in this case.

Oh dear goodness.

A person still has an expectation of privacy when having sex in someone else's house!

It's a private place.

It is your understanding that's wrong, not mine.

In the case above, the guy secretly filmed the women in his own home. He was convicted under the voyeurism section of the Sex Offences Act.

Whether or not it could be proven, and in this case finding an excuse for it other than sexual gratification would be difficult, the act of filming someone without their knowledge, in a private place, for sexual gratification, is ILLEGAL.

We've gone from you claiming there is no law, through various nonsense to now claiming nobody has an expectation of privacy when having sex in someone else's home. You're still wrong.

Keep wriggling if you like but you're wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"I see merit on both sides of the argument here.

Whilst voyeurism is an offence, there will be certain instances where the CPS do not believe it to be in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution. This may be one of those instances.

There's also the matter of evidence to consider, too. In context, there would be little to suggest this was an act of voyeurism, beyond a statement and testimony from the victim/s.

Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed "

^this!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume privacy when invited into someone's home, whether that invite was for coffee or a fuck....you are entering a private residence, it's right there in the name.

I don't believe I need to be asking everyone that I meet whether or not they intend to film the action.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I see merit on both sides of the argument here.

Whilst voyeurism is an offence, there will be certain instances where the CPS do not believe it to be in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution. This may be one of those instances.

There's also the matter of evidence to consider, too. In context, there would be little to suggest this was an act of voyeurism, beyond a statement and testimony from the victim/s.

Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed

^this!!!"

A private residence is private to the people that own it... And that's that.

If your invites round and they want to film anything at all that's up to them.

Entering that house an individual would have to accept their own responsibility ...especially in this case...

As for crimes been commitmented...

Innocent until PROVEN guilty..

No judgement no crime...

You can be arrested and charged with anything...doesn't mean you will touch a court.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It is against the law to film someone without consent. So yes I'd of been pissed.. And I'd of told them I was pissed.. And made them wipe it "

Wipe your pussy???

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I see merit on both sides of the argument here.

Whilst voyeurism is an offence, there will be certain instances where the CPS do not believe it to be in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution. This may be one of those instances.

There's also the matter of evidence to consider, too. In context, there would be little to suggest this was an act of voyeurism, beyond a statement and testimony from the victim/s.

Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed

^this!!!

A private residence is private to the people that own it... And that's that.

If your invites round and they want to film anything at all that's up to them.

Entering that house an individual would have to accept their own responsibility ...especially in this case...

As for crimes been commitmented...

Innocent until PROVEN guilty..

No judgement no crime...

You can be arrested and charged with anything...doesn't mean you will touch a court.

Some people would argue black was white..

Some people would accept graciously they are wrong..

And some.. Like myself.. Know when they are talking to a brick wall and leave them to their ignorance

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It is against the law to film someone without consent. So yes I'd of been pissed.. And I'd of told them I was pissed.. And made them wipe it

Wipe your pussy???

Only after I'd pissed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *razedcatMan over a year ago

London / Herts

"Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed "

The purpose of a criminal trial is to determine whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged. In the absence of a guilty verdict, no crime has been committed. You can't call it a criminal act until all elements of the offence have been proven, and proven to have been committed by the relevant individual.

Otherwise, you'd have to refer to a man punching another man in the face as a criminal, and his actions a crime...until he's exonerated in Court having successfully argued self-defence. It doesn't work.

It's a suspected crime, until the verdict.

In any event, the OP was asking if he had a right to be upset about this, and of course, he does. I'm just conscious that, practically speaking, there isn't really much that can be done about it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"I see merit on both sides of the argument here.

Whilst voyeurism is an offence, there will be certain instances where the CPS do not believe it to be in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution. This may be one of those instances.

There's also the matter of evidence to consider, too. In context, there would be little to suggest this was an act of voyeurism, beyond a statement and testimony from the victim/s.

Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed

^this!!!

A private residence is private to the people that own it... And that's that.

If your invites round and they want to film anything at all that's up to them.

Entering that house an individual would have to accept their own responsibility ...especially in this case...

As for crimes been commitmented...

Innocent until PROVEN guilty..

No judgement no crime...

You can be arrested and charged with anything...doesn't mean you will touch a court.

Wrong. (With the exception of the very last statement). Totally wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 03/04/16 11:36:27]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed

It's a suspected crime, until the verdict.

In any event, the OP was asking if he had a right to be upset about this, and of course, he does. I'm just conscious that, practically speaking, there isn't really much that can be done about it."

Some people get away with crimes. Legally they aren't criminals if they aren't convicted. Practically they still committed a crime.

Exoneration doesn't necessarily mean they didn't actually do it. Hence some places adopting a "not proven" verdict.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"[Removed by poster at 03/04/16 11:36:27]"

Lol glad you removed that ...as it made no sense at all lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed

It's a suspected crime, until the verdict.

