Photographing Boobs and Bums is ok
The police had no complaints from any of the women, who did not know that Standeven was photographing them walking and exercising, but it had a complaint from a man who said he was “disgusted” when he saw what Standeven was doing.
These are photos in the open in public places.
Police prosecutor Sergeant Kathy Pomfrett told the defended hearing: “The sheer number of photographs of females’ bottoms and breasts are enough for us to continue with the prosecution.”
This is feminist logic at its worst in our police force.
If I was offended that a female was walking around with her phone taking pictures of male butts and suggested to the Police that she should be prosecuted on the basis of the number of images on her phone I’d be laughed at and rightly so.
However, the appeal succeeded because the JPs were misdirected about the law.
Judge Farish said Standeven was at the park to take photographs. He did not hide or disguise himself.
“The photographs show (in my opinion) some fairly poor photography and in no way could they be described as salacious or offensive,” she said.
How this even made it past a couple of JP’s even is an embarrassment to the intelligence our Justice system.
Emma Gleason: Why we need to set our nipples free
We’ve all got them, usually a pair if not more.
For some reason (although largely unsurprising given the Western approach to nudity) the female nipple has become the hinge-point of a global movement around social media censorship, namely #FreeTheNipple.
Of course, male nipples are allowed to run free on any and every social media platform – however the female nipple is deemed to be in breach of Instagram and Facebook’s guidelines on what is offensive. If their nudity policy was applied across the board it might not be so bad, however it seems limited to female breasts and pubic hair – both of which are generally considered rather common, if not the literal norm.
As with most things, celebrities have been at the forefront of not only the censorship but the fight against it. Rihanna’s Instagram account was deleted after she posted her bare-breasted cover shot for Lui magazine.
This is a difficult one, if he is mr pervert and being offensive that is one thing.
This raises much bigger issues.
Cameras are all up state highway one out of wellington often with one camera on a dedicated enormus galvernised pole, presumably networked.
The cost of this must be huge, we are told its for traffic monitoring.
Most intersections have cameras.
All govt departments and quasi govt have cameras it seems.
Many shops have cameras.
In instances when people need to interact with these organizations they are filmed. Too bad, it’s the way it is it seems.
Conversely interactions with organizations where by you are recorded may be recorded by you, after all you would be filming them filming you perhaps.
So it could be that the guy who complained may have been better off taking his camera and filming the guy taking pictures and showing that to him, he would most likely stop.
What he was doing, if he was doing it and it seems that the was, appears to be more of a social, moral issue and he scores really low.
If people (and police) have time to worry about this behaviour, then life in NZ must be amazingly good!!??
Or, are we losing sight of our real values and priorities?
Besides, if people want intimate photos, just download them from internet sources (where the subjects have made them publicly available because they want to be seen) and you aren’t taking any of the risks of offending people in parks.
I am worried abou the quality of child protection in NZ, by familycaught$, by CYFs and police. By comparison, almost all teachers have sensible, practical, safe judgement. I guess that this suggests what training is safe, constructive and sensible?
I guess some people just go around, needing to be offended. I am offended at christians who need to be offended and far prefer moderate moslems with beards, to creeps who think they know best how other people should live their lives, like rigid christian “leaders”.
How popes can pontificate, when their own organisation has turned a “blind” eye to abuse of children for centuries, is outside of my understanding. These are the types of people we should be filling up our newly built prisons with, accessory before and after the fact.
Having said that, the present pope does seem to be more inclusive and willing to listen to worldly wisdom than his predecessors….?
Murray Bacon – you dipstick. (You generally show a bit more intelligence than this)
A. These are not intimate photos. People do not walk around in public being intimate.
B. Offensive behaviour is not concerned with someone’s private upset – criminal law is concerned about the effect on society.
You need to go and have a rethink of what you just said.
Dear Downunder, I am just trying to say – as far as sensibly possible – avoid bringing trouble down on yourself! (If of course, life is getting too boring and your pocket is too full of spare cash, by all means bring a little hell down on yourself….Many parents/fathers already have enough problems going on, without choosing to add more?)
For me, the main point of the discussion was while the police are prosecuting someone taking legally irrelevant photos, they are not spending the time to obtain evidence about some alleged domestic assault and then go on to maliciously prosecute some innocent parent, or fail to investigate properly assaults and sexual assaults.
The police are meant to constructively prioritise their work, but they are being pressured by some people, to focus onto minor and trivial issues (that they can easily win in court). Bullying doesn’t solve problems.
What I see as relevant here is the way the behaviour is being viewed.
Anyone can walk around taking pictures in public as long as they are not causing any harm.
No harm was done.
As I said above if a girl was walking around the streets taking photos of boys bums with her mobile phone, no one would give a toss, but one fellow sees another fellow taking photos and decides the police should do something about it.
They have no power to prosecute someone who has done anything wrong under a law he didn’t break.
It’s like trying to prosecute someone for offensive behaviour because he or she was in a bookshop reading a naughty magazine.
This fellow has been dragged through a sexist prosecution by a malicious feminasty police attitude.
But this even got past two JPs in the initial proceedings which shows how easily the sexist dogma against the male is being ingrained into some people’s thinking.