Perverted or Just Strange?

An Aberdeen man (Hipster?) has been placed on the sex offenders register for taking over 70,000 photos of women walking past his flat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-21599897

No nudity, no up skirt shots, no boobie close-ups - just photos of women walking past his window.

So is he a pervert or just a bit strange?

In my opinion this man is not a sex offender, and it is very unfair to class him in the same bracket as a kiddie fiddler or rapist. I am considering paying for his appeal.

What do you think?

There's an element of perversion.

This type of person would eventually go on to stalk or even rape a girl

Boggersbelief wrote:There's an element of perversion.

This type of person would eventually go on to stalk or even rape a girl

You idiot. I bet you read the Daily Mail.

Punch yourself in the face please.

It's the only way you get attention from men, I can see why you're defending him.

It's strange imo.

I'm surprised he got prosecuted for it tbh.

Unless some of the photos were of kids. Doesn't say that though.

There is clearly an element of voyeurism and 70,000 photos would take a long time to amass. He is 45 years old and has never been convicted of any crime before so he probably isn't a threat to women.

We don't know what he said when he was interviewed. That may have been the reason that the authorities decided to prosecute.

In this country the law is you're allowed to photograph anyone, as long as they're not children, from your own property or in a public place. I don't know if it's different in Scotland. We are all photographed and filmed hundreds of times every day when we leave the house.

Seems sad rather than perverted.

I think RT is right about it being how he dealt with the police that may be the problem. It appears that he has admitted taking the pictures "for his sexual gratification". If he had just said he was an amateur photographer and denied any sexual interest he might have got away with it.

xmiles wrote:Seems sad rather than perverted.

I think RT is right about it being how he dealt with the police that may be the problem. It appears that he has admitted taking the pictures "for his sexual gratification". If he had just said he was an amateur photographer and denied any sexual interest he might have got away with it.

But even if he gets his rocks off to the pics every night, I still don't see how he's a sex offender.

I think he's just an anorak that takes photos of women. It will be illegal to open your eyes soon.

Compare this to noted photographer Michael Wolfs work.





and no they don't know he's taking them.

At this stage, there's nothing to suggest the guy is a perv, but it does sound a bit obsessive.

Sounds as though he needs a bit of help more than find himself with a criminal record - but maybe there's more to the story than we know?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

xmiles wrote:Seems sad rather than perverted.

I think RT is right about it being how he dealt with the police that may be the problem. It appears that he has admitted taking the pictures "for his sexual gratification". If he had just said he was an amateur photographer and denied any sexual interest he might have got away with it.

But even if he gets his rocks off to the pics every night, I still don't see how he's a sex offender.

I agree that putting him on the register is overkill.

just strange - no crime has been comitted

Just strange gets my vote as well. He must have said something really wrong to the Police to be placed on a sex offenders list. If I took photos of the building opposite my house and people happened to be passing by, and the photos were never used for any commercial enterprise or posted online anywhere, I fail to see how the personal use of said photos could be construed as a crime.

I remember a similar case in Manchester a few years ago. Basically, a retired Grandfather in his late sixties drove a mile from his house to the local girls Grammar school where he proceeded to video record some schoolgirls playing hockey in their sportswear.

Somebody phoned the police and they arrived just as he was driving off. They stopped him and recovered the footage from his camcorder and proceeded to arrest him for conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace / public order.

I don't know what he said on interview but the police searched his home and took away his computer for analysis. They didn't charge him but they bailed him for a month to return to the station once they had examined his computer and completed their enquiries.

The night before he was due to return to the police station he committed suicide. Because of the circumstances of his death an inquest was held and there were no reporting restrictions.

What emerged at the inquest was that the man had no previous convictions or cautions and was not known to the police up until his arrest. By all accounts he had been a hard working family man who doted on his two daughters and grandchildren and nobody had a bad word to say about him.

The police check on his computer revealed nothing untoward and the inquest determined that he had probably committed suicide because of the shame of what he had done.

What he did was totally out of character but the repercussions cost him his life. Instead of enjoying retirement with his grandkids a few moments of madness cost him everything.

I suspect he was probably harking back to his youth with no sinister element involved, other than his own gratification.

My question is.... Is he somebody who should be on the sex offenders register.

no, but should be warned any future 'offences' would result in this...

There was a case in America a number of years ago that was made into a film. Based on real events the circumstances were that a successful businessman who had a wife and family was going to work one day when he was approached by a 15 year old girl outside his place of work. She was selling cookies for a charity project and he bought some off her and gave her a donation.

The girl went missing and the police were informed. A big publicity campaign followed and the independent witnesses reported that they had seen her talking to the businessman. At the time of her disappearance he had to go away on business and didn't see the TV reports.

The police circulated his description which was quite distinctive because he was 6ft 5inches tall. When he returned home he immediately contacted the police and admitted to buying cookies from the girl. It transpired that he was the last person to have seen her alive and the police decided that he was responsible and that he had probably disposed of her body while he had been on his business trip. He had one previous conviction which was classed as a sexual misdemeanor. ( During Freshman year at Uni he had mooned out of a coach window while drunk)

He denied any involvement and was bailed by the police but the Chinese whispers started in earnest. He had his windows broken and he was shunned at work and had to leave his job. His children were taunted at School that he was a murderer and his whole life went tits up. Even close friends gave him the cold shoulder.

The police had suggested that they were not looking for anyone else, which didn't help matters. Several months later a drifter was arrested for murdering a young girl and during interview he admitted to this crime as well, and showed the police where he had buried the body.

What a terrible position to be in. An act of kindness turning into an absolute nightmare.

I'm tired of reading about who has been accused of touching who and who's been taking inappropriate pictures of who. The number of sex offence cases in the news can't be good for society. It gives children an unhealthy awareness and warped idea of the number of perverts out there.

It was bad enough when I was at school. All it took was a teacher to be seen looking in the wrong direction, and he was a "perv" for years and years. I doubt the fuss made over the Jimmy Saville case and subsequent revelations alike have helped this.