Streaker Punishment a bit Harsh?

Corkboi

So this guy Streaked at a football match last year, it was the game between Villa and Man City. He was caught, Obviously, and his trial has just finished. They have placed him on the sex offenders register for two years. Now I think this is a bit harsh, what do you reckon??

A football fan who ran naked across the pitch during a televised Premiership match for a £100 bet has been put on the Sex Offenders Register.
Unemployed Sam Gorman's genitals were clearly on show as he dashed out in front of thousands during the Aston Villa home game against Manchester City.
But magistrates took a dim view of his antics, ordering the 22-year-old to sign the Sex Offenders Register for two years after he admitted indecent exposure.

Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118221/Football-fan-streaked-Premier-League-match-100-bet-placed-sex-offenders-register.html

jimthemental

Well it all depends on whether he hit the woodwork while he was on the pitch.

LH Pathe

Come on now he's not luis suarez

jill_valentine

Putting bloody football streakers on the sex offenders register makes a joke of the whole idea and makes light of the very very serious crimes the thing was invented to deal with. F**king stupid.

Corkboi

jill_valentine wrote: »

Putting bloody football streakers on the sex offenders register makes a joke of the whole idea and makes light of the very very serious crimes the thing was invented to deal with. F**king stupid.

I agree, reading the papers lately and it seems the courts in England have gone a bit crazy. Some serious criminals getting off with some light sentences and vise versa.

Potential-Monke

Baring oneself in public is dealt with (in Ireland anyway) under the Criminal Law (Rape Amendment) Act and as such is considered a sexual offence, the punishment for which is a requirement to sign the sex offenders register.

Could be the same in the UK, and if it is the case, then the judge didn't have much choice in the matter...

mongoman

Corkboi wrote: »

Now I think this is a bit harsh, what do you reckon??

Harsh? Since streaking does not fall within the boundaries of normal behaviour, it is the least he deserves. Sexual offender goes on the sexual offenders list - simple.

up for anything

jill_valentine wrote: »

Putting bloody football streakers on the sex offenders register makes a joke of the whole idea and makes light of the very very serious crimes the thing was invented to deal with. F**king stupid.

I grew up in the era of the original streakers when "we had streakers in the sun" every other match and Erica Roe bounced across the pitch at Twickenham and I don't give a toss about nudity one way or another but there are people who do. I've seen long threads on nearly all the discussion boards I've been on over the years about whether parents should be naked in front of their own children after a certain age and the majority believe it's not right.

I'd imagine that the courts have to deal with it in a certain way or there would be nakkid people everywhere. It's some craic (intended pun) on the pitch in a public place but not so funny when there's a streaker running up and down the road past your house. The offender could declare their intent was the same regardless of the venue.

galwayrush

If he was a City supporter, good work Judge....:D

crusher000

I presume there were children at the match. So it's acceptable for a person to expose themselves to kids? Yes he may have been on the pitch away from children but still in their full view.Well done judge.

flyswatter

mongoman wrote: »

Corkboi wrote: »

Now I think this is a bit harsh, what do you reckon??

Harsh? Since streaking does not fall within the boundaries of normal behaviour, it is the least he deserves. Sexual offender goes on the sexual offenders list - simple.

Why is nudity always equated with sex? This isn't a sexual offence.

Run_to_da_hills

The UK is gradually turning itself into a fascist police state where one dare not step out of line. It wasn't long ago when a guy got a criminal record over an obvious twitter joke about blowing up an airport in Doncaster.

Potential-Monke

flyswatter wrote: »

Why is nudity always equated with sex? This isn't a sexual offence.

It is

Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (UK):

[F1(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. .
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— .
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; .
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.]

donalg1

If he is sitting in say a restaurant and stands up takes his clothes off and runs between the tables naked then is this acceptable behaviour? Tis no different if he does it at a football match.

AeoNGriM

Guy exposes himself to kids at a school playground : sex offender

Guy streaks at a footy match : sex offender

I have to say, since it's fairly certain that kids saw this guys junk, then there's little difference between the two.

Meant in jest? Yes. Harsh? A little.

