To highlight this case of voyeurism in what appears to have been a unisex toilet on private premises?

[BadSkiingMum]

I came across this case of a voyeur who placed phone cameras under the sink in a toilet. Note that this did not even make BBC news - this is on a local London website.

Women secretly recorded by south east London voyeur | This Is Local London

This was a toilet in a hairdresser, so not open to passers by and with the need to make a booking to enter the premises. So it would seem to be a low-risk environment. But unfortunately this did not prevent an employee from committing a crime. While the article is not clear that the toilet was unisex, presumably the offender was able to enter the toilet and place the phones inside because he was using it himself and was therefore unlikely to be challenged.

In my opinion this case suggests that unisex toilets, even those which are in what we could consider to be a relatively 'safe' environment, present greater risk than toilets separated by sex.

Absolutely but don't go doing 'common sense'.

What does the right of privacy of women matter?

I was coming back to say, this wasn't just one toilet - it was actually three toilets, or rather sinks, that were meddled with...

In some venues and shops, like hairdressers, it would be difficult to have separate male and female toilets. I suppose you could say that if the space isn't big enough then the owners should move but that seems pretty harsh. I think that pervs will find a way even if the facilities are separate to be honest.

Yes, more than likely but why make it even easier for them?

A very sensible point.

Even women only toilets are attended to by male janitors on some places, male plumbers will attend foraintenance etc. and if the manager is male they will be wanting to go and see their own premises to check for cleanliness etc. outside of business hours so unless you want to ban every male in the building even the cleaners I really don't see how you think having separate sex toilets would prevent this.

He worked there, so presumably would have had cause to enter the toilets irrespective of how they were labelled.

Even with separate toilets, a determined perv would find a way to get into the ladies' to plant a camera.

It reads that it was an employee who carried it out. Even with single sex toilets he would still have access.

This happened about 20 years ago at my work. Not a unisex toilet but the fella snuck in and hid a camera in the ladies loo.

Sadly I don’t think this is a new thing

"But he told officers it was a cry for help as he needed mental health support and felt going to prison was the only way to get it".

Utter bollocks.

This happened a few years ago near here. The guy was a subcontractor at the university. It said he had hundreds of images and all but one victim was never identified. Quite horrifying but not sure how you avoid this. Sentencing seems poor though.

https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/19244121.worcester-upskirt-pervert-full-story-court/#gallery0

I think that's nonsense. Even single sex toilets don't have security guards manning the doors. A determined pervert will find away, cleaners etc are often male. As a PP said in this case it appears to have been an employee, it wouldn't be hard at all for a man to gain access even in a singe sex toilet block. Worrying about unisex toilets is a distraction from the issue. Creeps and perverts will find a way, it's not the fault of the toilets. It should however be prosecuted much harder IMO.

That Worcester case is horrific. The poor girl who identified what was going on - but so brave to raise the alarm in a public place.

I think my issue is that so many public buildings and spaces are going towards unisex toilets, which are presented as a safe all-gender option. Yet they don’t seem particularly safe at all.

What always amazes me is how diligent and thorough these digital perverts are: multiple phones, special equipment, adapted boots, multiple visits to locations…

You could open a browser right now and see pictures of a woman’s body, yet these voyeurs will go to any lengths and engage in high level espionage to get fresh content that is for their eyes only.

Why do they do it?

But unisex toilets aren't any less safe than single sex for all the reasons stated above.

It has been reported in media over the past years that unisex toilets have a higher risk for female people. Sadly, your OP is not unexpected.

Is there any evidence for this?

I mean it's common sense. The removal of women's single sex spaces is bound to result in more incidences of this.

If we know males are a safeguarding risk we don't remove all safeguards, because they are going to do it anyway.

It's just nonsense, we don't leave our front doors unlocked because we know a determined burglar will get in anyway, this is literally no different.

Unless you don't think that women's privacy matters that much, which seems to be the fashion these days.

If you can go in and lock the door and be alone, or go into a cubicle and lock the door and be alone, then you have privacy. Men aren't actually in the toilet with you unless you're weeing with the door open.

The camera was put in there by a male employee. Male employees will always have access to even ladies only toilets as they will be there to clean or repair things when the ladies aren't in there. Unless you want to ban men from the building entirely and not get your toilets maintained unless you can find a female plumber then you can't stop male employees entering the women's bathrooms outside of business hours anyway, which if you're going to put a camera in there, you would be in there outside of business hours.

And now random men can also do it.

Yay, what a whizz.

Fantastic. Now all men can be voyeurs, not just co-employees or cleaners.

What a great time to be alive as a woman.

I mean the police, were they interested, used to have a limited number of males to suspect of voyeurism in women's only toilets because only cleaners could access.

In unisex, it could be any dude.

What a great leap forward for woman kind.

We not only have to put up with piss all over the floor and toilet seats up, yuk. We have the knowledge that the last bloke who was in there could have left a camera in there.

Men allowing other men to get away with crimes against women. Absolutely disgusting.

He must have put all that crap there when the shop was shut. In a hairdressers there's usually very limited space for toilets, so placing three phones would definitely look obvious if others were around. So the status of the segregation of the toilets in this case doesn't really make any difference. As others have said.
There was one recently where someone stuck a phone in an airplane toilet, again it was a staff member. Some people are just sickos and they just need locking up. When I use a toilet I'm alone behind a locked door. If someone's snuck in prior and put something then there's not much I can do if I don't notice it. Horrible really we have to think of such things.

"Determined pervs will find a way, so don't bother with single sex toilets" is the counsel of despair. Why bother with any laws, any preventative measures at all? I don't hear people saying "Locks on your doors are a waste of time, determined burglars will find a way" or "Laws against murder/violence are a waste of time, murderers will still murder". Funny how it's only the most basic measures to give women some chance of privacy and safety that are shrugged off. Time was "good men stay out so the bad ones stand out" was taken for granted, but now women's boundaries are being purposefully eradicated.

Are you not alone behind a locked door when you use a unisex toilet?

Alone would be the definition of privacy in my opinion. Having a man use the toilet before or after you doesn't make it less private.