You should all be mindful that the sexual offences act 2003/2004 is NOW law.
Voyeurism is NOW a serious sexual offence.
None of this has yet been "tried" in court, so watch out.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Sex
last reply
10 replies
1.2k views
2 watchers
0 likes
Master of Sex
yeh. and i bet when the first one goes to court, it will be spread in every paper. headline news. they will make such a big thing of it.
hope its not me they catch first.
hope its not me they catch first. 
Sex God
The Act that Jomu is talking about is here:
This section relates to exposure:
Section 67 relates to voyeurism, but there is also a special offence for sex in public loos so watch out all your cottagers
This section relates to exposure:
Section 67 relates to voyeurism, but there is also a special offence for sex in public loos so watch out all your cottagers
Thanks for the link, Bluexxx
To quote part of the act below:
Exposure
(1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress
Wonder if we could claim that although we exposed our genitals we didn't INTEND anyone to be caused distress by seeing them?
Never had anyone claim to have been caused distress so far . . .
To quote part of the act below:
Exposure
(1) A person commits an offence if-
(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress
Wonder if we could claim that although we exposed our genitals we didn't INTEND anyone to be caused distress by seeing them?
Never had anyone claim to have been caused distress so far . . .
Orgasminator
I understand that Dogging has been excluded from voyuerism.
I've re-read the act as passed into law.
I find no reference to anything called "dogging"
However, voyeurism is defined very closely as:
(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and
(b) he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification.
However, don't go cheering yet. The act has not been used in any prosecution as yet. When it is, the persons being watched may well be required to make a statement confirming their consent. They may even be required to be present at any court case. On the other hand, they may not make a statement and the case may proceed with them being prosecution witnesses instead. A lose-lose scenario I think.
New laws = new court cases = police doing their bit to rid the world of perverts.
And giving the press more ammunition to shoot us with seems a crap idea as well.
Look on the bright side, the act as presented to Lords would have given serious problems to anyone having sex outdoors. Just for once, the Lords has done the job it was meant to do.
I find no reference to anything called "dogging"
However, voyeurism is defined very closely as:
(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and
(b) he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification.
However, don't go cheering yet. The act has not been used in any prosecution as yet. When it is, the persons being watched may well be required to make a statement confirming their consent. They may even be required to be present at any court case. On the other hand, they may not make a statement and the case may proceed with them being prosecution witnesses instead. A lose-lose scenario I think.
New laws = new court cases = police doing their bit to rid the world of perverts.
And giving the press more ammunition to shoot us with seems a crap idea as well.
Look on the bright side, the act as presented to Lords would have given serious problems to anyone having sex outdoors. Just for once, the Lords has done the job it was meant to do.
and a further note - you should be that the word 'reckless' in relation to offences means that if you have sex in a place where there it is reasonable to assume that someone who visits that place may observe you and be offended - You ARE guilty of the offence.
There is no defence that 'I didn't know they would be there'.
lhk
There is no defence that 'I didn't know they would be there'.
lhk
Orgasminator
The BBC have a few articles about the Act:
It seems there are guidelines about what to enforce and what not to enforce. Sounds like an unbelievable mess to me.
It seems there are guidelines about what to enforce and what not to enforce. Sounds like an unbelievable mess to me.
Sex God
Quote by JQL
It seems there are guidelines about what to enforce and what not to enforce. Sounds like an unbelievable mess to me.
Yeah sound the same to me as well. Trouble is it'll be some poor sap who can't afford a good barister to defend him that'll end up being the test case.
(c) the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.
Given what I've read about judges and magistrates (I also have an aquaintence who's a judge and likes to put it about a bit), dogging is pretty normal compared to what they get up to
