Pecs are okay to perv at but Breasts are not!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 18 May 2008, 22:53

It is perfectly legal to ogle a man's chest but not a woman's breasts, according to an unusual ruling on what constitutes voyeurism by a panel of leading judges at the Court of Appeal yesterday.

Read on: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ppeal.html

Fair enough there is a distinction between male chests and female breasts but surely it is wrong to secretly film anyone, regardless of sex.

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 18 May 2008, 22:58

I've always found it odd that men can parade around topless but women doing so is "indecent"

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 May 2008, 00:41

Agreed.

Breasts are sexual in a way a male chest isn't, so there is a difference but agreed I do find it odd that a topless woman is automatically often indecent.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 19 May 2008, 01:09

Sexual organs, 'nuff said.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 May 2008, 01:58

That doesn't stop the law from being sexist.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 19 May 2008, 07:57

bradavon wrote:That doesn't stop the law from being sexist.

Tough shit, that's how life works. Learn to deal with it.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 May 2008, 09:03

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 May 2008, 16:07

Who would you rather look at semi naked?

I was snapping the girls, and this pufta walked into my shot!
Goldie lookin Chain, tats, shaved man boobs, nipple rings! for gods sake!

Personally I hate seing chavs scum with their tops off, they are ussually the sorts who fight and act like pricks. The lads as well

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 19 May 2008, 16:17

WHERE ARE TEH BOOBIEZ?!

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 May 2008, 16:28

with Breast in the title, we expect more dont we.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 May 2008, 16:41

romerojpg wrote:I was snapping the girls, and this pufta walked into my shot!

I'd be careful you don't get in trouble for doing that. I don't believe you're breaking any laws though, unless you refuse to delete the photo they're in, if asked.

There was a case in the news where a police officer didn't know the law and demanded this professional photographer delete all his photos (I think 3-4) of crowd scenes when legally she only had the right to ask he delete the ones she was in.

Still I cannot say much. I do the same when I'm away

.

IronMonkey wrote:WHERE ARE TEH BOOBIEZ?!

Here, of course

-

Western boobies: https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... c.php?t=62
Asian boobies: https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... php?t=2064

Where are Tom and Hung with the Asian boobie photos?

. It's not been updated since July 07.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 May 2008, 17:18

bradavon wrote:
romerojpg wrote:I was snapping the girls, and this pufta walked into my shot!
I'd be careful you don't get in trouble for doing that. I don't believe you're breaking any laws though, unless you refuse to delete the photo they're in, if asked.

There was a case in the news where a police officer didn't know the law and demanded this professional photographer delete all his photos (I think 3-4) of crowd scenes when legally she only had the right to ask he delete the ones she was in.

Still I cannot say much. I do the same when I'm away .

I know the law perfectly, esspecially with all the shit hitting the fan at the moment (they are trying to change the law to stop people taking pics on streets etc..! as apprently terrorists and pedos only take pictures).

The law is I can take anyones photo and there is nothing they can do about it, as long as it is not on private property (I have been asked to stop a few times)

or I am spying into a government building etc..

I would just say to any copper take me to the station as your talking bollocks (but not that word or I can then be done haha). If they delete any of your images they are breaking the law and I can take them to court

But if someone asked me nice I see no reason to say no I wont delete it, but I would convince them it was art first etc.. and ask them if they want a copy of the final image

Its a fun time for this sort of thing, and very scary

so I am esspecially taking Police photos just to get on their tits

and security guards and PCSO's

Ladies and men with their tops off also, shame ladies keep them on around ours (well the good looking ones)

Personally I say if you see Nipple (man or woman) on the street then they should be treat the same.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 May 2008, 17:43

romerojpg wrote:The law is I can take anyones photo and there is nothing they can do about it, as long as it is not on private property (I have been asked to stop a few times) or I am spying into a government building etc..

There probably is some truth in what you say but if someone asked me to delete a photo they were in I would do the right thing and do it. I'd hate my image being used somewhere I had specifically told it not to be. I generally don't mind though.

I'm not saying I'd want to but I would. I doubt you can if the person is a minor too.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 May 2008, 18:00

Nope anyone is open season, anything on a public street no matter age or what they are doing

Basically if its on public land and your not invading privacy.

Its the Police etc.. who have no clue at all what they are doing, hence why they are getting stuck into the public, as they are dumb on the situation and panic when the public panic.

