(unclepillsSixty 25th of Decembers, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 19:19,
Reply)
Great, the cops took him down right in front of the four school children.
He was a bit on the light side, so no big deal.
(BrokenCoccyxdoesn't mind if you grope on, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 19:25,
Reply)
Well not much to see anyway, not in that cold!
(..wil, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 19:26,
Reply)
That's what he's telling all his friends today: "Take into account the shrinkage"
Thought he had a hair, until it peed.
(BrokenCoccyxdoesn't mind if you grope on, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 19:31,
Reply)
Lol! Good man!
I notice how the security was on their mobile immediately, 'Kill him!'
(..wil, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 19:25,
Reply)
In aid of Free Tibet
as oppose to BetFair.
which is nice. Good lad.
(unclepillsSixty 25th of Decembers, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 19:40,
Reply)
is it a bear or a wookie?
(cumquat maywill not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 19:41,
Reply)
A wookiee *is* a bear
- isn't it?
(Invisible Wizard- 12th Level Errorer, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 19:44,
Reply)
No.
Bears come from Earth. And they exist.
(Enzymeis powered by sunlight, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 19:47,
Reply)
As long as I get to rubber dinghy rapids,
I don't care.
(P-MONKEWe're all fucked, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:03,
Reply)
This streaking man is the most
relevant, interesting and dynamic event in the whole Torch Relay.
(Invisible Wizard- 12th Level Errorer, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:24,
Reply)
He's apparently been arrested for outraging public decency.
I find this strange, as being naked in public is not illegal. I can see how they might book him for a public order offence - but outraging public decency would be a really odd charge.
Can anyone shed any light on this? Maybe someone who knows the first thing about the law?
(Enzymeis powered by sunlight, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 19:44,
Reply)
Usually streakers are put up for
indecent exposure - if they're blokes.
IIRC, women aren't considered to have the requisite body parts to commit indecent exposure - they're usually done for breach of the peace.
(In English law, that is - and my information is a bit old now.)
(Invisible Wizard- 12th Level Errorer, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 19:48,
Reply)
Sexist
I'm sure if Herbs was streaking there would be charges for assault and GBH
(FadgebadgerSweaty sumo wanks for everyone!, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 19:51,
Reply)
To be sure.
From the Sexual Offences Act (2003): 66.1 A person commits an offence if - (a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and (b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
There's no distinction drawn between men and women. However, I don't think there's any way that this guy could be shown to intend alarm or distress.
*rummages through law*
Ah: outraging public decency is a common-law offence, and the act in question must be of such a lewd character as to outrage public decency. Which is wonderfully circular, and I'd be amazed if it stuck in this case. Ho hum.
(Enzymeis powered by sunlight, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:01,
Reply)
I am a freeman of the land and so it does not apply to me.
Since I do not exist. So there!
(JamTallons, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:04,
Reply)
Ha!
Given that I work in a law school, I really should ask my colleagues whether anyone has tried to talk about this stuff in the first year Public Law course... or whether it's hit the socio-legal literature yet.
(Enzymeis powered by sunlight, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:08,
Reply)
If you could find a one line come-back that would just destroy one of those guys with logic I would be so happy!
(JamTallons, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 21:21,
Reply)
If I close my eyes
it's not against the law
(FadgebadgerSweaty sumo wanks for everyone!, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:08,
Reply)
Well, women's genitals -
- according to strict definition - are not externally visible.
At least that's the case law under the prior act. Since the 2003 act, there may be some clarifying and more inclusive definition.
(Invisible Wizard- 12th Level Errorer, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:18,
Reply)
The 2003 Act did try to abolish sex differentiation.
Sec 79(9) specifies that "vagina" is to be interpreted as including the vulva - though I take your point that the physiological differences might at the very least mean that the law is differently applied in practice.
(Enzymeis powered by sunlight, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:26,
Reply)
Sec 79(9) specifies that "vagina" is to be interpreted as including the vulva - though I take your point that the physiological differences might at the very least mean that the law is differently applied in practice. flaps
(FadgebadgerSweaty sumo wanks for everyone!, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:29,
Reply)
Somebody should give you a job as a legal draughtsman.
You're a natural.
(Enzymeis powered by sunlight, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:30,
Reply)
I like how the Volvo looks, personally.
(BrokenCoccyxdoesn't mind if you grope on, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:52,
Reply)
What can I say
I have a way with words
(FadgebadgerSweaty sumo wanks for everyone!, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:56,
Reply)
Can't we just "not give a shit"?
It's a bit like swearing. Only offensive if you decide it is.
(Extinct Jesus Dossier"...I think it counteracts Hitler's magic...", Tue 10 Jul 2012, 21:02,
Reply)
I think it will be a difficult one to pin on him
(cumquat maywill not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 19:54,
Reply)
Unlimited fine/prison
and no one needs to have actually seen it to be offended by it.
You beat me to it.
I'd be amazed (and disappointed) if he gets anything more than a slap on the wrists from the local magistrate, though. Having said that, and though most judges are reasonable, there's no accounting for the possibility of a particularly strange JP cropping up...
(Enzymeis powered by sunlight, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:03,
Reply)
Yes, he did it in front of their precious little torch
So the disrespectful cunt must be made to SUFFER!!
(..wil, Tue 10 Jul 2012, 20:06,
Reply)