In any event, the OP was asking if he had a right to be upset about this, and of course, he does. I'm just conscious that, practically speaking, there isn't really much that can be done about it."

Surely in some cases it's an unsolved crime rather than suspected. I don't think anyone, other than perhaps a lawyer, would say that the victims of Jack the Ripper might have died of natural causes... doesn't that go beyond suspicion? There was definately a crime, we just don't know who Jack the Ripper was. For sure.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

" A private residence is private to the people that own it... And that's that.

If your invites round and they want to film anything at all that's up to them."

Explain why the guy in the Daily Mail article above was arrested, charged, tried, convicted and incarcerated then.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed

It's a suspected crime, until the verdict.

In any event, the OP was asking if he had a right to be upset about this, and of course, he does. I'm just conscious that, practically speaking, there isn't really much that can be done about it.

Some people get away with crimes. Legally they aren't criminals if they aren't convicted. Practically they still committed a crime.

Exoneration doesn't necessarily mean they didn't actually do it. Hence some places adopting a "not proven" verdict."

Lol you literally just google stuff and think that that is fact ...

Fantastic...hahahah

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"[Removed by poster at 03/04/16 11:36:27]

Lol glad you removed that ...as it made no sense at all lol"

I rephrased it. Most of what you've said is idiotic and wrong. You don't even know that a house is a private place.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Innocent until PROVEN guilty..

No judgement no crime...

Interesting logic, so jack the ripper didn't commit any crimes then? I'd love to see you explain that one to the victims families

... "

I had thousands of pounds stolen from me... I couldn't prove it wasn't a loan... It was still stolen.. It was still a crime.

My friend was sexually assaulted.. It was their word against the others... The person wasn't prosecuted due to lack of evidence... It was still a crime.

My friend had his motorbike stolen last week.. It's not been found.. Nor has the person who stole it... So very doubtful anyone will be prosecuted... It is still a crime...

I could go on... But I'm bored now...

A wise person doesn't argue with a fool as they then are the fool themselves.

Good day to you all

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"[Removed by poster at 03/04/16 11:36:27]

Lol glad you removed that ...as it made no sense at all lol

I rephrased it. Most of what you've said is idiotic and wrong. You don't even know that a house is a private place. "

Lol its private to the people that own it or live there... No one else...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Innocent until PROVEN guilty..

No judgement no crime...

Interesting logic, so jack the ripper didn't commit any crimes then? I'd love to see you explain that one to the victims families

...

I had thousands of pounds stolen from me... I couldn't prove it wasn't a loan... It was still stolen.. It was still a crime.

My friend was sexually assaulted.. It was their word against the others... The person wasn't prosecuted due to lack of evidence... It was still a crime.

My friend had his motorbike stolen last week.. It's not been found.. Nor has the person who stole it... So very doubtful anyone will be prosecuted... It is still a crime...

I could go on... But I'm bored now...

A wise person doesn't argue with a fool as they then are the fool themselves.

Good day to you all

You're so argumentative!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed

It's a suspected crime, until the verdict.

In any event, the OP was asking if he had a right to be upset about this, and of course, he does. I'm just conscious that, practically speaking, there isn't really much that can be done about it.

Some people get away with crimes. Legally they aren't criminals if they aren't convicted. Practically they still committed a crime.

Exoneration doesn't necessarily mean they didn't actually do it. Hence some places adopting a "not proven" verdict.

Lol you literally just google stuff and think that that is fact ...

Fantastic...hahahah"

Yeah, I must google stuff because obviously nobody could know more than you.

And yes, I research when I am not sure of something or I want to back up my facts. It's a shame you don't or you'd realise how little you know.

Nearly every "fact" you have stated is wrong. The degree of your cluelessness is astounding. Almost as amazing as your ability to ignore facts and evidence that contradict what you believe.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Innocent until PROVEN guilty..

No judgement no crime...

Interesting logic, so jack the ripper didn't commit any crimes then? I'd love to see you explain that one to the victims families

...

I had thousands of pounds stolen from me... I couldn't prove it wasn't a loan... It was still stolen.. It was still a crime.

My friend was sexually assaulted.. It was their word against the others... The person wasn't prosecuted due to lack of evidence... It was still a crime.

My friend had his motorbike stolen last week.. It's not been found.. Nor has the person who stole it... So very doubtful anyone will be prosecuted... It is still a crime...

I could go on... But I'm bored now...

A wise person doesn't argue with a fool as they then are the fool themselves.

Good day to you all

Your wrong ..

If guilt is not proven...no crime...

You can't just accuse someone and then class them as a criminal...

That's just silly...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"[Removed by poster at 03/04/16 11:36:27]

Lol glad you removed that ...as it made no sense at all lol

I rephrased it. Most of what you've said is idiotic and wrong. You don't even know that a house is a private place.

