So the issue is not whether someone watched **** at work the issue is regarding watching **** in public.
I remember one time when I was on a plane and a women went ballistic about a guy allegedly watching ****, during the flight.
The flight attendants response rightly or wrongly was so what if he wants to do that. So then the women loudly claimed it was child **** and demanded they do something about it and suddenly the issue got more serious.
Disgraced Tory MP Neil Parish ‘broke law’ by watching **** in Commons
Last night Jess Phillips, Labour’s shadow minister for domestic abuse and safeguarding, said that it appeared that Parish “of his own admission” had committed a criminal offence under the Indecent Displays (Control) Act of 1981.
The act states that: “If any indecent matter is publicly displayed the person making the display and any person causing or permitting the display to be made shall be guilty of an offence.”
It adds that: “Any matter which is displayed in or so as to be visible from any public place shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be publicly displayed.”
Sentences range from a fine to up to two years in prison.
Jess Phillips. A well-meaning woman. With a likeable agenda. But not necessarily a firm grasp on reality.
The 1981 Act is a waste of space. Brought in by a Government who wanted to be seen to be doing things. Rather than actually doing stuff.
It's background was the humiliation for the (then) Government in relation to a failed prosecution in relation to the Sex Pistols 1st album.
It does define "public place". But please note that, under its definition, there is no clear proof that the "public", as defined, has viewed it. Or there would be footage.
It does not define "indecent material"-which makes it a waste of paper. Quite apart from the fact that it pre-dates the Internet!
So the issue is not whether someone watched **** at work the issue is regarding watching **** in public.
I remember one time when I was on a plane and a women went ballistic about a guy allegedly watching ****, during the flight.
The flight attendants response rightly or wrongly was so what if he wants to do that. So then the women loudly claimed it was child **** and demanded they do something about it and suddenly the issue got more serious.
Disgraced Tory MP Neil Parish ‘broke law’ by watching **** in Commons
Last night Jess Phillips, Labour’s shadow minister for domestic abuse and safeguarding, said that it appeared that Parish “of his own admission” had committed a criminal offence under the Indecent Displays (Control) Act of 1981.
The act states that: “If any indecent matter is publicly displayed the person making the display and any person causing or permitting the display to be made shall be guilty of an offence.”
It adds that: “Any matter which is displayed in or so as to be visible from any public place shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be publicly displayed.”
Sentences range from a fine to up to two years in prison.
Jess Phillips. A well-meaning woman. With a likeable agenda. But not necessarily a firm grasp on reality.
The 1981 Act is a waste of space. Brought in by a Government who wanted to be seen to be doing things. Rather than actually doing stuff.
It's background was the humiliation for the (then) Government in relation to a failed prosecution in relation to the Sex Pistols 1st album.
It does define "public place". But please note that, under its definition, there is no clear proof that the "public", as defined, has viewed it. Or there would be footage.
It does not define "indecent material"-which makes it a waste of paper. Quite apart from the fact that it pre-dates the Internet!
11 cases in 3 years, with only 3 convictions, tells you all you need to know.
The key in reality is intent-did the person mean to use this to intimidate those around him? It appears the short answer is no in this instance.
If this starts a genuine debate, good. But leave this stupid man alone. He is a fool. Who has lost his career. Deservedly so. But not a criminal.
Ok. What about the man on the plane?
That 1 is a total nightmare. To give 3 quick reasons:-
1. It is occurring in international airspace. Mot in the UK 2. "Child po rn" may be an emotive term, but it varies from place to place. So-for example-all "performers" must be over 18 in the UK-and 21 in the US. So-a UK traveller may be viewing what in the US is child po rn. 3. Now imagine travelling on the airline of a fundamentalist country...
So the issue is not whether someone watched **** at work the issue is regarding watching **** in public.
I remember one time when I was on a plane and a women went ballistic about a guy allegedly watching ****, during the flight.
The flight attendants response rightly or wrongly was so what if he wants to do that. So then the women loudly claimed it was child **** and demanded they do something about it and suddenly the issue got more serious.
Disgraced Tory MP Neil Parish ‘broke law’ by watching **** in Commons
Last night Jess Phillips, Labour’s shadow minister for domestic abuse and safeguarding, said that it appeared that Parish “of his own admission” had committed a criminal offence under the Indecent Displays (Control) Act of 1981.
The act states that: “If any indecent matter is publicly displayed the person making the display and any person causing or permitting the display to be made shall be guilty of an offence.”
It adds that: “Any matter which is displayed in or so as to be visible from any public place shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be publicly displayed.”
Sentences range from a fine to up to two years in prison.
Jess Phillips. A well-meaning woman. With a likeable agenda. But not necessarily a firm grasp on reality.