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE POOR CHILDREN!!!!!

howsyourtusk

Someone exposing themselves to children in some particular scenario is looking for sexual gratification. Was this lad running around with a boner? I doubt it. Total joke.

Tipsy McSwagger

crusher000 wrote: »

I presume there were children at the match. So it's acceptable for a person to expose themselves to kids? Yes he may have been on the pitch away from children but still in their full view.Well done judge.

Kop on will ya. I suppose you want guys taking naked showers at swimming pools on the sex offenders list too.

Joey the lips

Kids at the match yeah.......


No difference between him and a sex offender who plays with himself with public.

Oh wait... he done it for money. Might be defined as prostitution as well.


Guessing he wont do this or work again...

Oh well.

ANXIOUS

I wonder if that women who stripped at the snooker a few years back is a sex offender? I highly doubt it.

Frank Black

In other news, man in Ireland gets 6 years for sexually abusing his daughter for over a decade.

Run_to_da_hills

black francis wrote: »

In other news, man in Ireland gets 6 years for sexually abusing his daughter for over a decade.

And another man gets 6 years for importing garlic. :pac:

shangri la

I dont think someone who exposes themselves should be lumped in with rapists even if they expose themselves at a playground.

Run_to_da_hills

Being put on a sex offenders list will red flag him as a sex pervert on port of entry to many countries across the EU the globe.

He will find it next to impossible to get into the US or Australia even on a visitors visa never mind seeking work once his electronically embedded passport is swiped at a port of entry. His chances of finding work in the UK alone will be severely limited with his criminal conviction.

Potential-Monke

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Being put on a sex offenders list will red flag him as a sex pervert on port of entry to many countries across the EU the globe.

He will find it next to impossible to get into the US or Australia even on a visitors visa never mind seeking work once his electronically embedded passport is swiped at a port of entry. His chances of finding work in the UK alone will be severely limited with his criminal conviction.

Should have thought of that before he ran starkers across a pitch...

AngryBollix

he must have had a whopping wang

Nothingbetter2d

jill_valentine wrote: »

Putting bloody football streakers on the sex offenders register makes a joke of the whole idea and makes light of the very very serious crimes the thing was invented to deal with. F**king stupid.

the reason for being put on a sex offender's register is cos kids are also at that match wathing the game... having someone flash those kids would come under the child protection laws as being sexual harassment.

Someone should think of the children before flashing his/her bits at them.

RichieC

Outrageous. it is a long and proud sporting tradition. (not his willy)

howsyourtusk

Yeh, kids should never see nudity. And should learn the meaning of shame. That's a modern and progressive attitude

pickarooney

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

the reason for being put on a sex offender's register is cos kids are also at that match wathing the game... having someone flash those kids would come under the child protection laws as being sexual harassment.

Someone should think of the children before flashing his/her bits at them.

This is just bull**** that people who are uncomfortable about nudity tell themselves. If you honestly can't tell the difference between flashing a child and running about in the nip in public, you have a very odd way of thinking, IMO. Why would a child, or an adult for that matter, be upset by the sight of someone running about naked? Streaking is funny, flashing is not.

Potential-Monke

pickarooney wrote: »

Streaking is funny, flashing is not.

While i agree, most people probably won't. The sight of anyone nude in public is enough to get peoples blood boiling.

Personally, i'm all for public nudity. But only if they're good looking with savage bodies and female...

AngryBollix

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I wonder if that women who stripped at the snooker a few years back is a sex offender? I highly doubt it.

Sure you cant beat a bit of gash at the snooker

El Horseboxo

I think the psychology behind someone exposing themselves for some sort of sexual gratification and streaking naked across a soccer field as a bet should be distinguished from each other. Even if kids are present in each scenario. And as such both be treated as different crimes. The reason for such lists is to make families aware of sex offenders in a given area which is to act as a deterrent for the offender re-offending. A sex offender that likes to expose himself does it to a very specific set of people in most cases. Streaking to a large random crowd at a sporting event wouldn't fit the profile.