Lol its private to the people that own it or live there... No one else..."

Rubbish.

Again, explain the conviction of the guy in the Daily Mail article.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Innocent until PROVEN guilty..

No judgement no crime...

Interesting logic, so jack the ripper didn't commit any crimes then? I'd love to see you explain that one to the victims families

...

I had thousands of pounds stolen from me... I couldn't prove it wasn't a loan... It was still stolen.. It was still a crime.

My friend was sexually assaulted.. It was their word against the others... The person wasn't prosecuted due to lack of evidence... It was still a crime.

My friend had his motorbike stolen last week.. It's not been found.. Nor has the person who stole it... So very doubtful anyone will be prosecuted... It is still a crime...

I could go on... But I'm bored now...

A wise person doesn't argue with a fool as they then are the fool themselves.

Good day to you all

You're so argumentative!

Only on Tuesdays

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

Innocent until PROVEN guilty..

No judgement no crime...

Interesting logic, so jack the ripper didn't commit any crimes then? I'd love to see you explain that one to the victims families

...

I had thousands of pounds stolen from me... I couldn't prove it wasn't a loan... It was still stolen.. It was still a crime.

My friend was sexually assaulted.. It was their word against the others... The person wasn't prosecuted due to lack of evidence... It was still a crime.

My friend had his motorbike stolen last week.. It's not been found.. Nor has the person who stole it... So very doubtful anyone will be prosecuted... It is still a crime...

I could go on... But I'm bored now...

A wise person doesn't argue with a fool as they then are the fool themselves.

Good day to you all

Agreed. It's pointless. I've backed up what I've said. They can't. People can make up their own minds. The thread shows plenty of people know the truth.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *razedcatMan over a year ago

London / Herts

"Some people get away with crimes. Legally they aren't criminals if they aren't convicted. Practically they still committed a crime."

Practically according to who? If the CPS choose not to prosecute, or the individual is found not guilty, then for all intents and purposes, they did not commit a crime. There was insufficient evidence to prove it, or they had a defence.

It's not appropriate to brand someone a criminal even after the justice system has concluded to the contrary.

"Exoneration doesn't necessarily mean they didn't actually do it. Hence some places adopting a "not proven" verdict."

Barring a gross abuse of process, either in the course of the investigation or the proceedings, it does.

And "not proven" is a verdict only available in Scottish Courts. In England and Wales, juries may not be able to reach a unanimous or majority verdict, in which case a retrial may go ahead with a fresh jury. But after a second go around, if the jury still can't decide, the CPS usually drop charges.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Innocent until PROVEN guilty..

No judgement no crime...

Interesting logic, so jack the ripper didn't commit any crimes then? I'd love to see you explain that one to the victims families

...

I had thousands of pounds stolen from me... I couldn't prove it wasn't a loan... It was still stolen.. It was still a crime.

My friend was sexually assaulted.. It was their word against the others... The person wasn't prosecuted due to lack of evidence... It was still a crime.

My friend had his motorbike stolen last week.. It's not been found.. Nor has the person who stole it... So very doubtful anyone will be prosecuted... It is still a crime...

I could go on... But I'm bored now...

A wise person doesn't argue with a fool as they then are the fool themselves.

Good day to you all

Your wrong ..

If guilt is not proven...no crime...

You can't just accuse someone and then class them as a criminal...

That's just silly..."

I'll pass that on to my traumatised friend who was sexual assaulted.. Silly us thought a crime had been committed... Thank you oh wise one for showing us the error of our ways...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed

It's a suspected crime, until the verdict.

In any event, the OP was asking if he had a right to be upset about this, and of course, he does. I'm just conscious that, practically speaking, there isn't really much that can be done about it.

Some people get away with crimes. Legally they aren't criminals if they aren't convicted. Practically they still committed a crime.

Exoneration doesn't necessarily mean they didn't actually do it. Hence some places adopting a "not proven" verdict.

Lol you literally just google stuff and think that that is fact ...

Fantastic...hahahah

Yeah, I must google stuff because obviously nobody could know more than you.

And yes, I research when I am not sure of something or I want to back up my facts. It's a shame you don't or you'd realise how little you know.

Nearly every "fact" you have stated is wrong. The degree of your cluelessness is astounding. Almost as amazing as your ability to ignore facts and evidence that contradict what you believe."

I wouldn't have spent the last few hours debating with your good self if I thought what you were saying in this case was right.. But I don't believe it is...

You google legislation and try and fit it to this and it just isn't that easy.

Your FACTS are not based around what the guy actually stated..

But you study it and everything you post is plan factual...or so you think...

What are you actually studying for can I ask?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"Some people get away with crimes. Legally they aren't criminals if they aren't convicted. Practically they still committed a crime.

It's not appropriate to brand someone a criminal even after the justice system has concluded to the contrary.

No it's not.

