Time and Motion Sex Analysis (47)

Sounds to me like that was the correct verdict, based on burden of proof.

Feel sorry for her that the video of her was shown to all the jury and the public gallery for no purpose. I suggest her lawyers advised her badly.

Please excuse crap spelling cause i,m rubbish

Thank fuck for that, I was considering deleting my secretly filmed 'time and motion' videos of submissive girls. I just wanted to know who put more effort into D/s, I get RSA from wielding a cane and all she does is take it

God's child or Satan's angel?

"He took a single sip of her pain and found it exquisite"

Mad_Monk wrote: Although the outcome of the criminal proceedings must have been disappointing for the lady concerned, I am sure that a subsequent constructive dismissal action may bear fruit. ()

Unlikely it says the dismissal was before it came to light/

You're not kidding : what was she thinking ? If she was snooping on his computer she was invading his privacy too.

He should have asked first , but as the bloke sounds like the ultimate jobsworth , could be he really did want to see where he was going wrong !

Couple of other amusing details are that he complained he felt he'd been doing 'all the work', and that one of the jurors, asked about the film, took it all in his stride and said 'it just wasn't sexy' .

The whole thing is more like a plot off "Doctors".

{With the postscript that unconsensual sexual activity, when perpetrated by someone of either sex is unacceptable in any circumstances.}

Fitz.

Escaped from the parallel universe

Having seen a photo of the bloke in the paper the words quoted seemed quite believable to me. A jury apparently took less than ten minutes to acquit him, so they were obviously convinced he wasn't doing this for sexual gratification.

This raises a far more interesting question for me, one that crosses over into BDSM Activism. Why should it make a difference whether he did this for sexual gratification or not? Isn't it equally wrong and unpleasant to the victim whatever his motives were? Surely it should either be a crime to record private acts without consent, or it shouldn't be, regardless of your motive.

Lets put it another way. Say he had done this for sexual reasons. Not to broadcast on the internet or show anyone else, but just because in quiet moments he likes sitting down, watching the video and having a quiet wank. That would be a crime as the law stands.

Let's compare that to a hypothetical scenario where, say, someone well known as a major player in an international sporting body happens to organise an evening with four ladies who enjoy playing BDSM games, perhaps in return for money, and unbeknown to the other four people involved one of the four ladies secretly videos the whole evening, not for a bit of private pleasure but in order to sell it to a national newspaper who will print stills on their front page and put the video on their website for the whole world to look at.

Which of these is more harmful to the people involved? Shouldn't they at the very least be treated equally? If one is a crime, shouldn't the other also be?

In essence, is it ever justifiable that something is a crime if the person who does it gets sexual gratification from it, but not a crime if they don't, no matter what the effect on the victim?

Yes, the juror who had watched it said it was not at all sexy. He doesn't sound like the world's greatest lover, fussing over who was putting the most effort into things.

He is still looking for a job doing time and motion studies.

Couldn't agree more...

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

He was prosecuted for voyeurism, under S.67 Sexual Offences Act 2003: