BBC Radio producer jailed over sex videoing

[Nitefly]

I accept your points Dolph but the chap did secretly record himself and five other women without their consent. That is how the whole thing started and the law says ( rightly or wrongly ) that is voyeurism.

At the end of the day, he has no legal defence at all in making the tapes whether they are for his own use and privately and securely stored or not.

That said, do I think he warrants 8 months and 10 years on the SOR ? No I don't.

Agreed, but the only part of the sentence I disagree with is being put on the sex register for so long.

I'd also point out that I would fully support civil damages in the above case, I just oppose the idea that this should be a criminal matter. Civil law is more than adequate for dealing with youtube et al issues.

It's suitable for a criminal offence because its exploitation of someone's privacy regarding their sex life, which is personal and degrading. Accordingly, he deserves to lose his unconscionable unjust enrichment from his activities - there is to some extent a retributive element. That separates torts from crimes. Furthermore, such an act it worthy of the stigmatisation of a criminal offence for purposes of deterrence.

Also, interesting use of caveat emptor you employed there...

 

[bazaarboy]

Agreed, but the only part of the sentence I disagree with is being put on the sex register for so long.



It's suitable for a criminal offence because its exploitation of someone's privacy regarding their sex life, which is personal and degrading. Accordingly, he deserves to lose his unconscionable unjust enrichment from his activities - there is to some extent a retributive element. That separates torts from crimes. Furthermore, such an act it worthy of the stigmatisation of a criminal offence for purposes of deterrence.

Also, interesting use of caveat emptor you employed there...

I'm not sure it's so clear cut -

If you attend a concert and record the event for subsequent playback, purely for personal use, ie not for profit, there is an element unjust enrichment.
The artist would therefore be entitled to pursue you in a civil court and make a claim, eg for lost earnings - or whatever.

In the case in question the man made a recording that he subsequently used for personal viewing.
What he recorded was a consensual act and at the time of the event there were no expressed grievances.
If prostitution was legal the women could have made a claim against him for financial compensation.

Although there is a criminal element to it (voyerism), just like in the concert example, the civil element weighs more (loss of earning, hurt feelings etc).
In fact the criminal element is quite minor - would you expect an 8 month sentence if you admitted to recording (for your own use only) a few songs at Glastonbury?

To compound it - he got 10 years on the SOR.
I think most people reading the case as it has been reported (I'm sure there's more to it...) would agree that ruling is unjust!

 

[Nitefly]

I'm not sure it's so clear cut -

If you attend a concert and record the event for subsequent playback, purely for personal use, ie not for profit, there is an element unjust enrichment.
The artist would therefore be entitled to pursue you in a civil court and make a claim, eg for lost earnings - or whatever.

In the case in question the man made a recording that he subsequently used for personal viewing.
What he recorded was a consensual act and at the time of the event there were no expressed grievances.
If prostitution was legal the women could have made a claim against him for financial compensation.

Although there is a criminal element to it (voyerism), just like in the concert example, the civil element weighs more (loss of earning, hurt feelings etc).
In fact the criminal element is quite minor - would you expect an 8 month sentence if you admitted to recording (for your own use only) a few songs at Glastonbury?

To compound it - he got 10 years on the SOR.
I think most people reading the case as it has been reported (I'm sure there's more to it...) would agree that ruling is unjust!

I'm sorry but you cannot possibly compare bootlegging to sexual exploitation, it just does not compute.

 

[steve-h]

I never said I did...

You were making a point of me not knowing them... when it's pretty clear neither of us do

Blackmail, to sale them or just to be a prat?

I must have missed that part in the article (yes sarcasm)

Very true but not every one wants it do it in public or have it display every time their ex partner wants to show their mates or fap over it. Its called privacy, its something that people go to a lot of trouble to protect. Some people couldn't careless about it others do, which is the whole point behind the law.

He kept for personal use it looks like... I don't see the problem myself, I doubt we would have even heard about it if the girlfriend hadn't mailed it to his ex.

 

[Jokester]

I think that's the point here, those that are saying he shouldn't have been jailed/sex offenderised are taking the fact he didn't distribute them into account. If he had there's a clear privacy issue that would justifiy some criminal case against him (again not sure about the sex offender part).

Edit: And just to make it clear, just because someone might do something isn't grounds for their conviction.

 

[bazaarboy]

I'm sorry but you cannot possibly compare bootlegging to sexual exploitation, it just does not compute.

care to outline the example of sexual exploitation?

Did the women suffer loss of earnings / public humiliation?
Did the man make a material gain, whether financial or by allowing others to gain from divulged private events?

There's enough real sexual exploitation happening with young girls trafficked around the world. I can understand there was a violation of privacy, but not sexual exploitation

 

[steve-h]

Plus it's making a joke out of the sex offenders register... just like the guy caught humping his bike in his hotel room.

 

[Hostile_18]

Bringing the tone down a little... but what would Jim of got sentenced on American Pie with his webcam antics!? haha.

 

[Nitefly]

care to outline the example of sexual exploitation?

The recording of her sexual acts without her consent is the exploitation in question.

Loss of earnings and material gain have nothing to do with it and I'm really not sure why you are bringing them up.

 

[bazaarboy]

The recording of her sexual acts without her consent is the exploitation in question.

... no, that's called invasion of privacy

Loss of earnings and material gain have nothing to do with it and I'm really not sure why you are bringing them up.

exploitation = making a gain unfairly, that's why I mentioned it, and this is not happening here