Guy on the bus this morning

Heroditas

kayos wrote: »

Basicly he was caught in boots and on the street doing it.

Was he wearing fishnets with the boots?

Fratton Fred

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

In your warped head, maybe, but then I'm beginning to form an opinion that even look at a child is an offence in your eyes.

You don't have kids do you?

You sound like you think it is ok for people to go around taking photos of kids.

Casper89

In your warped head, maybe, but then I'm beginning to form an opinion that even look at a child is an offence in your eyes.

you're being ridiculous. you're the one taking this 'oh this Politically Correct world won't let us do anything these days!' thing too far!
are you really so wrapped up in your distaste for PC that you ignore the difference between an innocently taken photograph, for photographic purposes! and a man taking a picture of a girl without her permission, and in an obviously pervy way?

imagine you're a father of a teenage girl, i wonder what would be the difference in your reaction between someone glancing at your child, and an old dirty man leering at her? and perhaps taking a picture of her to take away with him and keep forever. how do you like the idea of that image of her being perved over for years by this gross man?
its a helluva different story.

obviously this is a subject that has to have more personal resonance for some to understand. luckily, there are others who simply know between right and wrong, and are willing to do or say something about it, whether its something that effects them in their life or not.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You don't have kids do you?

You sound like you think it is ok for people to go around taking photos of kids.

Where'd I say that....? I belive I said (repeatedly) that taking picutres of people, kids or adults, is not illegal. If you're that worried, I suggest you lock her up until she's 17. That way, you have full control.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Casper89 wrote: »

you're being ridiculous. you're the one taking this 'oh this Politically Correct world won't let us do anything these days!' thing too far!
are you really so wrapped up in your distaste for PC that you ignore the difference between an innocently taken photograph, for photographic purposes! and a man taking a picture of a girl without her permission, and in an obviously pervy way?

Of course I can. It;s more devil's advocate than PC, because it isn't agains the law to take a pic. Reest of my responce is the thoe post above this one.

Casper89

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Of course I can. It;s more devil's advocate than PC, because it isn't agains the law to take a pic. Reest of my responce is the thoe post above this one.

in certain instances, taking photos without permission can be illegal, i'll be the first to admit i'm not an expert on what exact circumstances, but you know what? i don't care if its illegal, he shouldn't be allowed to do it.
it wasn't illegal for that old man to grab me, but someone intervened...why? because it was wrong. and if i was on that bus i would have intervened for her sake, because it was wrong. she should have the right to say who can take her photo like that. that is disrespect for another human being in its grossest form. CCV is entirely different because we are alerted of its presence and its for security purposes...a far cry from the purposes of the image on the mobile i'm sure...

saying that anyone can take a photo of anyone without their permission for whatever reason whenever they like is taking freedoms too far, regardless of the crazy world of laws. at the end of the day we should all know the difference between right and wrong, and who is going to sneakily take a photo of a kid for anything but the wrong reasons?

Casper89

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If you're that worried, I suggest you lock her up until she's 17. That way, you have full control.

and now you're making fun of a father with concern of who runs off with pics of his child??
it is entirely normal to want to protect your child from perverts, and suggesting that he is being too protective because of a concern of who's taking pictures and why defies all logic.
no one wants to lock up their kids, just protect their privacy and safety. a parent has every right to be concerned about what hands images of their child end up in.

jackdaw

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

FFS OP - this is the kind of crap that will be in the Sunday World and have every paretn terrified of sending their kids to school on a bus.

You go to the gaurds and the guards are goign to ask you the exact same question I will: What exactrly would you like him to be charged with?

Exactly and what kind of photo could he get of her on a bus with a crappy
phone camera ??

its not a nude beach ffs...

jackdaw

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

All CIE busses are equipped with CCTC, the latest ones have 7 internal cameras and 1 foreword facing. The pervert taking these photos will be on record. Contact CIE with the time and number of the bus and they should have a recording if it and can pursue the matter if necessary.

SHUT THE FUCCK UP !!!

jesus christ .. people panicking over shít

1st of the guy _thinks_ he heard the camera click ..

even so it could have been an accident .. i sometimes take a pic
by mistake when im sending txts..

as i mentioned before .. it's a camera phone.. **** quality .. **** lenses ..

so ****inng what ..

CiaranC

Sherifu wrote: »

Thread needs more pics/security footage...

Here you go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlEcGHxfltE

Dudess

JaneyMc wrote: »

Sucks to be you then . :P

Well there are other possibilities. Obsession can stem from anything, a child doesn't have to be naked for a pedophile to become aroused. You don't know something more sinister isn't going on. I'm not saying is definitely is, but to say it's harmless imo, it's not.

