Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Dirty Bastard Caught Out

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Justus, Jan 17, 2007.

  1. Jail Term?

  2. Suspended Jail Term?

    0 vote(s)
  3. Community Based Order?

    0 vote(s)
  4. Fine?

    0 vote(s)
  1. Shoe-camera voyeur arrrested
    January 17, 2007 12:00am

    A MAN accused of using a video camera in his shoe to film up the skirts
    of women on Melbourne trams allegedly did it for four years, police said

    The man, in his early 20s, allegedly used an elaborate system to take potentially
    hundreds of images of women.

    The man had the camera hidden inside a pair of oversized Dunlop volleys with
    holes cut in the toe to fit the camera lens through.

    Hidden camera: Senior Constable Sue Benskin with shoe camera
    with lens at the toe and video camera

    Melbourne East Senior Constable Sue Benskin said the camera was connected
    to a cord that ran up his leg underneath his trousers to a bumbag.

    The bag was linked to a video camera, which police believed was used to take
    pictures of victims so they could be matched with images taken by the shoe
    camera underneath their skirts and dresses.

    The man's alleged scheme came undone yesterday when a woman on a tram
    heading north into the city noticed his hand-held video camera and complained
    to police she was being filmed.

    "The actual victim herself was quite distraught at the time and it's a very serious
    offence and we're taking it very seriously," Sen Const Benskin said.

    Police caught the man on a tram about 10.45am (AEDT) yesterday and he was
    released pending summons.

    Police also searched a St Kilda Road address where a large amount of photo-
    graphic material, equipment and evidence was seized.

  2. As a female, i was sickened to hear what this dirty, diseased minded mother f*cker did. (exuse the profanity)

    To some males this may seem humourous, and to some sl*ts, this behaviour is ok but in my opinion, this is a complete invasion of a females' privacy. :evil:

    To those who dont find it wrong, imagine if this dirty pedophile had photo's of your sister, mum or girfriend and sat at home tossing over them? WTF?

    My 2 cents worth...
  3. I'm sitting on the fence here. One side I see that well, as long as no one knows this guy is taking pics of people and tosses off or whatever to the pics behind closed doors, no one is hurt. I really don't see a problem with that, even it was my partner, family member or myself. It somehow might stop this guy from actually grabbing someone and sexually assaulting them due to pent up frustration of not fulfilling his (weird) sexual things. Of course if he is taking pics secretly and the subject finds out and is hurt, yes this is bad because someone has actually been hurt.

    On the flipside, this may lead to him assaulting someone due to 'stepping up' from doing whatever he does behind closed doors to those pics etc he has taken and one day decides he needs more to fulfill his sexual desires. Which of course is really wrong...

    There are people who do similar to magazines, such as male magazines (FHM etc) to magazines like "Womans day, take 5 etc". Also tv shows I guess, neighbours, home + away etc. From my experiences, people have all sorts of sexual fetishes/fantasies/loves etc, as long as they personally don't hurt someone mentally or physically, are they doing something 'wrong'.
  4. ... but aren't they also degrading themselves??
  5. I haven't done any background research on the case but has he taken pictures of people "under age" so he is a paedophile? I couldn't see anything said in the original post stating this, unless I missed it???

    *edit* Also, I do think the guy is mentally sick but as my post above, while he isn't actually physically or mentally hurting anyone, I can't really see how it is umm, I can't say this in text.. Umm, "wrong" to the people he took pics of. I don't condone it but hmmmmm just too deep to talk about in here, reallt need 1000000 word long post to convey exactly how I feel about this. I don't find it sexually attractive to myself or exciting or funny or anything but I jus't cant see "punishing him" for it? Maybe counselling or seeing exactly why he does this?
  6. ya gotta give him 10 points for creativity :grin:

    Then ya gotta take 20 points off him coz that shit is just perverted.

    Does that sound right coming from me??? :-k :demon: :demon: :eek:hno:
  7. :LOL: :LOL:

    Sure do. Only a dirty prick would come up with such a scheme & go to all the
    effort of making it happen.

    On the news they said he'd be charged with 'Stalking' offences. No idea what
    the maximum sentence is for such an offence but I was thinking it ranks lower
    than a sex crime & therefore if he is found guilty will not be put on the Sex
    Offenders Register.

    Maybe charges will be upgraded to sex offences if they find images of minors.

