Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Guy on the bus this morning

13567

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭Jigsaw


    I'll tell you what.

    At lunchtime, find a guard and ask him to watch you take a photo of a group of kids you don't know. Then, if you are able to come back this afternoon, let us know how you get on.

    Some bloke on a bus taking a photo of a school girl so he can go home and have a **** over her would be considered producing pornographic material, which, it may surprise you to find out, is very much illegal.

    Paragraph 1 - Unmitigated nonsense.

    Paragraph 2

    a) Yes, the bloke was on a bus.
    b) We cannot be sure that he was taking a photo.
    c) If he was taking a photo, we cannot be sure that the subject of said photo was the girl in question.
    d) We don't know if he was going home, or where he was going at all.
    e) We don't know if his intention was to have a ****.
    f) Even if he was to have a ****, I refer to c) above. We cannot be sure whether or not the stimulus for the **** was going to be an image of the aforementioned girl.
    g) Producing pornographic material is not illegal, although producing child pornography is.
    h) An image of a teenage girl, approximately 15 years old, fully clothed and in a public place does not constitute pornography.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭knird evol




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,814 ✭✭✭BaconZombie


    Has the fact that Dublin Bus film all the schools kids every fecking day via the CCTV camera slipped everyones minds?

    There rotation one of the roof will probably get some intresting shots from the angle they are at exspecaly if is a girl/woman is were a lowcut or loose top.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,978 ✭✭✭✭Xavi6


    BOFH_139 wrote: »
    Has the fact that Dublin Bus film all the schools kids every fecking day via the CCTV camera slipped everyones minds?

    There rotation one of the roof will probably get some intresting shots from the angle they are at exspecaly if is a girl/woman is were a lowcut or loose top.

    Good point

    /emails CV to Dublin Bus


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,494 ✭✭✭kayos


    Jigsaw wrote: »
    h) An image of a teenage girl, approximately 15 years old, fully clothed and in a public place does not constitute pornography.

    Maybe not but if you want to get really technical on it you are storing electronically an image of a person without their prior consent. This means your breaking the data protection act. Before you mention that all the CCTV’s etc do the same thing all premises must put up a clearly visible sign stating CCTV is in operation. If you still enter the premises after seeing the sign you are giving consent.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    knird evol wrote: »

    Did you take that picture of him so you could go home and ****? If so I think you should go hand yourself in.


  • Posts: 8,016 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    joe316 wrote: »
    I THINK I spotted this middle aged dude taking pics of some school girl on the bus this morning. I didnt want to do anything cos tbh I was only suspicious about it, there was a click of the camera on his phone but cant be sure it was in her direction but that was only once (bout 75% sure), I didnt hear it again. If he had of done it again I would def have done summit, didnt want to go accusing some dude of "you know what" without any concrete proof.

    What would you have done? I dont know whether I should regret not doing anything now.


    oh before anyone mentions, it wasnt synper


    He wasn't messing with an i Phone and responding to the name Spider was he? :pac:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,193 ✭✭✭Turd Ferguson


    To be honest, if the girl didnt know about it then whats the harm? They dont feel violated and the guy gets his freak on, its a win-win situation. This is only an issue because you made it an issue. You should be ashamed of yourself joe316!!!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭knird evol


    6th wrote: »
    Did you take that picture of him so you could go home and ****? If so I think you should go hand yourself in.


    I go to all the trouble of chronicalling uncensored the sick underbelly of post celtic tiger society and enlighten your blinkered naive fools paradise and all you can throw back at me is this ungrateful ugly reflection of the type of sick thoughts that slosh around the cess pit of your mind. A simple thank you would suffice. :mad:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Jigsaw wrote: »
    Paragraph 1 - Unmitigated nonsense.

    Paragraph 2

    a) Yes, the bloke was on a bus.
    b) We cannot be sure that he was taking a photo.
    c) If he was taking a photo, we cannot be sure that the subject of said photo was the girl in question.
    d) We don't know if he was going home, or where he was going at all.
    e) We don't know if his intention was to have a ****.
    f) Even if he was to have a ****, I refer to c) above. We cannot be sure whether or not the stimulus for the **** was going to be an image of the aforementioned girl.
    g) Producing pornographic material is not illegal, although producing child pornography is.
    h) An image of a teenage girl, approximately 15 years old, fully clothed and in a public place does not constitute pornography.

    try it then.

