FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swingers Chat > Dogging and the Voyeurism Act
Dogging and the Voyeurism Act
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm led to believe that if a member of the public doesn't complain and its done away from the public eye you cannot be cautioned. The police can ask and note down your details as to why you are in the area but only as a reference in case they have to deal with an incident around the time you were there. Don't quote me on that though but it sounds feasible. " I can tell you the letter of the law on this one as we live close to a well known doggers venue and this came up in Newton Abbot magistrates court a couple of years ago.... The police officer concerned in the caution/arrest can be considered as the member of the public who has been offended by the (sexual) act. Not so long ago the Police, aided by the Forestry Commission, blocked off a well known dogging carpark close to us, they then made everyone leave the carpark by the only entrance/exit and as they did so they were stopped, their details taken, their number plates photographed, and all registered owners of the vehicles received a cautionary letter detailing the police concerns. A little embarrassing for company car/van owners concerned, and guys that were there alone but driving a car registered to their wife... So you do not have to have caused outrage or offence to a member of the public as the attending police officer/s count as the public. | |||
| |||
"I'm led to believe that if a member of the public doesn't complain and its done away from the public eye you cannot be cautioned. The police can ask and note down your details as to why you are in the area but only as a reference in case they have to deal with an incident around the time you were there. Don't quote me on that though but it sounds feasible. I can tell you the letter of the law on this one as we live close to a well known doggers venue and this came up in Newton Abbot magistrates court a couple of years ago.... The police officer concerned in the caution/arrest can be considered as the member of the public who has been offended by the (sexual) act. Not so long ago the Police, aided by the Forestry Commission, blocked off a well known dogging carpark close to us, they then made everyone leave the carpark by the only entrance/exit and as they did so they were stopped, their details taken, their number plates photographed, and all registered owners of the vehicles received a cautionary letter detailing the police concerns. A little embarrassing for company car/van owners concerned, and guys that were there alone but driving a car registered to their wife... So you do not have to have caused outrage or offence to a member of the public as the attending police officer/s count as the public." That is what i'm led to believe, if no one complains police officer or not they can carry on regardless although away from the public eye. Was this officer in question off duty. If he was offended and was there whilst the acts were happening i'm sure another officer would had took on the role of questioning the "victim" as he made the complaint. I hope that makes sense 
I would ask my police officer mate but i can't be letting him know i have been dogging before  | |||
| |||
"Sorry but you may have misunderstood me....No, the Officer/s do not have to be off duty, they can appear in court and state that they found the act/incident offensive. Offending public decency doesn't mean a member of the public needs to be happening along, a police officer on duty counts as a person who felt offended." This is true,we have been told about this by a couple who swing who are also police officers. | |||
 | |||
"????????????? should be banned in public n peeps pay a sum of cash if caught ,,,,best bet id say is keep sexually activities to your home n proffesional clubs,,n places that do nudeism. simples. "No way ... That would spoil my fun | |||
| |||
"'Outraging public decency is an indictable offence. Any person who carries out an act of obscene nature in the public can be charged with this offence. There is no need for the intention to affect disgust or annoy the public or not by his or her actions. By ‘in the public’ it is meant that there is a possibility that more than one person sees these actions. If this behaviour takes place in the private, a person cannot be charged with this offence. Conviction on indictment or fine or imprisonment on summary conviction is a maximum of 6 months or a fine. A person can be found guilty of conspiracy to outraging public policy if that person makes an agreement with another person to engage in an obscene conduct'. As stated in Law.... " hERE HERE i agree with u there !! i agree. | |||
"hERE HERE i agree with u there !! i agree. "You agree with everyone though... | |||
"hERE HERE i agree with u there !! i agree.
You agree with everyone though..."Yes I agree with you that he agrees with everyone and so does my Mum...  | |||
.
We thought it was a try on, as under the 2003 Act, there was no offence being committed. | |||
"Our belief was that the policeman was just clearing the carpark and using this as an excuse. There was nothing going on at the time to outrage any one, not even readers of the Daily Mail .
