Can we use the words from this legal judgement?

[YourOpinionIsNoted]

'There had to be a degree of planning when you got a video recording of a women's changing area, where females were changing their clothes in what they thought was the privacy of a cubicle.'

That's from the judge, Blackfriars Crown Court Judge Peter Clarke QC, in the sentencing of a man for numerous upskirting and voyuerism offences. Article in the daily mail (link below).

I'm just wondering if that expectation of privacy in a women's changing area could be useful against M&S etc with their free for all changing rooms policy.

Thoughts?

Link to DM article:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6796451/Surrey-father-two-jailed-posting-46-upskirt-videos-London-Underground-adult-website.html#article-6796451

Fuck why isn't my link clicky?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6796451/Surrey-father-two-jailed-posting-46-upskirt-videos-London-Underground-adult-website.html#article-6796451

There's a lot of other shit to unpack in that article, by the way, but this is the bit that I'm interested in for now. Note also the 'degree of planning' the judge expects that the criminal went to to gain access - now, we know he wouldn't need to plan anything beyond the sentence "but this is where I feel most comfortable".

I'm interested in which store this happened in? Was it a women's changing room that welcomes men like him - the type that M & S and John Lewis now provide?

The expectation of privacy would be for anything I expect to do in private. E.g. going to the loo, completely undressing ( as in removing my bra to try on a new bra). I wouldn’t count being observed in underwear though as bikinis are common on a public beach ( definitely would be very uncomfortable though).

The judge seems to be overly concerned as to why he made them available on the internet as opposed to 🤷‍♀️ why he took them in the first place the man seems a bit upset because he got caught and people cancelled his contracts and didnt want to work with him

I have no words

Yes me too @Uncompromisingwoman, the article didn't say. Is there a way to find out, does anyone know?

Why would being in your underwear not count as private, because bikinis exist??? My bikini doesn't have sheer lace panels that render my nipples visible. I don't wear a thong bikini, but I might have worn a thong to go out shopping.

Hang on a sec

The Human Rights Act of 1998 brought English law into line with the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Convention contains an explicit declaration of the right of an individual to have their private life and information protected.

Would privacy in a changing room count as private life and could there be an expectation /right to privacy in a changing room - therefore M&S, John Lewis etc are contravening that, unless the member of staff checks or scans for cameras between customer use of changing cubicles?

Possibly a leap, I'm not a lawyer.

I do think this whole thing could fall down on the hidden cameras thing rather than the gender identity thing.

It is unlikely to help.

This is an issue of covert video (also used for long-lens cameras) where the subject does not know they are being observed.

It does not mean that other people should not be passing through the common parts of a changing room. But if they invaded a cubicle, there might be an offence.

I think the law sees being observed in underwear not voyeuristic. I don’t agree necessarily but people do wear less in public. It should be private but the law doesn’t see it as such.

They were fully dressed on the tube and going up escalators

Which is why outraging public decency is often charged instead of voyeurism as the offence is lacking.

I wouldn’t count being observed in underwear though as bikinis are common on a public beach ( definitely would be very uncomfortable though)

That is not a valid comparison. Everyone on a public beach has tacitly given their consent to being seen with very little clothes on and to expect to see strangers with very little clothes on.

Interesting that apart from one local paper and The Standard no other paper apart from The Mail thinks this is worth reporting.

The law doesn't count women and girls bring covertly filmed while stripping to underwear in a changing room as a voyeurism crime?

Come on.

The argument that some women wear less on the beach so it's ok for all women and girls to be spied on while undressing in a cubicle, it doesn't follow.

Beaches exist where people are happy to sunbathe naked. Topless sunbathing is common in lots of countries.

Basing what it's ok for men to spy kid on when women and girls expect privacy, stuff around what some women feel comfortable wearing in public, is a terrible idea, I'm surprised to see so many women in a feminist forum say it's sensible.

I’m not agreeing with it! It’s how the law sees it. It’s wrong but comparisons are made between underwear and beachwear.

Surely beach wear is deliberately chosen to be in public in?

Just because I might choose to wear a bikini on holiday isn't the same as whatever bra and knickers I change down to when I'm trying on clothes. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't wear anything less than a t shirt on the beach, I just wouldn't.

I agree that trying to argue right to privacy under these circumstances is very likely to succeed. It's rather like the stores saying once something has happened - and they don't specify what that might be - they will do something. And they don't specify what. Because everyone is fully aware less than 5% of evidenced rapes end in a prosecution, and that's full blown rape. A man behaving sexually, inappropriately, harassing, in fact doing anything less than full on assault, is going to get away with it, because no shop assistant is trained to deal with that situation and there will be no proof, no evidence, nothing the police can do, just an upset and traumatised woman with a truly horrible experience of living in the UK in 2019 with the curse of female biology. That male people feel entitled to.

I couldn't get past this sentence:

The pharmaceutical expert from Surrey claims his business has been ruined.

And whose fault is that? Are we supposed to feel sorry for the creep? (Answer probably yes. After all we're always told what good guys family annihilators are.)

I suspect that the stores now enabling these creeps to use women's changing rooms will move heaven and earth to stop all incidents of voyeurism, filming, abuse etc from becoming public. They will try to hush it up at all costs. That's why I am suspicious about which Wimbledon store this man was in when he filmed in the women's changing room.