However, say you watch a friend of yours steal something from a shop. They are your friend so you don't say anything. Nobody else sees it. Your friend is never arrested, tried or charged. Was no crime committed?

Legally, yes, they're not a criminal. They still committed a crime.

Because something is not known about or can't be proven does not mean it didn't happen.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Innocent until PROVEN guilty..

No judgement no crime...

Interesting logic, so jack the ripper didn't commit any crimes then? I'd love to see you explain that one to the victims families

...

I had thousands of pounds stolen from me... I couldn't prove it wasn't a loan... It was still stolen.. It was still a crime.

My friend was sexually assaulted.. It was their word against the others... The person wasn't prosecuted due to lack of evidence... It was still a crime.

My friend had his motorbike stolen last week.. It's not been found.. Nor has the person who stole it... So very doubtful anyone will be prosecuted... It is still a crime...

I could go on... But I'm bored now...

A wise person doesn't argue with a fool as they then are the fool themselves.

Good day to you all

Your wrong ..

If guilt is not proven...no crime...

You can't just accuse someone and then class them as a criminal...

That's just silly...

I'll pass that on to my traumatised friend who was sexual assaulted.. Silly us thought a crime had been committed... Thank you oh wise one for showing us the error of our ways... "

I don't know your friend or that facts surrounding it ...did the individual get arrested ? Charged?..sentenced??...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *razedcatMan over a year ago

London / Herts

The issue here, in truth, is the definition of "crime". Being from a legal background, I'm inclined to associate the word with the finding of guilt after a criminal trial.

But a lot of people have a less formalist definition. They use the word like the media does, to refer to any illegal act, regardless of whether it's established it WAS actually a criminal offence, who did it, and why they did it.

The word has good histrionic effect. It's an attention-grabber.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Some people get away with crimes. Legally they aren't criminals if they aren't convicted. Practically they still committed a crime.

Practically according to who? If the CPS choose not to prosecute, or the individual is found not guilty, then for all intents and purposes, they did not commit a crime.

But that's not the same as saying a crime didn't take place. We still say Nicole Simpson was murdered even though OJ Simpson is not a criminal in 1995. (Yes I know he was convicted later but that was something else).

Theres no reasonable doubt that there was a crime (murder). We just don't know who did it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Innocent until PROVEN guilty..

No judgement no crime...

Interesting logic, so jack the ripper didn't commit any crimes then? I'd love to see you explain that one to the victims families

...

I had thousands of pounds stolen from me... I couldn't prove it wasn't a loan... It was still stolen.. It was still a crime.

My friend was sexually assaulted.. It was their word against the others... The person wasn't prosecuted due to lack of evidence... It was still a crime.

My friend had his motorbike stolen last week.. It's not been found.. Nor has the person who stole it... So very doubtful anyone will be prosecuted... It is still a crime...

I could go on... But I'm bored now...

A wise person doesn't argue with a fool as they then are the fool themselves.

Good day to you all

Your wrong ..

If guilt is not proven...no crime...

You can't just accuse someone and then class them as a criminal...

That's just silly...

I'll pass that on to my traumatised friend who was sexual assaulted.. Silly us thought a crime had been committed... Thank you oh wise one for showing us the error of our ways...

I don't know your friend or that facts surrounding it ...did the individual get arrested ? Charged?..sentenced??..."

Your reading skills are immense

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed

It's a suspected crime, until the verdict.

In any event, the OP was asking if he had a right to be upset about this, and of course, he does. I'm just conscious that, practically speaking, there isn't really much that can be done about it.

Some people get away with crimes. Legally they aren't criminals if they aren't convicted. Practically they still committed a crime.

Exoneration doesn't necessarily mean they didn't actually do it. Hence some places adopting a "not proven" verdict.

Lol you literally just google stuff and think that that is fact ...

Fantastic...hahahah

Yeah, I must google stuff because obviously nobody could know more than you.

And yes, I research when I am not sure of something or I want to back up my facts. It's a shame you don't or you'd realise how little you know.

Nearly every "fact" you have stated is wrong. The degree of your cluelessness is astounding. Almost as amazing as your ability to ignore facts and evidence that contradict what you believe.

I wouldn't have spent the last few hours debating with your good self if I thought what you were saying in this case was right.. But I don't believe it is...

You google legislation and try and fit it to this and it just isn't that easy.

Your FACTS are not based around what the guy actually stated..

But you study it and everything you post is plan factual...or so you think...

What are you actually studying for can I ask?

This just goes to show that you can't read and comprehend, which proves my point.

I've already posted what I'm studying. I think it was even in a response to you.

I don't care what you believe is right. You are wrong. The facts I'm posting I know to be fact. I've provided evidence to back it up. You've provided bugger all but your "understanding" and what you "believe".