Casper89 wrote: »

you're missing the HUGE difference here...they're models in adverts, etc. they had their pictures knowingly taken, and were paid.
strangers taking pictures of strangers, without the person's permission is entirely different, esp. when the stranger having their picture taken is underage...

the point is how the person having their picture taken would feel about it, and of course if they're underage, what parents wouldn't be offended?

everyone has their own personal views on their own privacy, and imo, should be allowed to set those boundaries where they see fit (alsong as no one is being harmed or law being broken, of course) ergo, if you don't want your picture taken while you're going about your own business by some pervy stranger, i believe you should be able to do something about it!

if i was there, i would have publicly embarrassed him by calling him up on it and telling him he better cut it out before i report him.
you can't just entertain these guys getting their little kicks from teenage girls, when it happens to you its far from funny or innocent.
i'm 19 now, but i have had my fair share of run-ins with disgusting old pervs while on lunch breaks when i was in school, and if it wasn't for other people interfering, though the man might not have been doing anything actually 'illegal', i would have been far more terrified of the big wide world.
that guy on the street who scared off one particular aggressive old perv, who genuinely scared me to death as he had my arm in a vice grip and would not let go, it became very distressing when no matter how hard i tried to pull away, i couldn't move my arm...well, he reaffirmed my faith in good people out there.
i would definitely advise standing up and doing something if you believe something is wrong or not right. its nice to know you're not alone when these things happen, so thanks joe316 for being a decent enough guy to care!
when your in this situation you can be extremely terrified, embarassed, feel horrifically violated...its not nice being that girl perved on, and how do you think her parents would feel?
i know a lot of what is being said here is in jest, but you must realise it can be offensive to anyone who is not a grown man who doesn't have to worry about what's going through a pervy old man's head as he leers at you, or if one day some pervy man might go even further...

The OP doesn't even know whether this guy definitely was taking pictures of the girl(s) and if they were teenagers (as opposed to little girls) then it's not paedophilic. They might even have been 17.

As for the taking pictures of under-age people without parental consent thing: what about the newspaper pics from Junior Cert night that were linked to on this forum (and were accompanied by leering)? Those girls are underage (unless people are 17 shortly after they do the Junior Cert now) and I doubt parental permission was sought.

That story about the swimming pool which Stark linked to is brilliant (if depressing). Great point too about how state bureaucrats are SO concerned about the extremely low likelihood of a threat from strangers, and seem not to give a toss about the far greater danger posed by relatives and others known to the child. Actually only this morning, on Gerry Ryan, there was a woman speaking about the rapes she endured from her father between the ages of 9 and 15 and the indifference and cover-ups she encountered. She's 30 - this only happened to her in the late 80s/early 90s.

But back on topic: it's vital that this hysteria be lampooned - thank god for Chris Morris.

Casper89

jackdaw wrote: »

Exactly and what kind of photo could he get of her on a bus with a crappy
phone camera ??

its not a nude beach ffs...

LIKE IT MATTERS!!!!!!!!!!
the point is he took the photo when he shouldn't have!
you don't care, you're a guy, i get it!
but if i was that girl i'd be horrified at the thought someone could do that, and feel violated. and wouldn't it have been nice if someone had to that rank rat to **** off?! like the guy who posted earlier about the guy who sat next to the two kids...he's a decent human being who was concerned, though not entirely sure what the man's intentions were, like the OP, and he did the right thing. because its about respect for others and a want to protect our young'uns.
ITS NOT OK TO TAKE A GIRLS PHOTO WITHOUT HER PERMISSION END OF STORY! i don't care if she was wearing a bloody burka ffs!

CiaranC

ITS PAEDOGEDDON!

Dudess

Never mind the British Isles argument... these are the Paedophisles!!! :eek:

Casper89

Dudess wrote: »

The OP doesn't even know whether this guy definitely was taking pictures of the girl(s) and if they were teenagers (as opposed to little girls) then it's not paedophilic. They might even have been 17.

As for the taking pictures of under-age people without parental consent thing: what about the newspaper pics from Junior Cert night that were linked to on this forum (and were accompanied by leering)? Those girls are underage (unless people are 17 shortly after they do the Junior Cert now) and I doubt parental permission was sought.

well if they didn't they should have, i know for a fact to use pics of underage teens you have to ask the parents permission because my teachers always had to ask all the parents before using any pics they took during school.

That story about the swimming pool which Stark linked to is brilliant (if depressing). Great point too about how state bureaucrats are SO concerned about the extremely low likelihood of a threat from strangers, and seem not to give a toss about the far greater danger posed by relatives and others known to the child. Actually only this morning, on Gerry Ryan, there was a woman speaking about the rapes she endured from her father between the ages of 9 and 15 and the indifference and cover-ups she encountered. She's 30 - this only happened to her in the late 80s/early 90s.

oh, so we should just ignore public pervs?
we all know that most rapists are family/family friends...WE KNOW! it doesn't mean pervs can now lurk wherever they want and take pictures of whoever they want because the daddy rapist is more important.

But back on topic: it's vital that this hysteria be lampooned - thank god for Chris Morris.

not wanting your picture taken by a leering pervert is not hysterical.
being a parent of a teenage girl and not wanting her picture being taken by a pervert is not hysterical.

and no, the OP wasn't entirely sure of what exactly was going on, but his concern that something sketchy was taking place demonstrates his sense of humanity and honour, so kudos to him.

