BBC article on voyeur masseur

Missed out a detail in my post - I went up to look at the device to try to figure out what it was, though I didn't open the cupboard. That made me think later on when I tried to book again (having convinced myself I was being crazy) that maybe he'd seen me do that in footage and that made him panic when I booked with him again. If that makes sense

Anyway, sorry, it's not about me - these poor women, especially being pregnant and dealing with that. Good on her for looking into it and not taking no for an answer.

The title of this thread made me feel sick. I went for a massage once and saw a device with a light on it in an open-faced cupboard when I was getting changed at the end. Tried to tell myself it was nothing and I was being paranoid and to forget about it. Maybe a year later when I tried to book another appointment with him he cancelled it and removed his profile from the booking site as well as his Facebook profile. This was maybe five years ago and I'm still scared that footage of me half naked is on the internet somewhere. I was almost expecting to be faced with his picture when I clicked on the article but no, not him. I really wonder if my uneasy feeling was actually right.

Ffs he’ll end up serving less than a day for each woman he violated

It doesn’t say why the sentence was reduced. No doubt ‘stress of something or other’.

A little update in this one, sentence reduced. I'm furious.

www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/peterborough-masseur-jailed-for-secretly-filming-more-than-900-women-undress-has-sentence-reduced-3426542

So - masseur is male, masseuse is female. Voyeur is male, voyeuse is female then. No? Does the word 'voyeuse' not exist in English usage? I wonder why that might be.

Thanks, Gerbil.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/feminism/4328984-Male-masseur-voyeurism-in-news-Shows-myths-depressingly

She pushed aside her doubts about a man massaging as she didn't want to be sexist etc.

Let me find the other thread.

Might not have known the sex of the massage-person, Talking?

I dunno, it sounded like the voucher was specific for this man, not like she could have chosen from others when she rang up to book. But yeah, we can’t know really.

I just wish women felt entitled to say no, I don’t want to see a man for something like this. This is what we should be teaching girls in school, not all the boundary eroding misogynistic bollocks. This is what should be on the PSHE curriculum, teaching them they’re entitled to ask for what makes them feel comfortable. And teaching boys to bloody well respect that.

This woman was amazing - to have noticed, researched, reported, done all she could to bring a serious, serial criminal to book. And she was dismissed, repeatedly. Endangered, even! It's pretty shocking.

I know. It was so astute of her, at at time when she was vulnerable, and should have been able to let her guard down.

When I called the masseur, Roddis, I was initially a little bit apprehensive because I realised it was a man, but I kind of thought: "No, it's the 21st Century, it'll be fine, I'll go for it."

This is really sad and it’s what we’re up against all the time, isn’t it. Female socialisation. Women dismissing their own actually very well-founded fears and concerns. Overriding our instincts, because it’s not kind to men to be suspicious of them.

I have to ask WTF the BIL was doing getting her a voucher for a massage with a man. Especially when she was pregnant and already anxious. And why the BIL anyway - why not her DSis or DH? Weird. But anyway. She did a brilliant thing, and should feel proud of herself, and should have been acknowledged by the police for her actions.

Instead she now feels guilty for having alerted his other victims to his abuse, and the consequent trauma they’ve suffered, as if she’s in any way to blame. Which is another thing that’s so sad and wrong about this case. Sounds to me like she could really use some professional support herself, shame the police aren’t linking victims of sexual crime up to that kind of service instead of patting themselves on the back about what a great job they didn’t actually do.

Masseur is the male type and masseuse is female. So would a female voyeur be a voyeuse ?

I started a thread it's fallen down the topic now but yes it's appalling. The police behaviour outrageous.

There was a thread on t'other side of the wall here - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/feminism/4328984-Male-masseur-voyeurism-in-news-Shows-myths-depressingly?msgid=110201468

The self congratulatory police made me particularly furious.

Mind boggling, isn’t it.

But: "Safeguarding victims and taking action against offenders is a top priority and we want victims to know we are committed to ensuring they will be listened to and supported."

So that’s alright then.

They wanted her to go back and ask him why he was recording her?! Fucking hell

Thanks for this link Arabella, dreadful story - just important to note for others this was a (male) masseur, not a (female) masseuse - I was actually confused by that till I read the article!

Same old male pattern sexual offending, of course. Same old reasons why women need safe spaces away from men. Same old reasons why “gender neutral” facilities are actually a risk for women. Men do this stuff, and they do it in significant enough numbers to make it something we have to take into account and safeguard against.

I’m also really angry about that quote from Det Insp Dave Savill, from Cambridgeshire Police, the force that investigated Roddis, saying that officers “put a lot of time and effort and expertise into this investigation and the result shows the merit of the work we've done".

When the fact is they didn’t believe her to start with, tried to suggest he could have had a legitimate reason to film his clients when he wasn’t eve in the room, suggested that she, as a pregnant woman, go and confront him herself, alone, and overall handled it so badly she left in tears and had to make a complaint before they took it at all seriously.

And when they did finally visit him and question him, during which time he had no doubt abused yet more women, he admitted everything immediately and handed over all his equipment without having to be pressured in any way.

I don’t see any signs of the “lot of time, effort and expertise” they supposedly put in, quite the opposite. The way he goes on to big up the amazing way they supposedly handle sexual offences, all the training they do blah blah, is just another example of the way so many institutions say all the right things while doing all the wrong things. If it weren’t for her persistence, this odious man would still be doing what he was doing and there would be even more than 900 victims by now.

The fact this detective doesn’t even credit her for her detective skills and courage in pursuing this, but is obviously only interested in trying to hide and minimise the fact his force didn’t deal with this properly at all initially, is actually quite disgusting. She’s the reason this predator was caught, not them. I am raging at this.