And for a third time, why was the guy in the Daily Mail article convicted if he is allowed to film whatever he likes in his own home?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

Innocent until PROVEN guilty..

No judgement no crime...

Interesting logic, so jack the ripper didn't commit any crimes then? I'd love to see you explain that one to the victims families

...

I had thousands of pounds stolen from me... I couldn't prove it wasn't a loan... It was still stolen.. It was still a crime.

My friend was sexually assaulted.. It was their word against the others... The person wasn't prosecuted due to lack of evidence... It was still a crime.

My friend had his motorbike stolen last week.. It's not been found.. Nor has the person who stole it... So very doubtful anyone will be prosecuted... It is still a crime...

I could go on... But I'm bored now...

A wise person doesn't argue with a fool as they then are the fool themselves.

Good day to you all

Your wrong ..

If guilt is not proven...no crime...

You can't just accuse someone and then class them as a criminal...

That's just silly...

I'll pass that on to my traumatised friend who was sexual assaulted.. Silly us thought a crime had been committed... Thank you oh wise one for showing us the error of our ways...

I don't know your friend or that facts surrounding it ...did the individual get arrested ? Charged?..sentenced??...

Your reading skills are immense

Yeah, they're amazing

No wonder they've no clue!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Innocent until PROVEN guilty..

No judgement no crime...

Interesting logic, so jack the ripper didn't commit any crimes then? I'd love to see you explain that one to the victims families

...

I had thousands of pounds stolen from me... I couldn't prove it wasn't a loan... It was still stolen.. It was still a crime.

My friend was sexually assaulted.. It was their word against the others... The person wasn't prosecuted due to lack of evidence... It was still a crime.

My friend had his motorbike stolen last week.. It's not been found.. Nor has the person who stole it... So very doubtful anyone will be prosecuted... It is still a crime...

I could go on... But I'm bored now...

A wise person doesn't argue with a fool as they then are the fool themselves.

Good day to you all

Your wrong ..

If guilt is not proven...no crime...

You can't just accuse someone and then class them as a criminal...

That's just silly...

I'll pass that on to my traumatised friend who was sexual assaulted.. Silly us thought a crime had been committed... Thank you oh wise one for showing us the error of our ways...

I don't know your friend or that facts surrounding it ...did the individual get arrested ? Charged?..sentenced??...

Your reading skills are immense

Clearly yours arnt that good...

I'm asking was the person convicted of assault on your friend...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed

It's a suspected crime, until the verdict.

In any event, the OP was asking if he had a right to be upset about this, and of course, he does. I'm just conscious that, practically speaking, there isn't really much that can be done about it.

Some people get away with crimes. Legally they aren't criminals if they aren't convicted. Practically they still committed a crime.

Exoneration doesn't necessarily mean they didn't actually do it. Hence some places adopting a "not proven" verdict.

Lol you literally just google stuff and think that that is fact ...

Fantastic...hahahah

Yeah, I must google stuff because obviously nobody could know more than you.

And yes, I research when I am not sure of something or I want to back up my facts. It's a shame you don't or you'd realise how little you know.

Nearly every "fact" you have stated is wrong. The degree of your cluelessness is astounding. Almost as amazing as your ability to ignore facts and evidence that contradict what you believe.

I wouldn't have spent the last few hours debating with your good self if I thought what you were saying in this case was right.. But I don't believe it is...

You google legislation and try and fit it to this and it just isn't that easy.

Your FACTS are not based around what the guy actually stated..

But you study it and everything you post is plan factual...or so you think...

What are you actually studying for can I ask?

This just goes to show that you can't read and comprehend, which proves my point.

I've already posted what I'm studying. I think it was even in a response to you.

And for a third time, why was the guy in the Daily Mail article convicted if he is allowed to film whatever he likes in his own home?"

Your basing your argument on a news paper article??

Love your fact finding trips to google.

I asked you what you were studying to become...nothing else...you need to learn to read.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"The issue here, in truth, is the definition of "crime". Being from a legal background, I'm inclined to associate the word with the finding of guilt after a criminal trial.

The word has good histrionic effect. It's an attention-grabber."

That's why I said technically and practically earlier.

Breaking a criminal law is fundamentally a crime, although factors such as intent do come into it.

Crime figures, even official ones, often refer to "undetected crime", indicating that crime that isn't discovered is still crime. Crimes for which nobody is held accountable are still crimes.

Logically we all know it's possible to commit a crime and not get caught, or to get away with it at trial.

That's not histrionics, it's just life.

Reasonable doubt isn't certainty. We err on the side of caution though, when we aren't sure.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed

It's a suspected crime, until the verdict.

In any event, the OP was asking if he had a right to be upset about this, and of course, he does. I'm just conscious that, practically speaking, there isn't really much that can be done about it.

Some people get away with crimes. Legally they aren't criminals if they aren't convicted. Practically they still committed a crime.

