Article Eight

[t-v]

Hi playme, Gemo and Alpha.

I did Law O level. Most of the cases were funny. There was one of a woman against Hambden (I think it was) borough council. She was sueing them because she was locked in the loo and had injured herself because the loo roll holder she had stepped on to try and climb out of the loo cubicle had given way. She lost the case because she wasn't using the loo roll holder for the purpose in which it was intended.

I copied this from the other thread, hope you don't mind. I remember that case from last year at college, delict I think (or tort in England).

There are a few strange ones too. There was a case, Brennan, where a man had drunk 25 pints, 1 sherry and taken a microdot of LSD. Him and his father got into an argument about the Pink Floyd album cover 'Dark side of the Moon' and the son killed his dad.

I always think, it must have been the sherry that tipped him over the edge. He didn't get off with it though because he voluntarily intoxicated himself.

Another case, R v Brown, a group of homosexual sadomasichists filmed depraved sex acts with each other (including, inter alia, sandpapering each others willys), which had been consensual, were arrested. The court held that consent was no defence. They were found guilty.

I can never really understand the ruling against private consensual acts in Brown... some academics have thought that it was homophobic. The recent case where the man was found guilty of shameless indecency for having sex with a bike reminded me of the Brown case.

[Gemo52]

Originally Posted by t-v

Hi playme, Gemo and Alpha.



I copied this from the other thread, hope you don't mind. I remember that case from last year at college, delict I think (or tort in England).

There are a few strange ones too. There was a case, Brennan, where a man had drunk 25 pints, 1 sherry and taken a microdot of LSD. Him and his father got into an argument about the Pink Floyd album cover 'Dark side of the Moon' and the son killed his dad.

I always think, it must have been the sherry that tipped him over the edge. He didn't get off with it though because he voluntarily intoxicated himself.

Another case, R v Brown, a group of homosexual sadomasichists filmed depraved sex acts with each other (including, inter alia, sandpapering each others willys), which had been consensual, were arrested. The court held that consent was no defence. They were found guilty.

I can never really understand the ruling against private consensual acts in Brown... some academics have thought that it was homophobic. The recent case where the man was found guilty of shameless indecency for having sex with a bike reminded me of the Brown case.

Article 8 stuff and its being over-ruled "by the amount of physical or psychological harm that the law allows between any two people, even consenting adults, is to be determined by the State the individuals live in, as it is the State's responsibility to balance the concerns of public health and well-being with the amount of control a State should be allowed to exercise over its citizens."

[t-v]

Originally Posted by Gemo52

Article 8 stuff and its being over-ruled "by the amount of physical or psychological harm that the law allows between any two people, even consenting adults, is to be determined by the State the individuals live in, as it is the State's responsibility to balance the concerns of public health and well-being with the amount of control a State should be allowed to exercise over its citizens."

I know but it's a fairly fine line. I believe that within the confines of law, people should be allowed to do what they want in private. Article 8 is so vague and fuzzy that it can be interpreted any way it suits the judge on the day.

[Gemo52]

Originally Posted by t-v

I know but it's a fairly fine line. I believe that within the confines of law, people should be allowed to do what they want in private. Article 8 is so vague and fuzzy that it can be interpreted any way it suits the judge on the day.

Was it the R v Brown case where the rights to privacy (Article 8) were not considered relevant because 44 people were taking part so it wasn't really in private.

[t-v]

Originally Posted by Gemo52

Was it the R v Brown case where the rights to privacy (Article 8) were not considered relevant because 44 people were taking part so it wasn't really in private.

It goes back to the original case, the charges were about 'assault'. THe wording of the act meant that consent was irrelevant, it was the fact they had inflicted injury on another person/other people. It was appealed at the High Court and dismissed. They appealed again at the European Court of Human Rights using Article 8 as a way of defence. That was dismissed as well.

I presume it was the fact they were injuring each other and not just having sex... and it was on video! I doubt they would have been prosecuted if it wasn't on video.

[Mr Morningstarr*]

Thought this deserved a thread of it's own.

[Gemo52]

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) was incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) creates a general right to respect for privacy where none previously existed.

Article 8

[t-v]

Originally Posted by Gemo52

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) was incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) creates a general right to respect for privacy where none previously existed.

Article 8

I realise it must be difficult to draft these laws that cover such a wide aspect of our lives. I just feel that it is difficult to quantify exactly what you can do in private.

For example, the man caught having sex with a bike. Surely under the provisions of Article 8 the man wouldn't have been prosecuted because he had a right to privacy. However, because the charge has been brought against him and the case proven in the court of law. He is now on the sex offenders register and has a criminal record of this sexual offence.

Under Article 7, a person must know that there behaviour is illegal... laws cannot be retrospective. It wouldn't appear to me (or many others) that a man, in a locked hotel room, would be offending the cleaners who went in the room by having sex with a bike. Correspondingly though of course, it isn't something that you hear of everyday.

Does anyone think that man should have been convicted?

[karnautrahl]

To my mind the only times when someone should be prosecuted for a sexual act is if
A)Rape, underage sex or indecent assault is the crime
B)Deliberate public acts are committed to offend
C)There is any unconsenting sex or harmful acts. This would include bestiality of course LOL.

The judge was way wrong. So were the cleaners.

As for a right to privacy, our laws should not be allowed to pry into the acts between consenting adults-regardless of number or sex. The only criteria should be consent-full and complete (including ability to consent).

The idea that the government can tell me what I'm allowed to experience with another adult, both of us choosing to, is absolutely ludicrous. It's about time the old fashioned morally anal influence on law was removed.

Protect kids, protect the vulnerable and protect people from unconsensual harm by all means, but they should butt right out of the rest.

[t-v]

Originally Posted by karnautrahl

To my mind the only times when someone should be prosecuted for a sexual act is if
A)Rape, underage sex or indecent assault is the crime
B)Deliberate public acts are committed to offend
C)There is any unconsenting sex or harmful acts. This would include bestiality of course LOL.

The judge was way wrong. So were the cleaners.

As for a right to privacy, our laws should not be allowed to pry into the acts between consenting adults-regardless of number or sex. The only criteria should be consent-full and complete (including ability to consent).

The idea that the government can tell me what I'm allowed to experience with another adult, both of us choosing to, is absolutely ludicrous. It's about time the old fashioned morally anal influence on law was removed.

Protect kids, protect the vulnerable and protect people from unconsensual harm by all means, but they should butt right out of the rest.

No defence of "but the dog/horse said he wanted to" then!


I agree Karn, where possible I don't think the Crown should go around making criminals out of law-abiding decent citizens.

I think it's the Roman/religious influence that has encouraged the mentality that people can't think for themselves. The sooner the government/courts realise that adults should actually be responsible for their own actions and we don't need to be 'micromanaged' the better. We will all begin to take more of a person responsibility that way.