We thought it was a try on, as under the 2003 Act, there was no offence being committed."Is it the Daily Mail readers who get offended too easily? Personally i prefer the Sun | |||
" Basically the rules are laid out in these 2 main parts of legislation.. 2003 Sex Act, Section 66 "Exposure". 2003 Sex Act, Section 67 "Voyeurism". " 67 Voyeurism (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and (b) he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification. Now according to section 67 (pasted above as is) no one could ever be convicted of voyeurism at a dogging meet as it is reasonable to assume the participants being viewed consent to that viewing? The other parts of section 67 refer to recording images, but the same point applies. 66 Exposure (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and (b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. And apparently under section 66 only males could be prosecuted. So the Missus can show whatever bits she likes to the voyeurs of either sex without reproach?. Well that's certainly what it says in the letter of the law So if you go dogging and you don't get your cock out all seems ok we can't say from experience as we've never indulged in this activity oursleves | |||
XXXX | |||
"Our belief was that the policeman was just clearing the carpark and using this as an excuse. There was nothing going on at the time to outrage any one, not even readers of the Daily Mail .
We thought it was a try on, as under the 2003 Act, there was no offence being committed."So write to your Chief Constable and ask him WTF is going on, why you and your friends, simply out enjoying the Summer evening, were moved on. I mean, it's not like you were conspiring to commit the offence above were you? Because you weren't, were you? Oh nooooo, no sir-ee, you were um, meteor watching or something. The reason they can get away with doing things like this is because no-one wants to stick their head above the parapet and make a fuss. This confirms that you were actually either committing an offence or conspiring to commit that offence, justifying the police action. As with the example quoted above somewhere, sending letters back to a vehicle's registered owner works because most people are mortified. (Personally, I believe there may be data protection issues involved here, but I'm no solicitor and I'm sure Plod has covered his arse anyway.) The point is, if people kicked off a stink because they were being branded as what boils down to be "sex offenders", they'd have to provide proof you were offending and nick you, or back off. All it would take is someone with a bit of front, who doesn't actually give a shit that everyone KNOWS why you were there, but will still stand up and demand explanations as to why they were branded as a criminal, without any offence being observed, committed or even conspired. Unfortunately those kind of thick-skinned people are rare, most people will talk the talk, but not walk the walk, understandably perhaps. Anyway, when you start writing letters, Mr Head Plod then has a paper trail to adhere to, a little procedural flow chart to follow. He has to write back, investigate with the officer, blah blah. He doesn't want to be doing that, he wants to be playing golf with the Home Secretary or fucking rent boys, whatever Chief Constables do when they aren't out at Gala dinners and COBRA meetings, like maybe catching burglars. (Ha, "burglars", yeah right!) He will then "advise" his subordinates that maybe they go and do something that won't involve him having to deal with members of the public, perish the thought. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
" When requested by a land owner the police have every right to move you on as they are working on that request. " What a joke that is!!! Why don't they move on the "travellers camp" that is on the other racecourse side of Haldon? Because they can't, won't don't know how too!!! The law is an arse. The only reason they pick on doggers is because they are (apart from doggin) law abiding people who don't want to go to court cause it would be 
| |||
"what have readers of the daily mail or the sun got to do with it?,no daily mirror readers about at all?." because they are always "outraged" at any form of what they consider deviance and are bugging annoyin prudish gits with nothin better to do but whinge about stuff that they dont understand! personally i read the herald or daily record at a push xx | |||
| |||
"The bottom line seems to depend on how prudish the attending officer is.
XXXX"Seems to me that if an officer goes to a place to see exhibitionists/doggers in order to arrest/caution, then he is going willing to see these things and is guilty of exactly that he is accusing others of? isn't he? | |||
"They don't "read" as such, they just look at the pretty pictures." ho ho ho!,very droll indeed!. | |||
| |||
"Does anyone know if being 'voyeured' by others on this site and 'exposing yourself' on webcam is deemed as being illegal? I'm sure it's not, or Fabswingers wouldn't let us do it! But, to set my mind at ease.....!" on here it is consentual on sights like omegle it is random people so can be ileagle to play on | |||
| |||
 | |||
But the officer in question was a rather "obnoxious twat" from the off...
