Anti social behaviour (a man urinating)

[Loz]

Well, to be fair, you started with the crap analogies. He wasn't breaking into anyone's house either.

[PokerTime]

I don't accept that. My point was a point of law. Whatever I may think about people relieving themselves in public spaces, the law is clear. You either accept the rule of law or you don't. You can't pick and choose what is legal and what isn't.

[Loz]

So was mine, and at least I had exactly the same situation, but changed it to a child for added effect. You invented an entirely new scenario.

You cannot go around photographing people's genitals without their consent, whatever the situation. As you say, you either accept the law or you don't, you can't pick and choose what is legal and what isn't.

[PokerTime]

The OP was photographing an act of law breaking. The OP was not setting out to photograph genitals. The display of genitals was an act of that law breaking. That's how the law would see it. When you break the law you lose the right to consent to reasonable acts to catch you committing that crime. In the absence of a law enforcer (i.e. police) use of photography and CCTV is perfectly reasonable.

It's blatently clear to all why the OP was offended and why the OP took that picture. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. Equally, to challenge the right to confront those behaving in an unlawful way is also nonsense.

I do think location is key here. We are not talking about some discreet alley in the dead of night. We are talking about an open space, next to a children's playground, a busy throughfare for pedestrians, and ironically the wall of an open bar/ restaurant that has toilets inside. Put all of that together and I see very little in terms of defense of this guy, and fail to see anything to criticise in the actions of the OP.

[JohnL]

Have you been to Charing Cross recently after 8PM

Open air toilets is the new thing, :)

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Don't know if I read the OP wrong but to me the

> most offensive part is that he apparently chose to

> pee on a piece of street art.

>

> Peeing openly in the street is unarguably

> antisocial. I accept there are mitigating

> circumstances sometimes but it's certainly not

> acceptable social behaviour or people would do it

> totally openly, wouldn't they. If a man walked up

> to the entrance of Sainsbury's on a Saturday

> morning and casually peed against the glass he'd

> be arrested before he'd zipped his trousers up. It

> seems that as long as a man makes a half-hearted

> attempt to conceal what he's doing then some

> people think it's OK, which is a bit strange when

> you think about it.

[mako]

Very good mark88

[JohnL]

Well here's the list if you're caught out and don't want to buy a half in the pub or a coffee in Nero's.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/a_to_z/service/405/public_toilets

So as a society we get what we deserve maybe.

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The OP was photographing an act of law breaking.

> The OP was not setting out to photograph genitals.

> The display of genitals was an act of that law

> breaking. That's how the law would see it. When

> you break the law you lose the right to consent to

> reasonable acts to catch you committing that

> crime. In the absence of a law enforcer (i.e.

> police) use of photography and CCTV is perfectly

> reasonable.

>

> It's blatently clear to all why the OP was

> offended and why the OP took that picture. To

> suggest otherwise is nonsense. Equally, to

> challenge the right to confront those behaving in

> an unlawful way is also nonsense.

>

> I do think location is key here. We are not

> talking about some discreet alley in the dead of

> night. We are talking about an open space, next to

> a children's playground, a busy throughfare for

> pedestrians, and ironically the wall of an open

> bar/ restaurant that has toilets inside. Put all

> of that together and I see very little in terms of

> defense of this guy, and fail to see anything to

> criticise in the actions of the OP.

[mako]

'Having asked to use the pubs toilet and they declined i had little option with my bladder problem but to go outside. There seemed little cover in the area so used a wall and was startled by someone shouting at me and taking pictures. I tried to laugh it off to show that i wasnt dangerous or intimidating, shook myself dry and then just walked away to avoid confrontation'.

[LadyDeliah]

Probably just about sums it up Mako.

[steveo]

make it stop

[adonirum]

sean dillion Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Am taking bets on our many pages we get on this,l

> say 8 do l hear a 9?

Nearly there Sean was a good guess

Despair not, Steveo, should stop soon.

[JohnL]

Actually I've known a few people who stopped going out when they had

issues such as this or if they did planned every movement around the

availability of a WC. You don't even think about it if you don't.

It's worse if you have a stoma or such.

mako Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'Having asked to use the pubs toilet and they

> declined i had little option with my bladder

> problem but to go outside. There seemed little

> cover in the area so used a wall and was startled

> by someone shouting at me and taking pictures. I

> tried to laugh it off to show that i wasnt

> dangerous or intimidating, shook myself dry and

> then just walked away to avoid confrontation'.

[jimbo1964]

I just remembered when I was a small boy what fun it was to see how high I could wee up a wall. It's something you grow out of.

[sean dillion]

adonirum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> sean dillion Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Am taking bets on our many pages we get on

> this,l

> > say 8 do l hear a 9?

>

> Nearly there Sean was a good guess

>

> Despair not, Steveo, should stop soon.

Thank you kind sir/lady

[mako]

With the court case and stuff surely we will get to double figures

[Loz]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's worse if you have a stoma or such.

I had to google that. And I'm rather sorry I did now. Ew.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Lilliers HQ, 1914

...We all waited about in the lane outside the chateau. There were perhaps two or three hundred of us and we made a large crowd. Whilst standing about, a French courting couple came down the lane arm in arm. They were talking one with the other and walked past us on their way to the village. When they had got about fifty yards past us, the chap stopped and passed water in the gutter, his girl still having her arm through his and quite unconcerned, was chatting away to him.

This of course, the men could not help noticing and they acted in different ways. Some turned away their heads, others roared with laughter, while others called out to the couple that they ought to be ashamed of themselves. The couple, who took not much notice of any of it, perhaps wondered what it was all about for the French sense of decency was far different from out own.

Extract from "Harry's War: a Tommy's experiences in World War One"

Plus ca change

[StraferJack]

She's a killer qu....::

"you don't. You can't pick and choose what is legal and what isn't."

Sounds reasonable. Know ANYONE who is that holy? You don't knowingly break any laws? None?

Unrelated sidenote. Ivy house is doing well. Many said it wouldn't you know

[binary_star]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Unrelated sidenote. Ivy house is doing well. Many

> said it wouldn't you know

Irregardless. Totally irregardless.

[kristen]

It feels like calling on some outlandish rule in a game of Mornington Crescent but isn't Hinckley Road in Peckham

So couldn't this thread be lounged - or deleted as deviation from the purpose of the forum

[mako]

Why were the brackets (a man urinating) added to the title of this thread?

[Sue]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> She's a killer qu....::

>

> "you don't. You can't pick and choose what is

> legal and what isn't."

>

> Sounds reasonable. Know ANYONE who is that holy?

> You don't knowingly break any laws? None?

>

> Unrelated sidenote. Ivy house is doing well. Many

> said it wouldn't you know

xxxxxxx

Very naughty, Strafer Jack :))

[LadyDeliah]

Just thought I'd share this:

http://m.vice.com/en_uk/read/deep-inside-the-chain-pub-piss-dungeon

It's got everything the DJ, I mean Poker Time could want, piss, camera phone and a male perve.

Enjoy

[dennis]

If they are in a public space you can photograph them without consent

-------------------------------------------------------

> You cannot go around photographing people's

> genitals without their consent, whatever the

> situation. As you say, you either accept the law

> or you don't, you can't pick and choose what is

> legal and what isn't.

[Loz]

dennis Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If they are in a public space you can photograph

> them without consent

You can photograph them, but purposely photographing their genitals is an entirely different offence to simple photographic consent. See all the cases of 'upskirt' offences.