If your gonna blow up people you wont be taking pics in streets where people can see you while 50 CCTV cameras watch you from above.

Read this there is uproar at the moment all over the UK, the governments doing a massive vote and its getting heated.

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetai ... ESSION=891

Shit off topic!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 May 2008, 18:10

I'd imagine you'd lose in court if you were found to be taking pictures of kids in public, without their parents consent.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 May 2008, 18:21

bradavon wrote:I'd imagine you'd lose in court if you were found to be taking pictures of kids in public, without their parents consent.

I told you you can take ANYONES PHOTO. It's the Law, how could I ever loose it when I am not breaking any law at all.

Unless your a crimianl pedo scumbag with a record of snapping kids etc.. then its questionable.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 19 May 2008, 21:49

Romero's right.

You can take anyone's photo -- as long as it's not on private property or is an indecent image of a child.

A land/building owner has the right to stop you but not if it's public property.

If a person refuses permission then you can't take their picture. That would be harrassment. But if they say nothing or are unaware it's OK.

If you were to take sneak pictures of them (say undressing in a bedroom window) then that could crossover into sexual harrassment.

You also cannot use any person's image for commerical or other gain or enterprise without permission. Like publication in a magazine or an art exhibition.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 May 2008, 22:05

Markgway wrote:If a person refuses permission then you can't take their picture. That would be harrassment. But if they say nothing or are unaware it's OK.

Then Romero isn't right then

.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 20 May 2008, 16:14

I am right Brad. I frequent the right places to know this stuff.

They can refuse all they like, I can still take their picture, nothing at all they can do. They can get the cops on you and take your camera, but not delete my images, if they do they break the law.
Proveing harrasment is almost impossible, hence why it never happens unless you are a crazy stalker. It would be thrown out of court in a heartbeat if it was anything but serious stalking, in fact it would get nowhere at all to begin with.

As for the you need the persons permission to sell a photo/make money etc.. that is also wrong, if you take a shot of 1000 people in a crowd, your telling me you need all them peoples permission to make cash from that image in a massive advertising campaign as it happens every day).
Nope its yours once you take it. If the person is in your picture, its your picture and you can do almost anything you like with it (within reason obviously).

Do you really think the paparatsi in the UK stop selling them pictures to the media becuase the famous person says stop, obviously they do not. If your in a public place your taking your chance getting into media every day, even if you do say stop etc..

Some dumb cops think otherwise mind you, as they are ignorant nazi's with too little training.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 20 May 2008, 22:21

romerojpg wrote:They can refuse all they like, I can still take their picture, nothing at all they can do. They can get the cops on you and take your camera, but not delete my images, if they do they break the law.
Proveing harrasment is almost impossible, hence why it never happens unless you are a crazy stalker. It would be thrown out of court in a heartbeat if it was anything but serious stalking, in fact it would get nowhere at all to begin with.

If a person refuses to allow a photograph to be taken and you go ahead and take it anyway you've invaded their right to privacy.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... _4000.html

If someone took a snapshot of me like that I'd smack them one and then delete the offending images. As long as I don't smash the camera I've done nothing wrong.

Besides what kind of creep stalks strangers and takes pictures of them? Don't we all have a right to keep to ourselves?

Would you like it if you're sitting in the park reading a newspaper and some cunt starts snapping in your direction?

As for the you need the persons permission to sell a photo/make money etc.. that is also wrong, if you take a shot of 1000 people in a crowd, your telling me you need all them peoples permission to make cash from that image in a massive advertising campaign as it happens every day).

If the person is a focal point or their identity is clearly visible then you need permission.

Nope its yours once you take it. If the person is in your picture, its your picture and you can do almost anything you like with it (within reason obviously).

There's a difference between taking a picture which someone happens to be in and taking a picture OF them.

Do you really think the paparatsi in the UK stop selling them pictures to the media becuase the famous person says stop, obviously they do not.

Those pictures are almost always taken outwith the UK. Personally I think the paparazzi are a disgrace and should be arrested for stalking celebrities and their children. I think Sean Penn has the right idea. Lamp the fuckers.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 21 May 2008, 16:09

Paparazzi are worse than scum, people say no to them, so they snap away anyway. Nice.

But you will be on thousands of hours of CCTV, better not get you started on that

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 21 May 2008, 21:22

The paparazzi break the law because they know most people will not take them to court. People who do often win.