    I'm just passing on advice I was given by people who, it would be reasonable to suspect, know the law.

    If someone on a bus was taking sneaky photos of my daughter, I'd break his neck.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭JaneyMc


    To be honest, if the girl didnt know about it then whats the harm?


    The person who took the picture could forward it on to like minded people? There are so many different reasons this "harmless" picture could have consequences.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,011 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    JaneyMc wrote: »
    The person who took the picture could forward it on to like minded people? There are so many different reasons this "harmless" picture could have consequences.

    Or you could order a kids clothes magazine and have a quick knuckle shuffle. Its not like getting pictures of clothed children is hard.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,708 ✭✭✭green123


    Or you could order a kids clothes magazine and have a quick knuckle shuffle. Its not like getting pictures of clothed children is hard.

    exactly

    cop on everybody


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    JaneyMc wrote: »
    The person who took the picture could forward it on to like minded people? There are so many different reasons this "harmless" picture could have consequences.

    I don't know about you, but my super-powers don't extend to identifying someone by looking at a blurry photo of their knickers?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    kayos wrote: »
    Maybe not but if you want to get really technical on it you are storing electronically an image of a person without their prior consent. This means your breaking the data protection act. Before you mention that all the CCTV’s etc do the same thing all premises must put up a clearly visible sign stating CCTV is in operation. If you still enter the premises after seeing the sign you are giving consent.

    What about pictures of celebrities? Someone the background of a private photo? Etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭HouseHippo


    Will he send em to me???


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭JaneyMc


    stovelid wrote: »
    I don't know about you, but my super-powers don't extend to identifying someone by looking at a blurry photo of their knickers?


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,193 ✭✭✭Turd Ferguson


    Or you could order a kids clothes magazine and have a quick knuckle shuffle. Its not like getting pictures of clothed children is hard.


    What a fantastic idea...that you Cuddlesworth for making my day!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,154 ✭✭✭✭Stark




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 757 ✭✭✭milod


    I think the main issue here is that there's a big difference between things you don't approve of and things that are illegal.

    If the guy in question was taking pictures in public and was not attempting to invade someone's privacy, e.g. by attempting to take up-skirt or down-blouse photos, then no crime has been committed. We may speculate as to the motives, but that is irrelevant.

    The context of the picture taking is also important here, and whether permission is sought. Despite the experiences of the old lady in a previous post, a woman taking pictures of children is unlikely to be challenged, whereas a man is. An older man is more likely to be challenged, or have unhealthy motives attributed to him than a younger, good looking man etc etc.

    Voyeurs and voyeur pics are all over the internet and it's quite likely the guy on the bus had an unhealthy interest in the schoolgirl. But realistically, all you can do is go for the embarrassment factor by staring or threatening to report him.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,494 ✭✭✭kayos


    What about pictures of celebrities? Someone the background of a private photo? Etc.

    As I said it is getting very technical if you want to start using the data protection act. You also have to take into account the differences between the European and American data protection laws.

    But to give you a few examples:

    In say any candid camera show or Jack ass etc you will see plenty of people who have their face obscured. This is down to the simple fact they refused consent to have their images used by the show so they then get fuzzed over.

    In the case of celebs just look at the case Zeta Jones and Douglas had with their wedding photos. Hello were sued for breach of privacy.

    You really are getting into the nitty gritty when looking at it from a data protection point of view but it could be used. Also imho there is a huge difference between someone taking your photo directly and some one that happened to catch you in the back ground.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,727 ✭✭✭✭Sherifu


    Thread needs more pics/security footage...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭knird evol


    we can certainly fine the chap two pounds.


    Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935.
    Public indecency.

    18.—Every person who shall commit, at or near and in sight of any place along which the public habitually pass as of right or by permission, any act in such a way as to offend modesty or cause scandal or injure the morals of the community shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall on summary conviction thereof be liable to a fine not exceeding two pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one month.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,193 ✭✭✭Turd Ferguson


    Sherifu wrote: »
    Thread needs more pics/security footage...

    Its not allowing me to thank that?
    WTF?


    Anyway +1!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭joe316


    Some ye guys should join us in Lolocaust :D

    Anyhows I just wanted people's opinion on the situaition, I never experienced anything like that and was a little freaked out by it.