CiaranC

We should get the Garda to hang out €100 on-the-spot fines for this sort of thing, that would soon stop these SCUMBAGS

ball ox

I had to go on a course a while back to be a qualified 'childrens liaison officer' for a college club I'm involved with. (every club has to have one if there are any underage members). The people running the course made a big deal about it being illegal to photograph anyone underage without parental consent. Even if it's a group photo of a sports team or something :eek:

Dudess

Casper89 wrote: »

not wanting your picture taken by a leering pervert is not hysterical.
being a parent of a teenage girl and not wanting her picture being taken by a pervert is not hysterical.

and no, the OP wasn't entirely sure of what exactly was going on, but his concern that something sketchy was taking place demonstrates his sense of humanity and honour, so kudos to him.

The hysteria I'm referring to is the "zomg a guy might have been taking pictures of teenage schoolgirls - might have, I'm 75% sure."

kirving

I was on the metro in Milan and a guy was taking photo's of ppl, including me!

He had a Motorola Razr and I could see the camera image on the outside screen when he closed the phone!

I didn't say anything tho

Turd Ferguson

Maybe he has entangled himself into a web of lies with his work friends by saying he has a very nice family, but really he is single. And he is going to have them all over for dinner so he is going to rent a wife for the evening and he needs pictures of children so he can frame them and pass them off as his own.

Think outside the box people...

AnonoBoy

Casper89 wrote: »

it wasn't illegal for that old man to grab me, but someone intervened...why? because it was wrong.

Actually grabbing someone's arm and not letting go of them could constitute assault.

So there you go. If only someone had been taking photos of you at the time then you'd have evidence and could prosecute!

Fratton Fred

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Where'd I say that....? I belive I said (repeatedly) that taking picutres of people, kids or adults, is not illegal. If you're that worried, I suggest you lock her up until she's 17. That way, you have full control.

Don't worry, I fully intend to and buy a big shotgun as well

Casper89

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Actually grabbing someone's arm and not letting go of them could constitute assault.

So there you go. If only someone had been taking photos of you at the time then you'd have evidence and could prosecute!

maybe it could have, but i doubt it!
and i wasn't interested in putting the guy in jail, its just that what he did was wrong, the things he said to me were highly inappropriate and he scared me half to death, now to anyone watching they might assume or, 'think outside the box';), that he was an older relative, and holding on tight because he was frail or something, but a guy saw it, wasn't sure what the story was, but just incase something was wrong, intervened and made sure i was alright.
my point there was simply that i admire the OP for being concerned and thinking of the girl in question, that she might have felt violated.

no one's saying lets throw all the leering larry's straight to the slammer, but it shouldn't be tolerated either and the people who stand up and challenge their behaviour show a greater strength of character.

phantom_lord

lol, this thread is way ott

Casper89

Dudess wrote: »

The hysteria I'm referring to is the "zomg a guy might have been taking pictures of teenage schoolgirls - might have, I'm 75% sure."

its a perfectly valid concern.
what if there was a 75% chance some dodgey type was snapping away at your lovely 15 year old in her school uniform for kicks?

i'm not saying that's definitely what happened here, but its a valid concern for people to have. it would be on the minds of many a parent.

Turd Ferguson

75% chance of rain tomorrow...

FlutterinBantam

joe316 wrote: »

Not on every phone especially the sony ones, supposedly this was a major issue in japan with dudes taking pics up schoolgirls skirts on the tube.

:eek: Wouldn't blame the fcuker. Little bitches are hot.

daauneal

@ casper89,
just curious , but what part of some dude taking a more than likely blurry pic of you on a bus would make you feel violated. you wouldn't be hurt or in pain, he hasn't "seen" anything he shouldn't have.

And what makes him perverted? is it cause he's taking a picture or because he'd be looking at you. is it not flatering to be someone people find attractive?

There's no way of knowing how old the girl was,she could have been anywhere between 14-18 but what I find worse is people are saying on here that its ok if she was 17 .

in alot of countries the legal age is 16. does this make those countries perverted?

(ok, I'm ready to be flamed for my probably stupid questions now):)

Dudess

Well just from a purely legal perspective - being 17 she's not underage.

To be fair, if an auld fella was taking pics of girls in uniforms it's probably for the purposes of fappage extraordinaire later on. I presume. Can't think of any other reason (apart from Terd Ferguson's excellent suggestion ).

Turd Ferguson

daauneal wrote: »

@ casper89,
just curious , but what part of some dude taking a more than likely blurry pic of you on a bus would make you feel violated. you wouldn't be hurt or in pain, he hasn't "seen" anything he shouldn't have.

And what makes him perverted? is it cause he's taking a picture or because he'd be looking at you. is it not flatering to be someone people find attractive?

There's no way of knowing how old the girl was,she could have been anywhere between 14-18 but what I find worse is people are saying on here that its ok if she was 17 .

in alot of countries the legal age is 16. does this make those countries perverted?

(ok, I'm ready to be flamed for my probably stupid questions now):)

Flamed? Heavens no...you make more sense than most of the posts here