 |
By *adybirds OP Couple
over a year ago
brynmawr near Ebbw Vale. Abergavenny |
South wales police have just announced that dogging in thier area will be treated as anti social and asbo.s will be issued. Was spoken to by a female officer tonight at 11.30. take heed guys. any legal feedback is welcomed. Fly tipping already started at the wenault lets hope they regret stopping us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *adybirds OP Couple
over a year ago
brynmawr near Ebbw Vale. Abergavenny |
thinking time to chalnge the old bill i was just camping , not dogging as was all but aslep in the camper van , since when has camping been , illegal . even if it is where dogging takes place .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Got this from another site I am not a legal boffin so don't know how accurate the informations is or if it is the relevant laws
"2003 Sex Act, Section 66 "Exposure" and
2003 Sex Act, Section 67 "Voyeurism".
So, in plain English the two main points to consider are:
Under section 66, the issue is intent to cause distress or alarm, so as long as you take sensible measures to not be viewed by innocent by-standers like choosing remote areas for your meetings and preferably late at night then IN THEORY you are making no malicious intent to cause distress or alarm.
Under section 67, the important thing is to make certain you have received an obvious invitation to watch people dogging, it's all about consent, so as long as you aren't deliberately sneaking up on 'non-dogging' courting couples who had no intention of being watched by anyone then IN THEORY you should be okay."
Looks like there's been some porkies told  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I can understand it in the day when families may be about but can not for the life of me work out the harm its doing 12 o,clock or later in the night. Four times the police drove into castell coch the other week this was one in the morning surely their time is better spent elsewhere rather than trying to catch the four cars that were there "at it" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Maybe they are looking for a cheap thrill, or even join in. Enough stories in the papers, about police doing things they shouldn't whilst on duty..
Word gets around etc...
First serious pron film I saw was from an ex of a police man who got it from the station, but... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Got this from another site I am not a legal boffin so don't know how accurate the informations is or if it is the relevant laws
2003 Sex Act, Section 66 "Exposure" and
2003 Sex Act, Section 67 "Voyeurism".
So, in plain English the two main points to consider are:
Under section 66, the issue is intent to cause distress or alarm, so as long as you take sensible measures to not be viewed by innocent by-standers like choosing remote areas for your meetings and preferably late at night then IN THEORY you are making no malicious intent to cause distress or alarm.
Under section 67, the important thing is to make certain you have received an obvious invitation to watch people dogging, it's all about consent, so as long as you aren't deliberately sneaking up on 'non-dogging' courting couples who had no intention of being watched by anyone then IN THEORY you should be okay.
Looks like there's been some porkies told "
I know a policeman, he says that those laws can be used in their favour, as they can be doing routine checks and see this "action" and be "distressed" about it.
Because the majority of sites are so well known, they are known to the police too. Also locals don't like this type of "action" going on in their area so will report it, weather its happening or not so the police have to go check it out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Due to a recent 'rule' change.
The courts expect the police to be more robust e.g. they can't be harassment, alarm or distress by swearing.
This will soon work it's way to other things, so if a policeperson (I know) is the only one to be shocked it's unlikely to be enough (without splitting hairs...) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
