Video on Facebook of them having sex.

Frank Black

Story in today's Irish Times regarding a woman who has obtained an injunction preventing a formar partner from uploading a video to Facebook of them having sex.

A CLASSROOM assistant has secured a High Court injunction in Belfast over claims her former partner threatened to post a video on Facebook of them having sex.
She was granted a temporary order after a judge heard allegations that he also threatened to show footage to her employers and pupils. The case, believed to be the first of its kind in Northern Ireland, was extended to cover the social networking giant. It prohibits the defendant from showing, publishing or distributing the video or uploading it to any website.
A judge in Belfast granted the legal protection after hearing the woman’s reputation and job were at risk.
Her lawyers claimed any clips could spread uncontrollably if they were allowed to be uploaded. Barrister Peter Girvan said: “If the defendant placed this video on Facebook now, it would probably take time for the administrators to pick up on it. Within that timeframe, all the material could go viral.”
The woman, who cannot be identified, was in a long-term relationship with the man she alleges is threatening her. Despite breaking up last year, they met and had sex again last month after meeting when she was drunk, the court heard.
Five days later she discovered he claimed to have recorded a 17- minute clip of this on his phone, according to her account.
She alleged he showed it to her sister’s boyfriend and planned to disclose it to her employers. It was claimed that he also threatened to sit outside the school where she worked and send footage to pupils via bluetooth.
The man further issued a threat to put clips on Facebook, she alleged. During an ex-parte injunction application, at which the defendant was not represented, Mr Girvan stressed his client had not consented to being filmed. The barrister, instructed by Hilary Carmichael Solicitors, told the court the allegations were referred to the PSNI, but said police had limited powers to intervene.
Although there was no suggestion of Facebook doing anything wrong, Mr Girvan pointed out that its policy was to stop any such material appearing on its site.
Granting the interim injunction, Mr Justice McLaughlin made clear that he was making no decision on the truth of the allegations.

So, have you allowed a former/current partner to video you doing the nasty?

If so, have you ever regretted it?

sam34

misleading title, thread fails to deliver

Fago!

Serves her right for being dumb enough to let her partner record them having sex. What the hell did she think was gonna happen if they broke up? He was gonna be noble and destroy the tape to protect fair maiden's image? pfft! Dumbass of the highest order.

and no I haven't, it would not be pretty. amateur porn is crap anyways.

stupidusername

I can see the headline now: "Woman has sex shocker!" wtf,why is this even a story,heck why is it a courtcase!?

syklops

No link to the video. Thread fail.

Also no pics of the woman. Megafail.

AeoNGriM

A judge in Belfast granted the legal protection after hearing the woman’s reputation and job were at risk.

Because none of us would think she's a slapper until AFTER we've seen the video, right?

cruiser178

Fago! wrote: »

Serves her right for being dumb enough to let her partner record them having sex. What the hell did she think was gonna happen if they broke up? He was gonna be noble and destroy the tape to protect fair maiden's image? pfft! Dumbass of the highest order.

and no I haven't, it would not be pretty. amateur porn is crap anyways.

Judging by whats in the op i dont think she knew she was been recorded, anyway, what a devious, horrible príck for blackmailing her like that.

Minstrel27

stupidusername wrote: »

I can see the headline now: "Woman has sex shocker!" wtf,why is this even a story,heck why is it a courtcase!?

The story isn't "woman has sex". Try reading it again.

ibarelycare

Fago! wrote: »

Serves her right for being dumb enough to let her partner record them having sex. What the hell did she think was gonna happen if they broke up? He was gonna be noble and destroy the tape to protect fair maiden's image? pfft! Dumbass of the highest order.

and no I haven't, it would not be pretty. amateur porn is crap anyways.

Did you even read the article?

ShooterSF

How would she be at risk of losing her job did she take an oath of celibacy or something?

7sr2z3fely84g5

the injunction is still useless,what happen if his phone got nicked in the pub...

dlofnep

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Because none of us would think she's a slapper until AFTER we've seen the video, right?

Why is she a slapper for having sex with her ex?

Boyfriend seems like a prick in fairness.

stargazer 68

Think he should be more embarrassed that its only 17 minutes

stupidusername

Minstrel27 wrote: »

The story isn't "woman has sex". Try reading it again.

