Intrusion of privacy or mad woman?

Orior · October 11, 2007, 10:23:55 AM

What do you think of this court case?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7038421.stm

No doubt about it, what the man did was totally wrong, but is there an over reaction? Is the woman unstable anyway? This could cost the council thousands of pounds.

maddog · October 11, 2007, 10:27:00 AM

Quote from: Orior on October 11, 2007, 10:23:55 AM
What do you think of this court case?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7038421.stm

No doubt about it, what the man did was totally wrong, but is there an over reaction? Is the woman unstable anyway? This could cost the council thousands of pounds.

Ask yer missus if there was an over reaction on the womans behalf and then stand well back.

Balboa · October 11, 2007, 11:33:48 AM

Quote from: Orior on October 11, 2007, 10:23:55 AM
What do you think of this court case?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7038421.stm

No doubt about it, what the man did was totally wrong, but is there an over reaction? Is the woman unstable anyway? This could cost the council thousands of pounds.

How the hell is the woman "unstable"? Ask your missus if she thinks it is acceptable if some pervert is taking photos of her when she is getting changed. The defendant got off because of a loophole.

balladmaker · October 11, 2007, 11:48:41 AM

With a name like Richie Shaw MacRitchie, he has to be a dodgy character.

Agree, what he did was completely wrong, but after listening to the victim on the radio this morning, I am of they opinion there is a compo claim of some sort coming down the line, as she was really laying it on...can't go out of the house because of the fear of men looking at her, can't meet her friends, packing in college, on medication etc. etc. Yes, what happened to her was wrong but ffs!

Balboa · October 11, 2007, 11:54:18 AM

Oh she is laying it on alright, there will be a claim, probably gunning for DLA too. The fella sounds like a total sc**bag though, will he lose his job over this?

deiseach · October 11, 2007, 12:35:45 PM

The law states that isn't voyeurism if the victim is not naked. Do people want the law changed so that it's voyeurism if you take pictures of a woman without their knowledge while she is wearing clothes? Hard cases make bad law

Richie Shaw MacRitchie . . . sheesh

Hound · October 11, 2007, 01:17:19 PM

He took a picture of a woman in a swimsuit in a unisex changing room, not a picture of a woman getting changed. There's a big difference (the difference between him getting convicted and not).

I those circumstances, I think he should have been kicked out of and banned from the swimming pool, but I dont think it'd merit any more than that. He'll never live down the naming and shaming!

Not quite sure of the connection between the incident and the girl flunking uni....

pintsofguinness · October 11, 2007, 09:23:11 PM

Quote from: balladmaker on October 11, 2007, 11:48:41 AM
With a name like Richie Shaw MacRitchie, he has to be a dodgy character.

Agree, what he did was completely wrong, but after listening to the victim on the radio this morning, I am of they opinion there is a compo claim of some sort coming down the line, as she was really laying it on...can't go out of the house because of the fear of men looking at her, can't meet her friends, packing in college, on medication etc. etc. Yes, what happened to her was wrong but ffs!

Agree.
She should be ashamed of herself going on with such shite.
makes you angry when you consider what rape victims etc go through and shes going on with that shite because some creep took her picture.

Puckoon · October 11, 2007, 09:27:14 PM

Quote from: tram on October 11, 2007, 01:30:07 PM
Something wrong, yes, definitely but not completely over the top. Saying that I wonder what the attitudes would be if the sexes were reversed?

If some guy thought for a second that a woman was taking pictures of him for sexual gratification - his trunks would be off before she could blink.

Maybe she is already a basket case kind of girl? There are alot of girls out there who this wouldnt faze. There are some that would get creeped out by it, and there are some who it might tip overboard. I know examples of each of them.

Balboa · October 11, 2007, 09:35:14 PM

Regardless of this girl going down the traumatised, medication, sleepless nights routine this fella was taking photos of her to go and pull the balls of himself.......You tell me any female that would laugh that off as "boys will be boys". The jusge said she was satisfied he was taking the photos for his own sexual gratification.

ludermor · October 11, 2007, 09:59:02 PM

you dont need photos to pull the balls off yourself

Bacon · October 11, 2007, 10:04:36 PM

Going back a bit - any man taking a photo of any woman wearing clothes could be charged if Balboa is right. At the end of the day the current balance is probably right. This guy McRitchie will have this following him for the rest of his days, convicted or not.

pintsofguinness · October 11, 2007, 10:07:34 PM

Quote from: Balboa on October 11, 2007, 09:35:14 PM
Regardless of this girl going down the traumatised, medication, sleepless nights routine this fella was taking photos of her to go and pull the balls of himself.......You tell me any female that would laugh that off as "boys will be boys". The jusge said she was satisfied he was taking the photos for his own sexual gratification.

I couldn't. I think most women would fall into the category of it creeped them out but they get on with their lives!
Not this attention seeking nonsense. For god sake she wasn't even naked!

Balboa · October 11, 2007, 10:16:46 PM

I agree its attention seeking nonsense but it seems to be getting lost somewhere along the way that the fella was a total sc**bag & what he did was reprehensible.

T Fearon · October 18, 2007, 04:47:23 PM

Don't know if this was discussed when I was away, but what did you make of this guy, a solicitor, voyuering in a unisex cubicle in the Falls Baths?

Also have you ever heard a sillier name in all your life?