Exoneration doesn't necessarily mean they didn't actually do it. Hence some places adopting a "not proven" verdict.

Lol you literally just google stuff and think that that is fact ...

Fantastic...hahahah

Yeah, I must google stuff because obviously nobody could know more than you.

And yes, I research when I am not sure of something or I want to back up my facts. It's a shame you don't or you'd realise how little you know.

Nearly every "fact" you have stated is wrong. The degree of your cluelessness is astounding. Almost as amazing as your ability to ignore facts and evidence that contradict what you believe.

I wouldn't have spent the last few hours debating with your good self if I thought what you were saying in this case was right.. But I don't believe it is...

You google legislation and try and fit it to this and it just isn't that easy.

Your FACTS are not based around what the guy actually stated..

But you study it and everything you post is plan factual...or so you think...

What are you actually studying for can I ask?

This just goes to show that you can't read and comprehend, which proves my point.

I've already posted what I'm studying. I think it was even in a response to you.

And for a third time, why was the guy in the Daily Mail article convicted if he is allowed to film whatever he likes in his own home?

Your basing your argument on a news paper article??

Love your fact finding trips to google.

I asked you what you were studying to become...nothing else...you need to learn to read."

No you didn't you asked what I'm studying for. You don't even know what you're asking, never mind what anyone else is saying.

So you can't explain that specific, real-life case that shows your claim to be totally wrong then?

You can't provide any reputable legal reference to support your claim only people who live in a property can expect privacy during sex or other private acts there?

Pooh pooh my evidence all you like but you're only trying to discredit it because you know it proves you wrong and you have no counter argument.

You're just wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *razedcatMan over a year ago

London / Herts

"Theres no reasonable doubt that there was a crime (murder). We just don't know who did it. "

I did catch onto that idea a little earlier! It's true, there will be scenarios where it's apparent that a crime has been committed (grisly murders with no evidence of suicide, for example). But I'd argue that there are many cases where, although on the face of it, a crime has been committed, evidence later raised in court completely changes the story. And for that reason, I'm hesitant to label acts as "crimes" until everything is done and dusted.

In any event, the bulk of this debate is centred on whether you can single out an identified individual (i.e, the snap-happy hubby) as having committed a "crime".

"However, say you watch a friend of yours steal something from a shop. They are your friend so you don't say anything. Nobody else sees it. Your friend is never arrested, tried or charged. Was no crime committed?

Legally, yes, they're not a criminal. They still committed a crime."

But why call it a "crime" when, in the scenario you just described, none of the implications of a "crime" are present? There are no consequences that involve the police or the justice system.

I'm going to stop now, but the last thing I'd point to on this matter is that there's a reason the police arrest you "on suspicion of" committing an offence, a reason after, having accumulated a decent amount of evidence, we "charge" an individual, and then, only after having a trial, we determine if a person is guilty of the offence.

And, speaking honestly, this just boils down to semantics.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The issue here, in truth, is the definition of "crime". Being from a legal background, I'm inclined to associate the word with the finding of guilt after a criminal trial.

The word has good histrionic effect. It's an attention-grabber.

That's why I said technically and practically earlier.

Breaking a criminal law is fundamentally a crime, although factors such as intent do come into it.

Crime figures, even official ones, often refer to "undetected crime", indicating that crime that isn't discovered is still crime. Crimes for which nobody is held accountable are still crimes.

Logically we all know it's possible to commit a crime and not get caught, or to get away with it at trial.

That's not histrionics, it's just life.

Reasonable doubt isn't certainty. We err on the side of caution though, when we aren't sure."

You contradict your own argument...

You say " my facts are facts " yet when someone points out that that the law is always interpreted different ...you can't take it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Theres no reasonable doubt that there was a crime (murder). We just don't know who did it.

In any event, the bulk of this debate is centred on whether you can single out an identified individual (i.e, the snap-happy hubby) as having committed a "crime".

Legally, yes, they're not a criminal. They still committed a crime.

But why call it a "crime" when, in the scenario you just described, none of the implications of a "crime" are present? There are no consequences that involve the police or the justice system.

And, speaking honestly, this just boils down to semantics."

Agreed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"The issue here, in truth, is the definition of "crime". Being from a legal background, I'm inclined to associate the word with the finding of guilt after a criminal trial.

The word has good histrionic effect. It's an attention-grabber.

That's why I said technically and practically earlier.

Breaking a criminal law is fundamentally a crime, although factors such as intent do come into it.

Crime figures, even official ones, often refer to "undetected crime", indicating that crime that isn't discovered is still crime. Crimes for which nobody is held accountable are still crimes.

Logically we all know it's possible to commit a crime and not get caught, or to get away with it at trial.

That's not histrionics, it's just life.

Reasonable doubt isn't certainty. We err on the side of caution though, when we aren't sure.

You contradict your own argument...

