Reply to post:

Trial date set for Brit police 'copter coppers over spying-on-doggers claims

You aint sin me, roit

I'm not a lawyer but I believe you are incorrect.

There's nothing illegal in exposing oneself - as long as it isn't intended to cause offence. I don't even think the "I didn't see it but I'd have been offended if I had" argument works either. For there to be an offence someone who was watching had to be offended.

And it's not illegal to watch either, as long as the performers know and consent.

In fact, the illegal voyeurism was performed by the coppers: "operates equipment with the intention of enabling another person to observe, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, a third party doing a private act, and he knows that the third party does not consent to his operating equipment with that intention".

It is reasonable to assume that by having sex in a deserted area, at night, in a car, the doggers did not consent to the cops watching them.

And presumably this is indeed the case, otherwise the cops wouldn't be being prosecuted... "four counts of misconduct relating to watching and filming naked people without their consent and observing and recording people performing sexual acts".

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon