"On finding out what you had done many of them became distressed and frightened," according to Judge Jonathon Finestein.

His offence? Taking photographs of persons in public.

Is it really the case that taking photographs of persons in public is now an offence? Or is it merely an offence if they are teenagers? Or must they also be female?

But now, if I suspect a crime has taken place and wish to capture the suspect on my phone and she happens to be a teenager, would I then be committing an offence? I like to think not. Or what if I am taking a photograph of a building and just then a teenage girl walks past. I assume this is not an offence.

Does it follow, then, that I am only committing an offence if I obtain pleasure from looking at the photographs?

"Pervert", "targeted", "caught", "sex pest".

I cannot resist the conclusion that much of this offence is in the eye of the beholder and no material harm has been done. Furthermore, the offensive part is the deriving of pleasure from looking, evidently. Are we on the cusp of vilifying the mere act of looking at teenage girls in public? If not, what is so harmful about capturing for private pleasure what is already available to public view?

The more I think about it the more questions arise. Is photographing teenage boys OK? What about boys over 15? What about adult women, or men? What about ladies in knee-length skirts? How about politicians, if I have a fetish for them? Or should we say a reasonable politician would not become distressed or frightened so it's OK? But was it reasonable for the girls to become distressed and frightened? If they had not noticed they were being photographed, then, would that make it OK?

I really struggle to believe that we have really reached the stage where merely capturing someone's likeness in public may be an offence. And what about all the surveillance cameras? There seems to be no consistency to the application of this? Can we be sure that the person reviewing the surveillance footage does not obtain pleasure from teenage girls contained therein? Would it be an offence of he did?

Perhaps the scariest part of all this is that to be seen defending this man is to risk being branded a pervert oneself.

I may be on completely the wrong tack with this story, but something about it just causes alarm bells for me, just as the story about JK's conviction did all those years ago. I'd be interested to know what others think about this? Am I missing something? Should this conduct really be criminalized in this way?

The main story is here: www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/gre...hole-salford-5759638

Another account is here: www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features...verts-picture-fetish

"Outraging public decency" is a bit vague.
It is a made up offence that is really a licence to prosecute whoever they want whenever they feel like.

agree with honey etc..a law designed as a catch all for anything someone doesn't like.

yet girls of that age are plastering pix of themselves all over Facebook and Instagram (tools of the devil).

society has gone bonkers..people now 'distressed' because someone may have their photograph.

Thanks Hedda,

"yet girls of that age are plastering pix of themselves all over Facebook and Instagram."

Very good point. And just today, if I dare mention it, I saw what for all the world looked like a prepubescent girl with her mother dressed in an outfit that revealed part of her buttocks. I just looked at her mother and thought, "What are you thinking? Why would you dress her up in a way designed to draw the eye to what is not there yet?". I remain puzzled.

Jim wrote:
Thanks Hedda,

"yet girls of that age are plastering pix of themselves all over Facebook and Instagram."

Very good point. And just today, if I dare mention it, I saw what for all the world looked like a prepubescent girl with her mother dressed in an outfit that revealed part of her buttocks. I just looked at her mother and thought, "What are you thinking? Why would you dress her up in a way designed to draw the eye to what is not there yet?". I remain puzzled.
I dare say this mother was probably pregnant at 16, herself. A bit of a tart & so is just passing that on to her daughter as her "role" model. We must be in the 3rd generation of cool to be preggy at 16, with no possibility of being married or the forthcoming child, having a father. The bastard society, that makes a bastard of itself. It started around 1976. Maybe the society of various 53 year old women, now claiming they were abused by a "celebrity" but it was actually a dongo from bongo bongo land.

From reading the article, it's clear his motives were taking pictures of schoolgirls using his mobile phone.
Where he does it say he was taking photos of anything else other than that?
I get where you're coming from and yes someone innocently taking photos could be wrongly accused but in this case
the man is behaving oddly.
Same for this man who was caught exposing himself to woman and capturing their reactions.
www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news...osed-himself-5786311

Jim asks some good questions.

I'll limit my contribution here to commenting on the charge of "outraging public decency."

Any use of this offence by the UK authorities (or those of any other EU member state) violates Article 10 (Freedom of Expression). The authority for this is contained in the well-known case Handyside vs UK from 1976 which held that

"Freedom of expression...is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population." [my emphasis]

Since the Human Rights Act was passed in 1998, convictions for outraging public decency, as well as quite a few other offences, have not complied with the UK's own law and are therefore null and void.

Thanks Tuppenceworth, you write:

"..are therefore null and void."

Do you mean he should take it to the European Court?

You sound well-informed. Legal type?

MCR Media wrote:
From reading the article, it's clear his motives were taking pictures of schoolgirls using his mobile phone.
Where he does it say he was taking photos of anything else other than that?
I get where you're coming from and yes someone innocently taking photos could be wrongly accused but in this case
the man is behaving oddly.
Same for this man who was caught exposing himself to woman and capturing their reactions.
www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news...osed-himself-5786311

the judge and public have decided upon nil evidence he is a 'pedo' and pervert.

Admiring youth has now become a perversion.

This law isn't on the books in NSW and about 5 years ago an 86 year old retired barrister was arrested taking snaps of schoolboys. He defended himself and won..told the court "I admire youth but have no interest in sleeping with them and there isn't a frigging thing you can do about it so butt out of my life. You are the perverts with your fevered imaginations "...won and got costs.

MCR Media wrote:
From reading the article, it's clear his motives were taking pictures of schoolgirls using his mobile phone.
Where he does it say he was taking photos of anything else other than that?
I get where you're coming from and yes someone innocently taking photos could be wrongly accused but in this case
the man is behaving oddly.
Same for this man who was caught exposing himself to woman and capturing their reactions.
www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news...osed-himself-5786311

He probably deserved the thumping he got but it was still an invented crime that could be used against anyone with a camera on their phone.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
MCR Media wrote:
From reading the article, it's clear his motives were taking pictures of schoolgirls using his mobile phone.
Where he does it say he was taking photos of anything else other than that?
I get where you're coming from and yes someone innocently taking photos could be wrongly accused but in this case
the man is behaving oddly.
Same for this man who was caught exposing himself to woman and capturing their reactions.
www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news...osed-himself-5786311

He probably deserved the thumping he got but it was still an invented crime that could be used against anyone with a camera on their phone.

I hear a lot of women (and quite a few men) have been congregating at Jamboree Stone, near Streetly Gate for a repeat performance.

Jim wrote:
Thanks Tuppenceworth, you write:

"..are therefore null and void."

Do you mean he should take it to the European Court?

You sound well-informed. Legal type?

I claim no special legal authority myself, Jim. I'm just an interested and increasingly concerned observer of what's happening in societies that are supposed to be liberal democracies.

That said, what I'm pointing out here is the contradiction between laws that criminalise conduct that might be considered to breach a vague standard of offensiveness, and the provisions of the Human Rights Act, which do not empower EU states to restrict freedom of expression on the basis of offensiveness. Since all domestic laws must be Human Rights-compliant, Article 10 of the Act supercedes the charge of outraging public decency and any use of the latter is not lawful.

There was another recent example in France of someone who had been fined for insulting the president, under a law some 150 years old that had never been repealed. The insulter appealed, invoking his Article 10 rights and won, prompting the deletion of the law from France's statute books.