Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

VyrPlan t1_j9t2q4z wrote

>"He was convicted...of voyeurism and that offence was for him hiding in a toilet and taking photographs of a female in cubicle next door.

so that was the first time, and then later after being found in another women's restroom

>Chasing officers caught him and seized his mobile phone on which almost 400 upskirt-style photographs were discovered.

welp, seems like a ban from further visits to the ladies room is only appropriate

269

rood_sandstorm t1_j9ujlhx wrote

Why would anyone enjoy watching someone take a shit. That’s pretty gross

46

MarcusAurelius0 t1_j9unw3b wrote

You understand people have fetishes for urine and shit as well as voyeurism.

28

Uncynical_Diogenes t1_j9x5puu wrote

I understand that.

I don’t understand peeping your phone camera under stalls when the internet has so much quality filth easily available.

Some part of this fucker enjoyed having power, of doing it without their consent, and that’s never okay.

10

MarcusAurelius0 t1_j9x5to0 wrote

>Some part of this fucker enjoyed having power, of doing it without their consent, and that’s never okay.

Also a fetish.

6

Uncynical_Diogenes t1_j9x6znd wrote

Yes. But involving parties without their consent is where it crosses the line.

3

MrTomDawson t1_j9t2a4e wrote

Maybe I've misunderstood, but my understanding has always been that as a man I'm already banned from the women's toilets?

228

cb43569 t1_j9t49jz wrote

There are no laws in the UK governing which bathroom you can use. The fact that women use the women's bathroom and men use the men's bathroom is a matter of social convention. It's a bit like how there's no law saying you can't skip a queue, but you would be shamed by the people around you if you did. (In the US in recent years, right-wing Republicans have been introducing "bathroom bills" enforcing this division, but in the service of transphobia by excluding trans women from women's bathrooms.)

In this case, a court has made an order banning this guy from women's bathrooms, meaning that he will in fact be guilty of a criminal offence if he goes into one.

121

SPITFIYAH t1_j9t852d wrote

Ten years ago, your response would have been perfectly reasonable here in the states, now I need to speak slowly so my bastard folks can understand me.

15

RedBottom123 t1_ja0ny14 wrote

How tf are they gonna enforce that tbh. I’m just curious bc like what’s stopping him from doing this again, I doubt cops are going and checking the bathrooms for this man

1

Ochib t1_j9u5n8w wrote

And if you are taking a child to the loo and are the opposite sex to your child that also can raise confusion about which loo to use

−8

aagjevraagje t1_j9t65a4 wrote

In a lot of places gendered bathrooms are not in fact legally enforced.

Men who need to use a changing station or borrow a toilet roll or have to deal with maintenance being done on the mens toilet or whatever other non creepy reason one might use the bathroom of another gender for have not crossed any legal boundary.

It’s harrasing people and voyourism that’s not allowed.

That’s how it works in much of the world.

86

Psychomadeye t1_j9ugllu wrote

Men's rooms don't have changing stations? Now that I think about it I've never seen this when I've traveled to Europe.

10

HovisTMM t1_j9ujh51 wrote

Over time in the UK ive seen a few pop up, mainly in supermarkets. Any building that hasn't been renovated since 2010 almost certainly doesn't have one.

13

Psychomadeye t1_j9vfrev wrote

That's a little weird as I remember seeing them and asking about them when I was little. Just lucky I guess?

1

Mysticpoisen t1_j9ujqt6 wrote

They're much less common than in women's.

9

Psychomadeye t1_j9vfj2z wrote

Must be regional. I see them a lot. The only time I don't is at certain bars, or coffee shops.

0

cgknight1 t1_j9tdck4 wrote

No there is no law on this and its amazing common in busy bars to find women come into the men's to use a cubicle.

15

SirThatsCuba t1_j9vkyuw wrote

When I was a kid I remember it very common to find women in the men's rooms. Now I either tend to just go to less popular attractions or they've figured out how to provide women with enough toilets. Not sure which I never wanted to be a civil engineer.

4

cr0ft t1_j9tkuwe wrote

Putting a sign on the door that says "Women" doesn't have any actual laws and regs behind it.

In fact, I always try to use women's restrooms myself if they're single occupancy obviously... I don't go into big ones with stalls. Why single occupancy ones, though? Because the chances that there will be piss on the ceiling, walls, seat and floor go down slightly vs men's public restrooms, where all that is guaranteed.

In this case, the issue is that the guy is a voyeuristic perv lowlife and thus banned from being exactly that.