I read it fine the first time. woman had sex, man threatened to show it to people, court said don't do that. so what? am i missing something?

cruiser178

Dovies wrote: »

Think he should be more embarrassed that its only 17 minutes

humanji

stupidusername wrote: »

I read it fine the first time. woman had sex, man threatened to show it to people, court said don't do that. so what? am i missing something?

Woman has sex with man. Man videos it without her knowledge. Man threatens to destroy the womans career and humilate her.

Seriously, can you honestly not see that there's a news story there?

ShooterSF wrote:

How would she be at risk of losing her job did she take an oath of celibacy or something?

She's not going to be too keen on teaching kids who've all seen her having sex. And the school is unlikely to want her as she'd of lost all authority over the students. Teachers have lost their jobs due to similar circumstances before.

CucaFace

That guy is nothing less then scum.

What a bitter twisted individual.

Show Time

This thread fails on a few levels.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Dovies wrote: »

Think he should be more embarrassed that its only 17 minutes

That's... that's not a lot? :eek:

mackg

1. What's a classroom assistant? is it like a grown up prefect?

2. How do you make a 17 minute video while you bang someone with a mobile phone without the person noticing?

3. Surely it would be some form of offence to send a video of yourself having sex to a load of little kids even if you had the permission of the other person in the video?

Frank Black

mackg wrote: »

2. How do you make a 17 minute video while you bang someone with a mobile phone without the person noticing?

Doggy-style?

--LOS--

is this about the news story or about the OP wanting to know if weve videoed ourselves
and I think it would be an easy thing to do without someone noticing, the girl clearly didn't know by her reaction.

spider guardian

Taken from an article about camera phone jammers:

Practically every digital camera uses either a "CCD" or a "CMOS" sensor -- devices that convert light coming through the lens into electronic signals. Both sensors use a highly "retroreflective" film that bounces some of the light -- especially invisible infrared light -- back out through the lens.

So the researchers modified a digital video camera that uses a special set of infrared lights and filters on its lens. If there is another digital camera in the area, the prototype camera will recognize the infrared light reflected off that camera's sensor as a unique white "glow."

A computer connected to the camera then activates a beam of intense light directly at the other camera's lens, thereby blurring or overexposing any image it tries to capture. The projector can also quickly vary the light beam so it can foil even advanced digital cameras equipped with automatic exposure compensation.

TL;DR - She needs to get a camera phone jammer. Then she can partake in the kinkiest sex known to man and her pupils need never find out!

Caraville

Anyone who would allow themselves to be filmed having sex is at best naive and at worst absolutely stupid to think that there isn't even the slightest of possibilities that it could go a bit more public than they intended.

Anyone who films someone without their knowledge or disperses it without the consent of the other person is an asshole of the highest order, end of story.

Ergo, this guy is an asshole.

mackg

black francis wrote: »

Doggy-style?

Would have been a terrible video but yes a possibility.

--LOS-- wrote: »

is this about the news story or about the OP wanting to know if weve videoed ourselves
and I think it would be an easy thing to do without someone noticing, the girl clearly didn't know by her reaction.

I really doubt she didn't know about it when it was being made and just said that in court to help get the injunction like any person with half an ounce of cop on would have done if someone was threatening to put up a sex tape of you that could cost you your job.

mackg

Caraville wrote: »

Anyone who would allow themselves to be filmed having sex is as horny as hell and up for the kinky stuff and doesn't give two shi*s in the heat of the moment about the possibility that it could go a bit more public than they intended.

Anyone who films someone without their knowledge or disperses it without the consent of the other person is an asshole of the highest order, end of story.

Ergo, this guy is an asshole.

FYP for ya;)

Absurdum

mackg wrote: »

2. How do you make a 17 minute video while you bang someone with a mobile phone without the person noticing?

pretend you're texting your wife

well that's what I do anyway

Caraville

mackg wrote: »

FYP for ya;)

Well, that too.

Classy.

Frank Black

Maybe she was blindfolded?

--LOS--

Caraville wrote: »

Anyone who would allow themselves to be filmed having sex is at best naive and at worst absolutely stupid to think that there isn't even the slightest of possibilities that it could go a bit more public than they intended.