I think most parents wouldn't feel threatened living in a neighborhood with a streaker that ended up on the list. If I was a parent I'd feel the integrity of the list is questioned when they have people like that on it. Also very often stories get around without people knowing the specifics of a case. He could be branded a pedophile in certain circles.

Seachmall

Joey the lips wrote: »

No difference between him and a sex offender who plays with himself with public.

There is a difference between being naked in public and engaging in a sexual act in public.

It's pretty immature to assume the two are inexplicably linked.

hondasam

He is 22yrs ffs, he did it for a bet not because he is a pervert. I'm sure if he knew he was going to be labelled as a sex offender he would not have done it.
The judge is unfair here unless he had no choice or there is something else we don't know.

NiallFH

Fair enough children may have been at the match and seen it but he didnt purposefully run up to a group of kids and flash, just seems like the law on it was taken far too literally

DEFTLEFTHAND

It's a fairly strong precedent to set, I presume the design is to discourage this kind of moronic behaviour in the future.

Deus Ex Machina

He should also get a lengthy prison sentence on top of everything else.

howsyourtusk

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

He should also get a lengthy prison sentence on top of everything else.

7 inches?

Stark

Potential-Monke wrote: »

While i agree, most people probably won't. The sight of anyone nude in public is enough to get peoples blood boiling.

Should keep them away from any sort of changing room at a gym or swimming pool then. Or better still, stay at home altogether so other people don't have to deal with them.

Mr. Presentable

Potential-Monke wrote: »

It is

Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (UK):

[F1(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. .
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— .
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; .
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.]

Pretty sexist law, that.

stupidusername

Potential-Monke wrote: »

It is

Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (UK):

[F1(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. .
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— .
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; .
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.]

What about if I flash my boobs to a crowd?

The distinction needs to be made in intent.plus who else is present with any child(ren) exposed to

Dravokivich

stupidusername wrote: »

What about if I flash my boobs to a crowd?

*faps*

:pac:

howsyourtusk

stupidusername wrote: »

What about if I flash my boobs to a crowd?

The distinction needs to be made in intent.plus who else is present with any child(ren) exposed to

You wouldn't even be arrested I'd imagine. Total bs, nudity shouldn't be shameful. The only danger is when exposing oneself is done for sexual arousal. Then that's not cool.

I seen this vid on the net once were some lad is **** on a beach and just cums on some girl sunbathing. Now that's an offence Scary though :eek:

stupidusername

howsyourtusk wrote: »

You wouldn't even be arrested I'd imagine. Total bs, nudity shouldn't be shameful. The only danger is when exposing oneself is done for sexual arousal. Then that's not cool.

I seen this vid on the net once were some lad is **** on a beach and just cums on some girl sunbathing. Now that's an offence Scary though :eek:

Sorry but that's bollix.a young child can't distinguish intent.like it or not,a child being exposed to that could be harmful when it's not considered normal in society.

Stark

They never seem to mind when you breast feed them. Children don't give a ****. It's adults who get worked up.

hondasam

stupidusername wrote: »

Sorry but that's bollix.a young child can't distinguish intent.like it or not,a child being exposed to that could be harmful when it's not considered normal in society.

Do you think it would be harmful for a child to be exposed to a boob or more harmful for a child to be exposed to a penis?

Capt'n Midnight

Did he collect the £100 from the bet ?

howsyourtusk

stupidusername wrote: »

Sorry but that's bollix.a young child can't distinguish intent.like it or not,a child being exposed to that could be harmful when it's not considered normal in society.

So you think flashing your boobs in public where a child could see is dangerous?

Dravokivich

hondasam wrote: »

Do you think it would be harmful for a child to be exposed to a boob or more harmful for a child to be exposed to a penis?

Surely for comparison you should be arguing Vagina/Penis?

A young child wouldn't really make much of a difference between a topless man/woman.

hondasam

Dravokivich wrote: »

Surely for comparison you should be arguing Vagina/Penis

It always comes down to the male/female, sexist issue.

4zn76tysfajdxp

stupidusername wrote: »

Sorry but that's bollix.a young child can't distinguish intent.like it or not,a child being exposed to that could be harmful when it's not considered normal in society.

How is it harmful?