    If not, I'm thinking a suspended sentence & monetary fine of some sort would
    be the order of the day (if I was judge & jury).

    My suspicions (if its only stalking charges) given what I think of the judicial system,
    is that he'll probably get away with a fine only. :roll:

    Hopefully I'm wrong.
  8. Creativity my butt! They had a kid doing this on a CSI show or something like that last year. He saw it on TV! :LOL:

    Who's gonna get off looking at pics of womens underwear? :? Maybe he found someone not wearing any? :shock:
  9. Nothing of the sort has been mentioned in the media. Police are only saying
    they are going thru the 100's of pictures found at his house at this stage.
  10. I think people who do this sort of thing are more sad than bad, to be honest.

    He's upset his victims and many others, quite clearly. But you have to wonder how and why he ended up doing this.

    More a "sad tosser" than a "dirty bastard", I think.

  11. Actually I think he was a "happy tosser" at the appropriate times actually :wink:
  12. At this point in time, hes only upset one person; the lady who busted him.

    Until others see their pic that was in possession, you can't argue that he's
    upset any of his other victims if they are not even aware he took pics of their
    clean/soiled underwears (or lack thereof).
  13. So you are saying it only counts for one because only one person has been identified even though the vast majority of the others who were photographed, if they knew it was them, would be equally disturbed. That is horseshit. They have photographic proof of him doing an illegal act over and over again and the fact that one only person knows they were a victim in no way lessens the crime.

    That is like saying that if a mass murderer is caught after one body is identified, yet they find evidence linking him to 100 other unidentifiable bodies, then the other 99 don't matter.
  14. i think its clear that what you are saying is correct gegvasco.
    there will be a multitude of hurt people once they realise they have been violated.

    but i dont see why you are questioning MG, he is only stating what has been put out for the public thus far.... :roll:
  15. That's a really bad analogy. MG said the other people do not know they were photographed so how could they be hurt? With regards to being murdered, the 'other' murder victims have been hurt, so that does matter.

    *edit* Also the only way the other people who have been photographed to know they have been would be to publicly show the pics which I am fairly sure (well at least, hope so) that they won't so there is no way at all the victims would ever know they were photographed so how could they be hurt (personally) from this?
  16. The point I'm making is that MG is effectively lessening the seriousness of the extensive nature of the crime by saying it doesn't hurt anyone if they don't know about it. That is the same as saying it doesn't matter if you do 300kph on a road if no-one finds out about it. It is still illegal and dangerous and just because no-one knows about it, doesn't mean it is any less a crime.

    Hence the analogy of the unknown victims.
  17. Actually he was answering Gromit's statement that he has hurt many people and MG just stated he has only hurt the person who busted him doing it. I don't see MG saying at all the crime was not "that serious' because he only got busted by one person.
  18. Yeah, and I'm saying that just because they don't know about it doesn't mean they aren't a victim. Maybe it is the difference in the way people view crime. I see everyone that had their photo taken as a victim, regardless of whether they have been hurt by it or not. Just like when some idiot goes at warp factor 6 down a suburban road without crashing, I see the people who live in that street as victims because they are the ones who's lives are made less safe.
  19. I don't think anyone is saying they aren't a victim, it's just they aren't actually physically or mentally hurt from this *until* they actually know they had photos taken of them without consent. That's my take of what is being said in the past relevant posts.
  20. Never said that at all. Re-read my post.

    What I said is that you cant argue hes hurt more than once person like the lady
    who caught him felt like, because the other victims are not known.


    He has photos of your wife. Is your wife hurting like the woman who caught him?

    Of course not.

    Why is that? Its because your wife dosent know she is a victim. If & when she is
    informed, then she will feel exactly like the woman on the tram who busted him.

    Hence why I said the boy has only upset one woman because she is the only known

    That is what I said in my post.

    If & when more victims are notified, as the Police want to do, then of course that
    will change. Why do you think Police are asking for women to come forward who
    think they may have been a victim? Dont have to be a rocket scientist to know this.

    You made mention that the vast majority would be upset IF they found out. Yeh.. And???
    I agree with that 100% & ,y post does not say any different or ellude to a different
    line of thinking.

    If you think otherwise you have misinterpreted what was said.

    Your point? I know & believe this already & havent said any different. :roll: Even the
    bloody article says that. ](*,)

    No its not like that because you have not even understood what I said to begin with.

    Try again; this time go back & read the thread from the start using ya reading glasses. :wink: