Oh dear: Happy Slapping (again)

[WageSlave]

Lucifer, nothing in this country surprises me any more. It's absolutely crazy. What's so offensive about the woman wearing a bikini in her own garden!? If she wants to open the door in her knickers, so what; it's her home.

[Lucifer Box]

Not any more. Six months in chokey for having to answer the door in your pants because you're in the middle of getting ready.

[WageSlave]

Not any more. Six months in chokey for having to answer the door in your pants because you're in the middle of getting ready.

What scares me is that you're right; it's not an absurd joke. What is truly offensive is that our taxes are being wasted on this rubbish - wasted on taking a woman to court for wearing a bikini in her garden. It's a cliche, but the police really should have something better to do with their time, like catching terrorists, rapists and burglars.

I'm sure Snaw and his ilk are all for burning the bikini woman at the stake, whilst giving the terrorists a huge payout for being victims of a cruel society.

[The Lone Gunman]

What scares me is that you're right; it's not an absurd joke. What is truly offensive is that our taxes are being wasted on this rubbish - wasted on taking a woman to court for wearing a bikini in her garden. It's a cliche, but the police really should have something better to do with their time, like catching terrorists, rapists and burglars.

Read the entire article boys and girls, the ASBO is for persistant nuisance. Sure its absurd that she could get banged up for wearing a bikini, but she should have considered the consequences before she behaved like a twat.

[WageSlave]

Read the entire article boys and girls, the ASBO is for persistant nuisance. Sure its absurd that she could get banged up for wearing a bikini, but she should have considered the consequences before she behaved like a twat.

Widget, I agree with you. Her overall behaviour did warrant action (if true), although I find the bikini/underwear element completely irrelevant and offensive. She should be given an ASBO for noise, not wandering around in a bikini. It's like sending a man to prison for armed robbery and wearing a silly hat. What's the silly hat got to do with the crime?

[The Lone Gunman]

Widget, I agree with you. Her overall behaviour did warrant action (if true), although I find the bikini/underwear element completely irrelevant and offensive. She should be given an ASBO for noise, not wandering around in a bikini. It's like sending a man to prison for armed robbery and wearing a silly hat. What's the silly hat got to do with the crime?

I imagine there is more to it than a one off, they dont do ASBOs that way (Do they?) I expect every time a complaint has been made she has turned up at the door wearing next to bugger all and then got all agressive with the old "are you looking at my tits" routine. If it has been part of her MO then I dont see why it should not be part of her ASBO.
Its her own fault.

[BoredBloke]

Pictures of kids

"I thought it was always a question of whether the image was indecent or not. For example, a photograph of a minor in a sexually explicit pose is indecent, whereas a picture of the kids running around the garden with nothing on is innocent."

This is not the case. My mother in law fosters kids, she had this girl with here for years and years who was seriously sexually abused as an infant. Eventually she grew up and had a kid of her own. She took some photos of her daughter in the bath when she was say 6 months old. When she went to Boots to get them developed, the staff on the photo counter warned her that they would get the police if they ever saw photos like that again. I have seen the photos and they just show a little baby being bathed by her mum. The fact that this was said to somebody who was more aware of abuse than the numpties behind the counter.

[The Lone Gunman]

took some photos of her daughter in the bath

Not the first time thats happened, couple of plod called at a mates house with his photos of his daughter having a bath, its a normal parent thing.

The problem Boots and the Police have is that they do not know how legitimate those piccies are. In the right hands they are simply family photos and something to embarras the kids with later in life, but in the hands of a kiddy fiddler they are outrageaous. What if you had a dodgy baby sitter selling these innocent photos on the net?

[WageSlave]

Tony, good point. Issues such as these arise because of stupid people unable to distinguish acceptable behaviour from abuse. Anyone with a modicum of common sense could tell the difference between a genuinely innocent picture and something sexually abusive.
Same issue with smacking children. World of difference between smacking a naughty child and beating them. Next kissing your children good night will be deemed sexual abuse. Unfortunately, such statements aren't a joke; we're really heading in that direction.

[WageSlave]

The problem Boots and the Police have is that they do not know how legitimate those piccies are. In the right hands they are simply family photos and something to embarras the kids with later in life, but in the hands of a kiddy fiddler they are outrageaous. What if you had a dodgy baby sitter selling these innocent photos on the net?

But surely a pervert wouldn't be satisfied with kids in the bath, garden, beach. From the documentaries I've seen and descriptions I've read, such people swap extremely explicit photographs, usually showing real sexual abuse - not little Jenny smiling in bath.

Would a pervert take their photographs to Boots to be developed? I imagine they'd be too scared, and have private means of developing them. It's not so difficult.