How do we know that?
It was our car they were sat in 
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Thanx wantsumlove! Everybody else has just gone on about dogging in carparks again! Doh! Mwah! xxx "errrr not sure why that comment was made to me , i never did the post !! luv you too xxxx | |||
| |||
"To be fair to the landowners, the car parks were being badly abused after the hours of darkness. What started out with a few doggers turned into it becoming mass organised sex parties with camper vans attending en mass. The downside to this was dozens of used condoms being strewn around carparks being used in the daytimes by families making use of them for what they were built into the forest for.This is the main problem if all diggers just took their used noddys home and didn't leave them everywhere Joe public wouldn't even know they were there the night before!!!! The police have suddenly got very visible around here again god knows why in still waiting for them to visit me after my van was stolen.. 3 years ago yeah thanks lads 6 grands worth of van n tools not 1 plod round to investigate but consenting adults in the middle of the night how dare they!! I suppose the Forestry Commision and the National Trust had a point, not much fun for a family sitting down on a picnic table covered in used condoms. Thanks to the internet it got out of hand, like many dogging venues I should imagine." | |||
| |||
| |||
" most dogging sites are family venues during the daytime and no one wants to see this sort of rubbish left around when out with the kids." People leave their used condoms around? how stupid is that - haven't they heard of DNA? DUMB! | |||
"Our belief was that the policeman was just clearing the carpark and using this as an excuse. There was nothing going on at the time to outrage any one, not even readers of the Daily Mail .
We thought it was a try on, as under the 2003 Act, there was no offence being committed.
So write to your Chief Constable and ask him WTF is going on, why you and your friends, simply out enjoying the Summer evening, were moved on. I mean, it's not like you were conspiring to commit the offence above were you? Because you weren't, were you?
Oh nooooo, no sir-ee, you were um, meteor watching or something.
The reason they can get away with doing things like this is because no-one wants to stick their head above the parapet and make a fuss. This confirms that you were actually either committing an offence or conspiring to commit that offence, justifying the police action.
As with the example quoted above somewhere, sending letters back to a vehicle's registered owner works because most people are mortified. (Personally, I believe there may be data protection issues involved here, but I'm no solicitor and I'm sure Plod has covered his arse anyway.)
The point is, if people kicked off a stink because they were being branded as what boils down to be "sex offenders", they'd have to provide proof you were offending and nick you, or back off.
All it would take is someone with a bit of front, who doesn't actually give a shit that everyone KNOWS why you were there, but will still stand up and demand explanations as to why they were branded as a criminal, without any offence being observed, committed or even conspired. Unfortunately those kind of thick-skinned people are rare, most people will talk the talk, but not walk the walk, understandably perhaps.
Anyway, when you start writing letters, Mr Head Plod then has a paper trail to adhere to, a little procedural flow chart to follow. He has to write back, investigate with the officer, blah blah. He doesn't want to be doing that, he wants to be playing golf with the Home Secretary or fucking rent boys, whatever Chief Constables do when they aren't out at Gala dinners and COBRA meetings, like maybe catching burglars. (Ha, "burglars", yeah right!)
He will then "advise" his subordinates that maybe they go and do something that won't involve him having to deal with members of the public, perish the thought. "Well said, if this happened to me I would certainly question their right to keep my name and any photos on record and would kick up a right ol stink if they did. | |||
"The piece of land where the Exeter New Age travellers are squatting on is not the property of the Forestry Commission, it is presently the property of Devon County Council, but soon to be handed over to Teignbridge District Council. Teignbridge intend to turn it into a legal site for travellers. Whereas the dogging carparks up there are the property of the Forestry Commission who asked the police to move doggers on. The carparks are soon to be fitted with 'Dusk to Dawn' gates anyway so it won't matter." I dislike that dusk to dawn gating. I don't go dogging but there are some marvelous places to enjoy the sunset and sunrise views and this makes it impossible. | |||