5

Scrapple_Joe t1_j9u67e5 wrote

I think the chances flip depending where you are. From the bar work in my life women avoiding sitting while drunk gets....messy

8

ButterscotchSure6589 t1_j9w2q64 wrote

I used to use the single occupancy ladies at work on nights sometimes,there was no gents on that floor. I was always very very careful, and always put the seat back down.

2

lvl1developer t1_j9wez5d wrote

Nah you just need to identify as a woman, you can still be a man

−2

weirdgroovynerd t1_j9t5x1b wrote

Sure, but what about the rest of his body?

142

yukon-flower t1_j9tl2o9 wrote

I was so confused by the headline as well. Like he’s just a normal looking person, so why are people hanging up pictures of his face in the stalls? (Especially when I’d never really seen ANYONE’s face displayed in the ladies’ room). And who is going to police this new rule?

30

xu235 t1_j9t4d62 wrote

400 women? Why is he not in jail for decades??

20

cr0ft t1_j9tl1y9 wrote

Voyeurism is not the same as rape. There's gotta be some damned proportionality to legal consequences.

13

KesonaFyren t1_j9u4y94 wrote

Only 6-20% of rapists ever see the inside of a jail cell, so...

(And as everyone else has stated, proportionality)

5

Careless_Relief_1378 t1_ja6o7y9 wrote

But that’s because it’s hard to prove. Not because the law wouldn’t jail convicted rapists. This guy had the photos on his phone.

0

KesonaFyren t1_ja6sqn0 wrote

It's definitely hard to prove when rape kits are so frequently not given or sit untested afterwards.

It's even harder to prove when it's such an underrepoted crime because victims fear they won't be believed, and would rather try to move on then go through the additional stress of trying to get justice.

The tounge-in-cheek point of my comment was that sex crimes aren't taken as seriously as they should be.

1

StarksFTW t1_j9u1toz wrote

This isn’t the Middle Ages. Voyeurism isn’t rape, it’s gross and fucked up but they’re not gonna run around and cut peoples hands off for it. Privacy was violated but no physical harm, or contact, was done.

2

rood_sandstorm t1_j9ujyec wrote

Mental harm is just as damaging.

−2

MoreCarrotsPlz t1_j9uohuw wrote

No dude, just no. The mental harm from being photographed is not “just as damaging” as trauma from a physical assault. Pull your head out.

11

StarksFTW t1_j9ul89a wrote

And he got a month in prison and several years of parole. The guy is clearly mentally ill and needs professional help. Locking him away for decades would help no one and would only worsen his mental state when he would be released. That sort of punitive punishment is not helpful and is demonstrably harmful to society.

10

Pudding_Hero t1_j9vyfg8 wrote

Isn’t that just the sort of thinking that got all the Starks killed?

1

Ma1eficent t1_j9ukqh6 wrote

Mental harm doesn't vanish when there is physical harm also. Its just in addition. And yes, two harms is greater than one.

4

balazs955 t1_j9t5z9s wrote

Who put his face in the toilets?

10

bulgarianlily t1_j9tilob wrote

Lauren Fisher, mitigating, said her client had pleaded guilty to breaching a sexual harm prevention order at the earliest opportunity. She said he had completed all of the unpaid work, treatment programmes and probation service requirements from his last sentence.

So sadly none of that worked. Guess you can only change people's obsessions if they want to change.

8

RedBottom123 t1_ja0o1a5 wrote

Saddest realization. Especially when it happens with loved ones, people don’t change unless they want to

1

nylockian t1_j9thwib wrote

Aren't all men banned from women's toilets in the UK?

Maybe it's different over there.

6

lemlurker t1_j9tj4ym wrote

No there's no legal protection for entering a women's toilet or even for women entering the men's. It's about what you do and what you intend. If you just go in, use the cubicle and leave without any intent to cause harm or distress you have commited no offense

18

cr0ft t1_j9tlcyv wrote

Yeah, the crime here is voyeurism, not using the toilet.

If I needed to go explosively and the men's was occupied, better believe I'd barge into a stall in the women's.

15

Rosebunse t1_j9ufmhy wrote

If a guy needs to use the toilet and that's the only thing available to him, he can use it. Nothing wrong with that.

4

Darzok t1_j9v6ol8 wrote

Its in fact protected under UK law that you can not stop men or women using the toilets of the other gender due to gender discrimination laws. There is no way to enforce this with out breaking the law with out a court order banning said person.

3

bouchert t1_j9ti2gu wrote

At first, the headline confused me. Like, "His face was banned? So, what, was he posting his photographic headshots on the insides of the stalls and scaring women?"