    I was a little rushed this morning so just realised I forgot to say it was a bus eireann bus so not as many cameras and they arent as open as a cie one. He was sitting across from me, staggered a little bit ahead so I had a complete view of it all. Before she got on the bus the phone camera clicked , looked over at him and it was pointed in the direction of the queue of people (she could have been in his firing line, I dont know but definatley willing to give benefit of the doubt). Tbh I thought nothing of it, maybe the guy was testing out his phone its not the first time I've heard a camera click on a bus and I doubt if it'll be the last.

    She sat down in front of me, about 5 mins into the journey I heard it again. Looked around it was definatley pointing in her direction (he was trying to pull it back towards his book straight after the sound), I saw that she did the same thing and look at him. He did seem embarressed, nothing happened for about 10 minutes when he took his camera out again, trying to hide with his book. It was aimed towards her, i dont know he could have been spooked by the noise and was filming a vid or summit. He saw me staring at him(I KNOW IM THE PERVERT!) and quickly put the phone away. Nothing happened after that.

    Look I know I may/probably am be jumping to massive conclusions here, its just I wouldnt want anything more sinster to happening. I dont have kids but I have a niece and if someone was taking pics of her and jacking off to them, I know I'd want to knock his block off.

    **** to proper pron dude: interracial midget pron. :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭Casper89


    green123 wrote: »
    exactly

    cop on everybody
    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...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Honey-ec


    Casper89 wrote: »
    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.

    Er, love, there's a bit of a difference between some guy allegedly taking pics of a fully clothed girl on the bus and someone physically grabbing a hold of a teenager in the street...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Honey-ec wrote: »
    Er, love, there's a bit of a difference between some guy allegedly taking pics of a fully clothed girl on the bus and someone physically grabbing a hold of a teenager in the street...

    Only a small bit though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 90 ✭✭Casper89


    Honey-ec wrote: »
    Er, love, there's a bit of a difference between some guy allegedly taking pics of a fully clothed girl on the bus and someone physically grabbing a hold of a teenager in the street...
    i mentioned it because i'm trying to explain the young girls point of view in all this, and that's that its not nice being the girl perved on by the dodgy looking man in public...
    perving is perving, and to make my point here i think the level of perving is immaterial.
    if i was the girl in question i would have appreciated someone standing up for me, as a young girl you have enough to fear in the world, its nice to know there's good people out there that would help and respect another human being that way.

    and, as a fully clothed teenager, i wouldn't want him grabbing me, or taking a photo either. he has no right to do either without your permission.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    I'll tell you what.

    At lunchtime, find a guard and ask him to watch you take a photo of a group of kids you don't know. Then, if you are able to come back this afternoon, let us know how you get on.

    Some bloke on a bus taking a photo of a school girl so he can go home and have a **** over her would be considered producing pornographic material, which, it may surprise you to find out, is very much illegal.


    Can't be done - I'm in Berlin. And would said gurad arrest me? And on what charge?
    kayos wrote: »
    http://www.galwaynews.ie/4923-salthill-man-jailed-taking-indecent-photos-women

    Sure there is a better article on it some where. Basicly he was caught in boots and on the street doing it.

    There's worse going on tbh that doesn't get jail time. Mind you, this is much moe in the line of invasion of prviacy than what the OP hinted it.
    kayos wrote: »
    Maybe not but if you want to get really technical on it you are storing electronically an image of a person without their prior consent. This means your breaking the data protection act. Before you mention that all the CCTV’s etc do the same thing all premises must put up a clearly visible sign stating CCTV is in operation. If you still enter the premises after seeing the sign you are giving consent.

    If that's the case anyone who's taken a photo in a public place is guilty.
    try it then.

    I'm just passing on advice I was given by people who, it would be reasonable to suspect, know the law. And what about tabloids/paparazzi.

    If someone on a bus was taking sneaky photos of my daughter, I'd break his neck.

    ...and you'd be done for assault, and rightfully so. You're actually commiting a violent offence.
    knird evol wrote: »
    we can certainly fine the chap two pounds.


    Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935.
    Public indecency.

    18.—Every person who shall commit, at or near and in sight of any place along which the public habitually pass as of right or by permission, any act in such a way as to offend modesty or cause scandal or injure the morals of the community shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall on summary conviction thereof be liable to a fine not exceeding two pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding one month.

    Class! But again: how come the tabloids haven't been done yet?
    Only a small bit though.

    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.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



Advertisement