Apparently if you have sex with someone you also consent to them filming you. AIBU to think WTF??

[JuliusNicholson]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-prosecution-for-man-who-secretly-filmed-naked-woman-sleeping-k6wwh83n6?shareToken=c97302341a797cefe4c0aa94c0fd05b7

Woman was told by the CPS ‘if you have sex with someone, you “by extension” consent to them seeing you naked and filming you and she does “not have a reasonable expectation of privacy”.’

The strategy consultant, from Hackney, east London, claims she was drugged and raped by a man who later recorded a 62-second clip of her lying face down on a hotel bed.

A 35-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of rape in 2015 but denied the allegations and was not charged for lack of evidence.

Now prosecutors have refused to pursue a charge of voyeurism, despite the suspect’s admission to police that he recorded the mobile phone video with the intention of using it for sexual gratification and that if Hunt had woke up she would have been “alarmed”.

(From the article)

Article also says that at the end:

People have been prosecuted on voyeurism charges in past cases where the subject consented to sex. Jayson Lobo, a former police officer who secretly filmed sexual encounters with seven women, was jailed in 2017.

So it doesn’t add up?

I’m only guessing based on the story but the legislation requires the person to be doing a ‘private act’. In the Lobo case it was sex being filmed which is deemed ‘private’ whereas in this case they were just sleeping. An act that could be done publicly so not ‘private’.

That said, it should’ve been tested in court under the circumstances.

I think you've added her name at the end? But no YANBU in the slightest.

YANBU

CPS were ridiculous
2 very different kinds of consent, having sex and being filmed having sex - which imo is in itself a different kind of sex act

Also, allowing one person to see you naked does not mean consent to allowing potentially millions
or even the bloke just showing the film to his mates

Was there a Jury? They almost always side with the rapist with a spout of victim blaming BS. I went to court to face my rapist who attacked me when I was 16. He was found not guilty by 10-2 due to his personal traumas 9 years after the assault (which the judge appallingly allowed) and I was blamed and told it was my fault for having depression and for trusting him in the first place. I screamed the most blood curdling scream of my life when they announced it and didn't stop sobbing hysterically for weeks. It took me 8 years to come forward and I wish I hadn't.

Rape only goes to court when there is enough evidence to prosecute. Unfortunately most people have only the TV dramatised view of rape so assume if a victim doesn't act a certain way or stops fighting that it's entirely the victims fault. Jury's are not trained or informed of how this fight or flight works. The sheer volume of rapists they put back on the streets is staggering. Its a he said she said in most situations and even with video evidence it's always somehow the victims fault.

bubblemama 💐
Disgraceful how your case went
Bastards