The 1981 Act is a waste of space. Brought in by a Government who wanted to be seen to be doing things. Rather than actually doing stuff.
It's background was the humiliation for the (then) Government in relation to a failed prosecution in relation to the Sex Pistols 1st album.
It does define "public place". But please note that, under its definition, there is no clear proof that the "public", as defined, has viewed it. Or there would be footage.
It does not define "indecent material"-which makes it a waste of paper. Quite apart from the fact that it pre-dates the Internet!
11 cases in 3 years, with only 3 convictions, tells you all you need to know.
The key in reality is intent-did the person mean to use this to intimidate those around him? It appears the short answer is no in this instance.
If this starts a genuine debate, good. But leave this stupid man alone. He is a fool. Who has lost his career. Deservedly so. But not a criminal.
Ok. What about the man on the plane?
That 1 is a total nightmare. To give 3 quick reasons:-
1. It is occurring in international airspace. Mot in the UK 2. "Child po rn" may be an emotive term, but it varies from place to place. So-for example-all "performers" must be over 18 in the UK-and 21 in the US. So-a UK traveller may be viewing what in the US is child po rn. 3. Now imagine travelling on the airline of a fundamentalist country...
So the issue is not whether someone watched **** at work the issue is regarding watching **** in public.
I remember one time when I was on a plane and a women went ballistic about a guy allegedly watching ****, during the flight.
The flight attendants response rightly or wrongly was so what if he wants to do that. So then the women loudly claimed it was child **** and demanded they do something about it and suddenly the issue got more serious.
Disgraced Tory MP Neil Parish ‘broke law’ by watching **** in Commons
Last night Jess Phillips, Labour’s shadow minister for domestic abuse and safeguarding, said that it appeared that Parish “of his own admission” had committed a criminal offence under the Indecent Displays (Control) Act of 1981.
The act states that: “If any indecent matter is publicly displayed the person making the display and any person causing or permitting the display to be made shall be guilty of an offence.”
It adds that: “Any matter which is displayed in or so as to be visible from any public place shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be publicly displayed.”
Sentences range from a fine to up to two years in prison.
Jess Phillips. A well-meaning woman. With a likeable agenda. But not necessarily a firm grasp on reality.
The 1981 Act is a waste of space. Brought in by a Government who wanted to be seen to be doing things. Rather than actually doing stuff.
It's background was the humiliation for the (then) Government in relation to a failed prosecution in relation to the Sex Pistols 1st album.
It does define "public place". But please note that, under its definition, there is no clear proof that the "public", as defined, has viewed it. Or there would be footage.
It does not define "indecent material"-which makes it a waste of paper. Quite apart from the fact that it pre-dates the Internet!
11 cases in 3 years, with only 3 convictions, tells you all you need to know.
The key in reality is intent-did the person mean to use this to intimidate those around him? It appears the short answer is no in this instance.
If this starts a genuine debate, good. But leave this stupid man alone. He is a fool. Who has lost his career. Deservedly so. But not a criminal.
Ok. What about the man on the plane?
That 1 is a total nightmare. To give 3 quick reasons:-
1. It is occurring in international airspace. Mot in the UK 2. "Child po rn" may be an emotive term, but it varies from place to place. So-for example-all "performers" must be over 18 in the UK-and 21 in the US. So-a UK traveller may be viewing what in the US is child po rn. 3. Now imagine travelling on the airline of a fundamentalist country...
i mentioned all I knew about what happened on the plane many years ago. I was not involved I just witnessed what people said. I did not see it I do not even know for sure there was **** just that the women said there was. I do not know if the the alleged **** actors in what the guy was allegedely watching were 8 14 16 19 or 24 or whatever. I only have what women alleged. This was many years ago. I also do not know where the airplane was when the alleged incident occurred.
This is a memory I have from a long time ago when my family used to do family holidays which is more then a decade ago. I do not even remember which holiday it was.
I cant be assed with this I have nothing to answer for I was not involved I just witnessed a partial amount of the interaction.
i mentioned all I knew about what happened on the plane many years ago. I was not involved I just witnessed what people said. I did not see it I do not even know for sure there was **** just that the women said there was. I do not know if the the alleged **** actors in what the guy was allegedely watching were 8 14 16 19 or 24 or whatever. I only have what women alleged. This was many years ago. I also do not know where the airplane was when the alleged incident occurred.
This is a memory I have from a long time ago when my family used to do family holidays which is more then a decade ago. I do not even remember which holiday it was.
I cant be assed with this I have nothing to answer for I was not involved I just witnessed a partial amount of the interaction.
You need to have a proper think about this. We could get you an email address for Jess Phillips. You could send her the details, and the fella could be prosecuted. Airlines keep good records. They may well be able to ID him from where he was sitting. Once they have identified him they may be able to establish exactly what he was looking at, from his phone records. Done. Simples. They might make a movie about the story.