Anyone who films someone without their knowledge or disperses it without the consent of the other person is an asshole of the highest order, end of story.

Ergo, this guy is an asshole.

well they're hardly thinking about it going any further if it is between two long-term partners and for their own enjoyment, ok this girl had split with the guy a year ago so if she knew it was being videoed ye that is stupid but maybe she didn't know, there's nothing in the article that implies she did or didn't.

mackg wrote: »

I really doubt she didn't know about it when it was being made and just said that in court to help get the injunction like any person with half an ounce of cop on would have done if someone was threatening to put up a sex tape of you that could cost you your job.

would you really notice if a phone or w/e was just left running before you started, esp when drunk. If she did know it's her own damn fault obviously but you can't blame her not wanting her reputation torn to shreds.

mackg

--LOS-- wrote: »

would you really notice if a phone or w/e was just left running before you started, esp when drunk. If she did know it's her own damn fault obviously but you can't blame her not wanting her reputation torn to shreds.

If she knew about it or not she would have been stupid to say anything other than that she didn't in court. no one deserves this to happen to them.

Caraville

--LOS-- wrote: »

well they're hardly thinking about it going any further if it is between two long-term partners and for their own enjoyment,

Maybe I'm really cynical but I still would be really wary of allowing myself to be filmed.... even if I totally trusted that my partner wouldn't let it go further, who's to say somebody else wouldn't find it?? Then again I don't even like normal photos of myself up on facebook

--LOS--

Caraville wrote: »

Maybe I'm really cynical but I still would be really wary of allowing myself to be filmed.... even if I totally trusted that my partner wouldn't let it go further, who's to say somebody else wouldn't find it?? Then again I don't even like normal photos of myself up on facebook

ye well I would too so I never have!

mackg

--LOS-- wrote: »

ye well I would too so I never have!

I have video evidence to the contrary:p

--LOS--

mackg wrote: »

I have video evidence to the contrary:p

orly, who names their hands seriously

mackg

--LOS-- wrote: »

orly, who names their hands seriously

My hands aren't named seriously, they don't have names

Lux23

Once and I still worry where it will pop up again, I was only 18 though!!

Captain Darling

cruiser178 wrote: »

Judging by whats in the op i dont think she knew she was been recorded, anyway, what a devious, horrible príck for blackmailing her like that.

Yeah, he sounds like the worlds biggest douchebag. And also particularly sad.

--LOS--

mackg wrote: »

My hands aren't named seriously, they don't have names

touche :cool:

Latchy

As long as they don't re- release Mandingo or Last Tango in Paris I won't worry .

--LOS--

that was you :eek:

Latchy

--LOS-- wrote: »

that was you :eek:

That was us :eek:

ardinn

Fago! wrote: »

and no I haven't, it would not be pretty. amateur porn is crap anyways.

You're doing it wrong.



im leaving now dont worry

Giselle

Fago! wrote: »

Serves her right for being dumb enough to let her partner record them having sex. What the hell did she think was gonna happen if they broke up? He was gonna be noble and destroy the tape to protect fair maiden's image? pfft! Dumbass of the highest order.

and no I haven't, it would not be pretty. amateur porn is crap anyways.

This post says more about you than the woman in the OP to be honest.

Chuck Stone

That's a fairly nasty thing to do to anyone.

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times always wear a gimp mask when your being filmed so you can't be identified.

The Gimpster

Dr_H.Lecter_

Solution - Ladies cover your face when youre having sex.

...well at least up until the last 10 secs.

sunflower27

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That's a fairly nasty thing to do to anyone.

If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times always wear a gimp mask when your being filmed so you can't be identified.

The Gimpster

Anyone care to explain how gimp masks are in any way a turn-on?

I am by no means a prude, but I don't get that at all.

Chuck Stone

sunflower27 wrote: »

Anyone care to explain how gimp masks are in any way a turn-on?

I'm happy to say that I have absolutely no idea!

I think they look ridiculous.

mackg

Never tried the aul gimp mask myself but a lot of things turn out to be a lot more fun than you thought they would be;)

recylingbin

Did the judge ask to see the vid?
"Vid or GTFO" bellowed the judge to miss X's solicitors.