To think under your clothing is private?

[ZilphasHatpin]

www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/police-called-after-upskirt-photos-12965666

For anyone not wishing to click, a student was found to have "upskirt" photos of staff at their school on a memory stick. Police were called. The PPS decided not to investigate because;

"The complainants who were photographed were not observed doing a private act and therefore the evidential test in respect of the offence of voyeurism is not met."

So basically you can take photos under anyone's clothing without their consent as long as they aren't peeing or showering and there is no grounds to prosecute you.

The student in question is still at the school.

That's outrageous. I wonder if the union are involved.
I would not like to be a woman teacher or a girl pupil at that school. It's the usual message that boys can do what they like.

Filthy little perv. Cannot believe zero action was taken.

I'm sure it wont end there and this person will move on to worse offences, which could maybe have been discouraged, if some sort of punishment was doled out.

I'm disgusted with the school. where is the duty to protect staff and pupils?

Happened to a former Work colleague and the man in question was charged and sentenced.

(She was shopping at the time btw)

I'm wondering what the difference was in that case that allowed them to prosecute. The PPS in this case seems to be saying "our hands are tied, it's doesn't meet the criteria for prosecution". I'm surprised at this. The implication is very worrying.

I am absolutely stunned that the creep has been allowed to remain at the school in which he victimised these women! His offence may not have passed the evidentiary test for prosecution (which seems ridiculous!) but I am sure what he has done is absolutely against any decent school's code of conduct...

I'd hope that the pupil isn't allowed to remain at the school. It's hard enough to recruit teachers without giving the impression that this is the kind of behaviour they would be expected to tolerate. Not to mention the impact on the actual staff involved and the other pupils who might well also be targeted.

Surely it's still sexual harassment even if not officially voyeurism??

Had this done to me as teaching staff. Police refused to act as no crime had been committed. Absolute farce.

I would have thought so museumum. I don't understand why it has gone this way. Were the wrong charges pressed deliberately because they knew it wouldn't meet those criteria? It's odd.

I hope so too quack.

How has no crime been committed? I don't understand this. Is it because the victims were adults and not children?

Outrageous. Surely it's a crime?

Dermot absolutely disgusting!

This is so wrong and the laws should be changed. It's such a personal violation

Unfortunately 'up skirt' shots are a bit of a loophole in the law :( they aren't classed as voyeurism, because the voyeur has to record/photograph an 'inherently private' act, and the actual act photographed in this case is 'walking about wearing a skirt and underwear' and not in a place where they could reasonably expect to be afforded privacy.

I've known people to be arrested for this before, it was suggested that it might be a breach of the Public Order Act, but I can't remember whether they got charged or not. Horrible thing to do, legislation needs amended because every fucker with a phone is a photographer these days.

I cannot believe that no action can be taken whether under criminal laws or school policy. At the very least, this counts as harassment within the school grounds and if this is not already against school policy, something needs to be done pdq to make sure it is.

Weak school leadership.

Just because the police haven't prosecuted doesn't mean the school cannot do anything.

I was the subject of a fun Facebook page. Nothing offensive in it. The pupil who created it was leant on very heavily, by senior staff, until it was deleted.

I think unions would be unhappy about this and the schools seeming lack of action about it.

Parents wouldn't be happy either if they knew their child was educated in this sort of atmosphere. Generally they support strong action about things like this, drugs etc. (So long as its not their child!)

Unfortunately 'up skirt' shots are a bit of a loophole in the law sad they aren't classed as voyeurism, because the voyeur has to record/photograph an 'inherently private' act, and the actual act photographed in this case is 'walking about wearing a skirt and underwear' and not in a place where they could reasonably expect to be afforded privacy

Sounds like the law needs to catch up with technology and recognise gender based crimes against women, not that that will ever happen

Could you argue discrimination, as the people in question would not (presumably) have been wearing skirts/dresses if they were male and therefore it couldn't have happened to them?

It's a fucking disgrace anyway. I agree it's weak leadership by the school. You would hope that a school head would find it imperative to act.

I am amazed that this isn't illegal

This is just appalling.

and not in a place where they could reasonably expect to be afforded privacy.

This is the part I don't understand. Surely if you cover an area of your body with clothing that means whatever is under it should be considered private. So it shouldn't matter what you are doing when your privacy is violated. It's the fact that you have specified that you don't wish anyone to see that part of your body by covering it that makes it a violation by them crossing that boundary to not only see that area without your permission but photograph it and make it visible to others.

I am assuming, therefore, that I can walk up to any random person in the street, grab the waistband of their trousers & yank it out far enough to get a crotch-shot, then walk on my merry way, happily sharing that shot with the entire world.

No you wouldn't be able to do that, kickAss. That would be assault. There's no assault (technically) here, though of course it should be considered one.
This is one big reason why I usually wear trousers or leggings, and why my daughter wears trousers at school. There seems to be little we can do to prevent this invasion of privacy. I personally hate camera phones and that feeling that anyone can take my photo at any moment in public but there's nothing we can do about it. Camera phones aren't going away,

Bloody hell. That is awful. So sorry it happened to you too, Dermot.

On top of everything else, it's giving a clear message to the boy concerned that he's free to do whatever the fuck he likes with no consequences. No prosecution, no exclusion. Just business as usual. And the women teachers just have to suck it up.

Really bad news for any hope of improving awareness around consent.

I hope they do get their union involved. And yes, it's clear the law is woefully inadequate on this. Surely the fact that there was a clear intent to violate someone's privacy should matter.

Unfortunately I fear that precisely because it's a top ranking school it will be easier for the SMT to turn a blind eye to it. Parents will still want to send their DC there and teachers will still want to work there.

Outrageous. I mean, if you're doing an activity where you're underwear is ons show and somebody films you whilst doing that? Ok, I agree.

But under a skirt? Absolutely unacceptable.
The law has to catch up with that. Up skirt shots shold be classes as voyeurism. If I insert a camera up a dude's trouser leg... Still not voyeurism?

Also because skirts are often still a compulsory part of a school uniform. This thereofe leaves girls vulnerable and makes it seem "ok".

I'm absolutely outraged.