You just need to think about where he was sitting in relation to you. The airline will have a record of where you were sat. Also the year if possible to save time on the searches.
your trying to turn this into a similar scenario as that bar fight I got into way back and people asking me what bar it was and etc etc.
I did not remember because I had been drunk and likely concussed.
I am not going to remember the details of this flight if I had a memory that good I would be making several hundred thousand pounds a year from online poker if not several million.
I set a deadline to finish the last stats assignment tonight. The break I will be taking is for basketball and the free rolls on here.
although I wont be taking full break for basketball as will be doing the study whilst watching. I think we are due a Winni round up on the basketball maybe after tonight.
the assignment is due on 4th but stats lecturer chasing me for it because she cares and wants to see me do well and I had planned to have it done before the end of the bank holiday weekend. so basically before I go to bed tonight which is okay because I likely be up to 4/5am tonight for the basketball.
your trying to turn this into a similar scenario as that bar fight I got into way back and people asking me what bar it was and etc etc.
I did not remember because I had been drunk and likely concussed.
I am not going to remember the details of this flight if I had a memory that good I would be making several hundred thousand pounds a year from online poker if not several million.
I set a deadline to finish the last stats assignment tonight. The break I will be taking is for basketball and the free rolls on here.
although I wont be taking full break for basketball as will be doing the study whilst watching. I think we are due a Winni round up on the basketball maybe after tonight.
the assignment is due on 4th but stats lecturer chasing me for it because she cares and wants to see me do well and I had planned to have it done before the end of the bank holiday weekend. so basically before I go to bed tonight which is okay because I likely be up to 4/5am tonight for the basketball.
You take stuff too seriously. You need to chill out. Not sure prioritising basketball should be a priority.
I think that he was very wise to resign. This seemed to avoid an investigation. It also allowed his explanation to go unchallenged. I think that had an investigation been implemented, his phone and laptop confiscated, it may have shown that his explanation was untrue on both counts. His phone and laptop may well have shown that his access of a particular po rn site was not made via an incorrect link to a tractor site, and also that his access to the same site on a second occasion, was not in fact the second occasion he had accessed this particular site. This is purely speculation on my part. I have no proof. There is nothing wrong with accessing po rn sites in private, although accessing them in view of work colleagues, particularly when they are women, is. As is looking at po rn when you are supposed to be working, particularly when you are paid by the taxpayer. As it stands, he could be let off by the public, as a man who made a silly mistake, and make a comeback. Even when this is unlikely to really be the case.
Comments
This is a memory I have from a long time ago when my family used to do family holidays which is more then a decade ago. I do not even remember which holiday it was.
I cant be assed with this I have nothing to answer for I was not involved I just witnessed a partial amount of the interaction.
We could get you an email address for Jess Phillips.
You could send her the details, and the fella could be prosecuted.
Airlines keep good records.
They may well be able to ID him from where he was sitting.
Once they have identified him they may be able to establish exactly what he was looking at, from his phone records.
Done.
Simples.
They might make a movie about the story.
You just need to think about where he was sitting in relation to you.
The airline will have a record of where you were sat.
Also the year if possible to save time on the searches.
I did not remember because I had been drunk and likely concussed.
I am not going to remember the details of this flight if I had a memory that good I would be making several hundred thousand pounds a year from online poker if not several million.
I set a deadline to finish the last stats assignment tonight. The break I will be taking is for basketball and the free rolls on here.
although I wont be taking full break for basketball as will be doing the study whilst watching. I think we are due a Winni round up on the basketball maybe after tonight.
the assignment is due on 4th but stats lecturer chasing me for it because she cares and wants to see me do well and I had planned to have it done before the end of the bank holiday weekend. so basically before I go to bed tonight which is okay because I likely be up to 4/5am tonight for the basketball.
You need to chill out.
Not sure prioritising basketball should be a priority.
This seemed to avoid an investigation.
It also allowed his explanation to go unchallenged.
I think that had an investigation been implemented, his phone and laptop confiscated, it may have shown that his explanation was untrue on both counts.
His phone and laptop may well have shown that his access of a particular po rn site was not made via an incorrect link to a tractor site, and also that his access to the same site on a second occasion, was not in fact the second occasion he had accessed this particular site.
This is purely speculation on my part.
I have no proof.
There is nothing wrong with accessing po rn sites in private, although accessing them in view of work colleagues, particularly when they are women, is.
As is looking at po rn when you are supposed to be working, particularly when you are paid by the taxpayer.
As it stands, he could be let off by the public, as a man who made a silly mistake, and make a comeback.
Even when this is unlikely to really be the case.