You say " my facts are facts " yet when someone points out that that the law is always interpreted different ...you can't take it."

I could accept your claims if you weren't talking rubbish, if you could back a single one of them up, or effectively counter evidence which proves you wrong.

The scenario we are discussing is illegal. Fact.

The CPS can and do prosecute. Fact.

People usually have an expectation of privacy during sex or other private acts in private places, including other people's homes. Fact.

Prove otherwise.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed

It's a suspected crime, until the verdict.

In any event, the OP was asking if he had a right to be upset about this, and of course, he does. I'm just conscious that, practically speaking, there isn't really much that can be done about it.

Some people get away with crimes. Legally they aren't criminals if they aren't convicted. Practically they still committed a crime.

Exoneration doesn't necessarily mean they didn't actually do it. Hence some places adopting a "not proven" verdict.

Lol you literally just google stuff and think that that is fact ...

Fantastic...hahahah

Yeah, I must google stuff because obviously nobody could know more than you.

And yes, I research when I am not sure of something or I want to back up my facts. It's a shame you don't or you'd realise how little you know.

Nearly every "fact" you have stated is wrong. The degree of your cluelessness is astounding. Almost as amazing as your ability to ignore facts and evidence that contradict what you believe.

I wouldn't have spent the last few hours debating with your good self if I thought what you were saying in this case was right.. But I don't believe it is...

You google legislation and try and fit it to this and it just isn't that easy.

Your FACTS are not based around what the guy actually stated..

But you study it and everything you post is plan factual...or so you think...

What are you actually studying for can I ask?

This just goes to show that you can't read and comprehend, which proves my point.

I've already posted what I'm studying. I think it was even in a response to you.

And for a third time, why was the guy in the Daily Mail article convicted if he is allowed to film whatever he likes in his own home?

Your basing your argument on a news paper article??

Love your fact finding trips to google.

I asked you what you were studying to become...nothing else...you need to learn to read.

No you didn't you asked what I'm studying for. You don't even know what you're asking, never mind what anyone else is saying.

So you can't explain that specific, real-life case that shows your claim to be totally wrong then?

You can't provide any reputable legal reference to support your claim only people who live in a property can expect privacy during sex or other private acts there?

Pooh pooh my evidence all you like but you're only trying to discredit it because you know it proves you wrong and you have no counter argument.

You're just wrong."

You can't take someone else has a different take on things...

Poor you ...

Lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

Legally, yes, they're not a criminal. They still committed a crime."

But why call it a "crime" when, in the scenario you just described, none of the implications of a "crime" are present? There are no consequences that involve the police or the justice system."

Because you know stealing is a crime.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"Whether prosecuted or not.. It's still a crime.

Many criminals get away with things because of lack of evidence... Doesn't mean no crime was committed

It's a suspected crime, until the verdict.

In any event, the OP was asking if he had a right to be upset about this, and of course, he does. I'm just conscious that, practically speaking, there isn't really much that can be done about it.

Some people get away with crimes. Legally they aren't criminals if they aren't convicted. Practically they still committed a crime.

Exoneration doesn't necessarily mean they didn't actually do it. Hence some places adopting a "not proven" verdict.

Lol you literally just google stuff and think that that is fact ...

Fantastic...hahahah

Yeah, I must google stuff because obviously nobody could know more than you.

And yes, I research when I am not sure of something or I want to back up my facts. It's a shame you don't or you'd realise how little you know.

Nearly every "fact" you have stated is wrong. The degree of your cluelessness is astounding. Almost as amazing as your ability to ignore facts and evidence that contradict what you believe.

I wouldn't have spent the last few hours debating with your good self if I thought what you were saying in this case was right.. But I don't believe it is...

You google legislation and try and fit it to this and it just isn't that easy.

Your FACTS are not based around what the guy actually stated..

But you study it and everything you post is plan factual...or so you think...

What are you actually studying for can I ask?

This just goes to show that you can't read and comprehend, which proves my point.

I've already posted what I'm studying. I think it was even in a response to you.

And for a third time, why was the guy in the Daily Mail article convicted if he is allowed to film whatever he likes in his own home?

Your basing your argument on a news paper article??

Love your fact finding trips to google.

I asked you what you were studying to become...nothing else...you need to learn to read.

No you didn't you asked what I'm studying for. You don't even know what you're asking, never mind what anyone else is saying.

So you can't explain that specific, real-life case that shows your claim to be totally wrong then?

You can't provide any reputable legal reference to support your claim only people who live in a property can expect privacy during sex or other private acts there?

Pooh pooh my evidence all you like but you're only trying to discredit it because you know it proves you wrong and you have no counter argument.

You're just wrong.

You can't take someone else has a different take on things...

Poor you ...

Lol"

Yeah, like 2+2=5 is a different take.

You still can't admit you are wrong, back up any of your claims or explain away any evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

Poor you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Theres no reasonable doubt that there was a crime (murder). We just don't know who did it.