3

Skogula t1_j9u1gaf wrote

So, the rest of him his OK, just not his face?

2

theRose90 t1_j9ue8k4 wrote

I mean I don't imagine they'd ban you from like "Just women's toilets in London" or something if they felt they needed to ban you from women's toilets at all.

2

SetterOfTrends t1_j9um7h0 wrote

But did they take his picture in the women’s’ stalls?

1

theonion513 t1_j9vet0o wrote

This title is misleading.

1

The_Real_IT_Guy t1_j9z1abi wrote

So men aren't already banned from entering the ladies room in the UK?

1

RefanRes t1_j9ufkfj wrote

This title belongs in r/titlegore

0

goliathfasa t1_j9up7tw wrote

Aren’t men already banned from women’s toilets by default?

0

SisyphusPolitico t1_j9usgdl wrote

Wait, so other men arent banned?

That would make toilets coed.

If the toilets are coed, then there are no womens toilets.

So hes not banned.

But if he not banned, then the general accepted ban on men in womens toilets applies.

Womens toilets exist!

But then his ban applies.

So other men...arent banned?

−2

mrtn17 t1_j9uw2xc wrote

what is this, a haiku?

4

SisyphusPolitico t1_j9uxzz8 wrote

Clearly not.

An amusing script Playing with absurd reason Martin failed english

2

Khemith t1_j9wxnhl wrote

Just say you're a transphobe and be done with it. Just say you're sexuality is fragile that you cannot look at another set of genitals.

It must make your day when you can couch your bigotry in a crime story.

Side question: Why do reactionaries have ancient names? Does it make you feel smartz? Make you feel like you're a independent who sees the "truth" ?

0

SisyphusPolitico t1_j9zzebl wrote

Lol you moron. Its a logic loop. Project much?

Theres no fucking trans even in this - a cis man was perving on women in cis gendered bathrooms. This, as other commentators noted, is a fucking proof of point that anti trans sentiment is stupid.

You personally tho can go take whatever genitals you have and apply them directly to yourself.

1

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9tzcfh wrote

Oh cmon officers he said he identified as a woman

−38

-foxy-lad t1_j9u25uz wrote

Except he didn't and your joke is pathetic.

21

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9v6o0b wrote

Also, shiver me Timbers!! Oh no, -foxy-lad doesn’t like me and he jerked off to the karma he got from upvotes. Imma take a wild guess and say your BMI is at least over 28

−2

-foxy-lad t1_j9vcoce wrote

You still upset?

1

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9vhjzk wrote

You’re the one upset and butthurt over a joke 🤷🏻‍♂️ I’m laughing at you

−1

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9u38lk wrote

It’s funny. Ofc this guy had nothing to do with that and was basically a peeping tom taking photos. Maybe the UK shouldn’t be letting different genders use the same bathroom freely

−37

mriabtsev t1_j9u4uc8 wrote

iT's FuNnY

16

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9u5co9 wrote

“iT’s FuNnY”

−25

mriabtsev t1_j9u5kfd wrote

Sorry about your shitty sense of humour, ig

11

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9u5oy5 wrote

Right back at you ;) you think you’re doing something by typing out random non witty retorts with differently capitalized letters

−3

mriabtsev t1_j9u5tua wrote

Yes, mocking you in a way you clearly understood. Glad we're on the same page.

11

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9u68zw wrote

You’re corny and bitter, step outside. If you think it even remotely made me feel anything other than chuckle you’re trippin

−1

mriabtsev t1_j9u6k8c wrote

Imagine being so mad about trans folks and not being funny you edit in some word salad like 'made me feel anything other than chuckle' lel

11

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9u7889 wrote

What are you talking about? I have trans friends you bozo. And I only edited bc I accidentally posted it before finishing my sentence. You’re seriously sad and screaming bitter about your life through the screen

−1

ViscountessKeller t1_j9ubgxj wrote

No you don't.

6

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9ucj5a wrote

Yes I do, your choice to not believe me but she’s very much trans. Introduced me to him doing it by telling me he was gonna get circumcised, good friends to this day :)

−1

-foxy-lad t1_j9uiw9o wrote

I hope your friend recovers from her internalized transphobia, and you with your externalized.

4

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9ulqvx wrote

Neither are true, I hope you recover from your delusions

−1

ViscountessKeller t1_j9uphcy wrote

Nah, you're a liar.

