Streaker Punishment a bit Harsh?

Deus Ex Machina

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

Seachmall

stupidusername wrote: »

Are you saying that if you saw a woman walking naked down the street, you wouldn't take any notice of her? It's normal in the western world is it?

My point, if you read it again, is that it's not normal in the western world.

Some ridiculous statements in here... Some people now think that a child seeing a man's penis is now sexual abuse no matter the occassion?
Are ye fuking serious? It's sad that complete morons now have a voice in this day and age.

carbon nanotube

Corkboi wrote: »

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??



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

looks like he is trying a robbie keane there, all starkers


putting him on the offerners is nuts, but this is england we are talking about with some of the most draconian law in the world.

stupidusername

Seachmall wrote: »

My point, if you read it again, is that it's not normal in the western world.

Ah yes, apologies. you're saying that it should be normal, because there's nothing wrong with nudity anywhere, is that it?

Deleted User wrote: »

Some ridiculous statements in here... Some people now think that a child seeing a man's penis is now sexual abuse no matter the occassion?

who was saying that?

Seachmall

stupidusername wrote: »

Ah yes, apologies. you're saying that it should be normal, because there's nothing wrong with nudity anywhere, is that it?

Never said anything like that.

Stark

stupidusername wrote: »

Ah yes, apologies. you're saying that it should be normal, because there's nothing wrong with nudity anywhere, is that it?

If a woman did walk naked down the road, what do you think would be the harm that would result from it? I think it would be highly unusual and out of place if she did, but unless you can show some actual harm (other than some fishwives injuring themselves tutting) then it's not morally wrong. If you look at something like the world naked bike ride, you've thousands of people riding naked down the streets in cities around the world including UK cities.

howsyourtusk

Stark wrote: »

If a woman did walk naked down the road, what do you think would be the harm that would result from it?

The boner apocalypse?

Unavailable for Comment

Valentino Bumpy Sesame wrote: »

Honestly, are you being this obtuse on purpose? The main gripe here is that someone who hasn't committed a sexual offence is on the sexual offenders register, for some reason.

Being placed on VISOR is a mandatory result of being convicted of this in the England. If the judge was to waive it (although he has no discretion) because he believed there was no intent in Gorman's actions it would potentially expose other orders that were made against much more dangerous people.

The whole legal apparatus is designed to offer the widest protection to the widest amount of people. Unfortunately sometimes sympathetic people get ground down by it.

Frankly though it's not a big deal. As the herds of British sex offenders that migrate to Ireland every year shows, it doesn't really impact on their travel plans.

skinny90

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.]

so if a women does it its fine??

Owen_S

It's a disgrace Joe.

Captain Darling

The law is an ass.

A bare nekkid ass!!!

harney

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Did he collect the £100 from the bet ?

Alas no, he even got some random postcard saying do not pass go

Victor

Potential-Monke wrote: »

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.

Are you sure? http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0018/sched.html#sched

All the offences appear to include either contact and/or children, except paragraphs 19 (aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting the commission of an offence) and 20 (conspiracy to commit an offence).

The Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990 seems to be silent on the matter.

The only case I've hear of being prosecuted in recent years was a prosecution for insulting behaviour for a fan who mooned the crowd in Croke Park.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

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.]

I've underlines the important part in this case.

Stark wrote: »

There was a Spencer Tunick thing about two years ago with about 3000 people naked out in the open down in the Docklands. Society didn't collapse.

You sure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession

Orando Broom

howsyourtusk wrote: »

The boner apocalypse?

Is this a real thing?

JupiterKid

Absolutely outrageous and It makes a complete mockery of the sex offenders register which I believe was developed to protect children.

Some people have very unhealthy and very warped attitudes to nudity - and then these same people rabbit on about how Islamic women in veils or a niquab is oppressive and offensive. Pot and kettle come to mind.

I would hope that this guy appeals his conviction because IMO it was a misacarriage of justice, plain and simple.

wyndham

RichieC wrote: »

An english poster on an other forum posted this:

Blame Parliament, not the magistrates. The requirement to sign the Sex Offenders' Register is mandatory after conviction for particular offences, including indecent exposure. It's an automatic administrative measure, and the courts have no discretion in the matter.


It makes a nonsense of the sex offenders register. Who hasn't pulled a mooner out the bus window as a schoolkid? This is now worthy of being a registered sex offender?

Wosserwoman

at the end of the day he is exposing himself to many children that couldve been at that match

AboutTwoFiddy

Wosserwoman wrote: »

at the end of the day he is exposing himself to many children that couldve been at that match

They could easily look away. Being naked doesn't mean being sexual.

AngryBollix

He must have had a hard on