But that's not fundamentally different from "crimes" that were done and dusted until DNA evidence came along and created reasonable doubt or miscarriage of justice cases...

Statistically speaking it's really not that hard to find 12 adults who are complete and utter morons. In a big enough sample, with enough trials there will be an alarmingly high number of trials where the jury have, for all intentions and purposes, a mental age of about 10.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 03/04/16 12:55:08]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Bloody hell is this legal row still going on.... Come on guys it is getting boring now. No one is going to win as everyone thinks they are right. In the broader scheme of things does it really matter, take a deep breath relax and lets all leave it now xxxx

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

"Bloody hell is this legal row still going on.... Come on guys it is getting boring now. No one is going to win as everyone thinks they are right. In the broader scheme of things does it really matter, take a deep breath relax and lets all leave it now xxxx"

Good point.

Besides, with the information and links I've provided, anyone with half a brain can see what the facts are. Reiterating them won't help those who haven't got it by now.

I'm off to do something productive.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman over a year ago

evesham

Innocent until PROVEN guilty..

No judgement no crime...

Interesting logic, so jack the ripper didn't commit any crimes then? I'd love to see you explain that one to the victims families

...

I had thousands of pounds stolen from me... I couldn't prove it wasn't a loan... It was still stolen.. It was still a crime.

My friend was sexually assaulted.. It was their word against the others... The person wasn't prosecuted due to lack of evidence... It was still a crime.

My friend had his motorbike stolen last week.. It's not been found.. Nor has the person who stole it... So very doubtful anyone will be prosecuted... It is still a crime...

I could go on... But I'm bored now...

A wise person doesn't argue with a fool as they then are the fool themselves.

Good day to you all

Your wrong ..

If guilt is not proven...no crime...

You can't just accuse someone and then class them as a criminal...

That's just silly..."

Bollocks. Complete and utter bollocks. Someone being found not guilty of a crime just means they had a good defence lawyer who can argue a loophole.

One that comes up on here a lot is speeding. People know they are speeding but get away without punishment because the coppers left back tyre was touching private property they hadn't asked to use. They are still guilty of speeding but procedural errors meant no punishment could be awarded.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Am I right to be really pissed about this? If it had been discussed beforehand that they wanted to film and how they were going to use it I probably wouldn't have an issue with it; but they didn't and I've got no idea where that footage might end up."
You are VERY right in being very pissed! What a joker!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"However the only people that usually complain about being filmed are Those that were up to no good "
And your assumption is based on what?

"Maybe swingers should now have two bowls at the front door one for carkeys n one for mobile phones"
Excellent idea!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You are right to be pissed off...this is one of the reasons I would never meet in anyone's home! Unless you are happy to be filmed or photographed please exercise caution. It is not worth the worry. Privacy should be paramount on fab

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

we always state we like pics and vids,all would be shared,what they done was wrong

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Didn't really get chance to reply to the actual OPs post fully as (my fault) was dealing with another member's 'I know it all attitude'.

Should he be pissed off about being filmed? ...hmmmm

I think going to a strangers house to take part in a three sum or more sum with a married couple needs to be discussed.

The op should have made it clear via text or phone call before the meet what he was and wasn't happy with...if then he still found he was being filmed covertly he should have raised questions there and then.

My guess ( and it is only a guess)..he was more than happy to fuck the female and even though he thought he was being filmed still carried on. Then when he had cum and the cold light of day hit on the way home he got annoyed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *horey OP Man over a year ago

Calne

Nope, left before I'd had any sexual contact (just been giving her a massage) as soon as I realised I was being filmed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

Nope, left before I'd had any sexual contact (just been giving her a massage) as soon as I realised I was being filmed."

We would have done the same after watching the person delete what they'd filmed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Nope, left before I'd had any sexual contact (just been giving her a massage) as soon as I realised I was being filmed."

So there was no sexual contact.... So your annoyed that you got filmed giving a massage to a hot woman??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I think he was annoyed that if hadn't of noticed they would of filmed the whole thing!

I film meets but I have it on my profile and mention in first few messages, I explain why I film and who will see it. I even watch it back on the meet so they can see what was filmed x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

Nope, left before I'd had any sexual contact (just been giving her a massage) as soon as I realised I was being filmed.

So there was no sexual contact.... So your annoyed that you got filmed giving a massage to a hot woman??"

No, he got annoyed that they didn't tell him.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ee VianteWoman over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

It's up to people going to a meet at someone's house to specify the terms and state upfront what is and isn't ok, e.g. they're not happy to be filmed?

Rather than the host asking if it's ok to film?

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

However, you have to wonder why someone is so invested in continuing to believe it's ok to covertly film people visiting their home for sex. I'd be declining to meet anyone with that attitude, personally, and suggesting others think very carefully about it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)