2

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9upv0m wrote

Haha you’re hilarious, sad how much you wish I was lying. I’d easily offer proof but you seem bitter and weird and like you’d stalk me online so I’m good staying private. Her name is Nicole, used to be Nick. Also it’s so weird how insistent you are that I’m lying, why are you in denial so hard it’s weird 😂

−2

ViscountessKeller t1_j9us46x wrote

If this person exists you are not her friend, given that you're repeatedly deadnaming and misgendering her. More likely you're just completely full of shit.

3

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9v00kz wrote

You’re the one asking for proof so I’m providing some background. Nicole and I are mad chill, stay hating. You think bc you spend all day on Reddit with a lot of karma what you say matters?? How many trans people are you close friends with

0

ViscountessKeller t1_j9v2c1x wrote

You're not proving shit. You're just lying more to cover your lies. Badly.

2

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9v2j9g wrote

Stay mad, you’re so damn pissed about Nicole. Nick, went by Nicholas, went to middle school with her, high school too. In the PNW, don’t want to get any more specific bc you’re a weirdo but by all means believe whatever you want to believe, I’m simply not lying

−1

ViscountessKeller t1_j9v3jht wrote

If you were her friend you wouldn't be casually deadnaming her. You're not a convincing liar, and repeating the same lies over and over is rarely effective.

2

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9v4179 wrote

You’re asking me for proof!? Im trying to help provide some. I’m not doing it with any disrespectful context or intent as I love and support my dear friend Nicole, quit being such an ass

−1

ViscountessKeller t1_j9v4z5e wrote

Your proof is more lies. You are not going to convince me, because you're lying, and you're shit at it.

2

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9v55em wrote

I’m literally not but I’m done wasting my time. Me and Nicole are deadass laughing at you rn bc of how corny you look

0

ViscountessKeller t1_j9vahw0 wrote

Well, now I'm convinced you're not a lying piece of shit.

0

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9x15pc wrote

Isn’t it weird that you expect a trans person to behave a very particular way or else you simply don’t believe it, shocking isn’t it

0

ViscountessKeller t1_j9xs93t wrote

No, it's just you're an obvious liar, and the more you come back to whining about being called out as an obvious liar the more obvious it is that you're a liar.

1

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9ypbub wrote

Bruh I am literally friends with Nicole you moron. You have one sad sad life. Bitter behind your screen. 52k karma doesn’t mean you’re cool or smart, it just means you waste your life on reddit

1

ViscountessKeller t1_j9z6wpw wrote

Nicole isn't a real person, and nobody cares about my karma except you.

0

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9z78p2 wrote

Dude she literally is, how come a trans person has to behave exactly a particular way or else you don’t think they exist, but transphobic. Also clearly not about the karma if you online chronically enough to rack that much up 😂 she literally is though you fucking moron, I could tag the insta if you want

0

ViscountessKeller t1_j9z7ofc wrote

Shrek, loudly proclaiming that you totally have a trans friend who approves of your bigoted bullshit and doing it over and over again isn't convincing anyone, and it never will.

1

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9z8voe wrote

I said I’d tag her if you want but it’s obvious you know you look like a clown now

0

ViscountessKeller t1_j9z9b19 wrote

Why don't you tag your Canadian girlfriend while you're at it?

0

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9z9glu wrote

I said I’d tag her 🤷🏻‍♂️ clear you know you in the wrong buddy, I’m offering proof and you’re looking like a clown. Stay chronically online buddy

1

ViscountessKeller t1_j9za3o9 wrote

You go right ahead, buddy. I can't wait. I look forward to meeting this ghost.

Wasn't she already watching and laughing at this thread, or did you forget you already said that? I assume if she was actually interested she'd have posted already. You know, if she actually existed.

1

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9zbc2s wrote

@nicole_kluka

0

ViscountessKeller t1_j9zce4m wrote

That's not how you tag someone on reddit, and nobody on reddit has that username.

1

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9zdmb4 wrote

I said insta bozo

0

ViscountessKeller t1_j9zfbte wrote

Why the hell would you tag someone on instagram for a conversation on reddit?

1

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9zvz3k wrote

I told you I’d link their insta, she don’t use Reddit

1

ViscountessKeller t1_j9zw7p7 wrote

Yeah, you linked some random woman's instagram. Good job.

You're not very good at this whole 'lying' thing, are you? And why the hell would you give your friend's private account to a complete rando?

I mean, obviously because this woman isn't actually your friend, although she -might- be your stalking victim.

1

ShrekJohnson27 t1_ja0ax4k wrote

That’s literally my friend you bozo! 😂 I don’t know how to make it any clearer without giving away my identity to a weirdo obsessed with saying I’m lying and I do NOT want to open that can of worms 💀 went to school with her my whole life, Liberty Middle School you flaming idiot. Also wdym why would I give you the insta???? You asked for proof 800 times like a repetitive robot that can’t say anything else

1

mriabtsev t1_j9u7k6m wrote

'I have x friends' wowzers going for sad troll bingo ig

5

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9u89ve wrote

Don’t believe me I guess, i was just hanging with her yesterday 😂

0

mriabtsev t1_j9u8wrh wrote

Cool hope she's 'one of the good ones' that doesn't mind your unfunny transphobic 'jokes'

7

Khemith t1_j9wxym7 wrote

I bet you cannot even hug your family because it's "gay" thank for showing us your fragility.

0

ShrekJohnson27 t1_j9wy465 wrote

Wtf what a weird homophobic statement. Nah I love my parents and kiss em on the cheek homie. Thanks for showing me YOUR fragility 😂 why would I think it’s gay though??

1

CaveatRumptor t1_j9t4tiu wrote

Some people believe this sort of brazen opportunism is an admirable quality. I do not, but am just pointing out that people often get moral support for this sort of thing.

−40

sexybimbogf t1_j9tq72m wrote

ah yes, I remember a few years ago #savetheupskirt and a crowd picketing outside Scotland Yard to "free upstart Johnny!" popular support like I'd never seen before.

12

Hefty_Ad_5999 t1_j9thkvv wrote

He identifies as a woman

−46

Vault-Born t1_j9tuqha wrote

The fact that this person is a cis man and made no attempts to hide their gender in any way and yet had unfiltered access to bathrooms anyyway, kind of proves the point that it would be pointless to in transition to gain access to a woman's bathroom to begin with huh? Like the fact that this is a court case kind of undercuts the entire transphobic theory of bathroom perverts right? Because if you need to transition to get into a bathroom and yet this guy didn't transition and was successfully repeatedly able to enter bathrooms for years.... Seems like all the transition would have done is put him on an increased risk of violence and scrutiny. From a statistical perspective, that's just fact.

26

jamcdonald120 t1_j9tbhd9 wrote

Me: The problem with letting transgenderel people use any bathroom is that perverts will abuse it to sneak into other restrooms to peep

Everyone: NO ONE WOULD EVER DO THAT!!! WHY ARE YOU TRANSPHOBIC!!! THATS CLEARLY NOT A PROBLEM!!!

Me: riiiiiiight, keep telling your self that.

−69

Benedictus84 t1_j9tf15h wrote

The argument is more that there is nothing stopping perverts right now. As is shown by this outstanding individual.

There is no reason to change your gender to do the things perverts do.

And trans people do not get a free pass to do pervert things in the bathroom of the preference. This would also be illegal for a trans person to do.

So trans people doing perverted stuff is indeed not a problem. Atleast not any more or less then non trans people doing it.

40

hypatiatextprotocol t1_j9tdt6k wrote

Are you kidding? He wasn't trans, and he wasn't dressed like a woman. He wasn't "encouraged" by knowing that trans people use bathrooms. He was a prolific voyeur who kept going into women's bathrooms despite being caught and arrested several times.

Men voyeuring in public bathrooms and taking upskirt photos is not new. Maybe the blame could lie with men?

33

imafraidofmuricans t1_j9tfdt9 wrote

But..

What?

Do you think there are fucking force fields stopping people who present as male from entering bathrooms?

This post is literally that.

A cis man, entirely without pretending to be or being transgender, went into women's bathroom. How are you fucking solving that you fucking moron?

33

IMustHoldLs t1_j9telze wrote

You know peeping is already illegal, don’t you?

25

AphexTwins903 t1_j9tfevs wrote

Except he wasn't trans you moron. Nobody would change gender just to do what this guy did, you do realise that right? Or the number is so small that it's not even worth considering.

25

CaptainChaos74 t1_j9te0cf wrote

Why do you reply this on a post about a cis man sneaking into other restrooms?

24

wcbjr t1_j9td7ch wrote

How about stalls with full doors?

14

NiceMasterpiece9102 t1_j9xhmg6 wrote

Yes, how about that? I never knew those existed until I went to Europe. Totally something the US needs! Why don’t we have full walls and doors on public bathrooms ??

1

TocTheElder t1_j9ud4ku wrote

How are trans people responsible for the actions of this cis man? How would forcing trans people to use a bathroom that is not befitting to them stop this man from just walking into another women's bathroom tomorrow?

6

metooeither t1_j9un465 wrote

He isn't trans, he's a creepy perv.

HUGE difference. Huge.

3

autopsis t1_j9uechu wrote

You do realize that men take upskirt photos outside of bathrooms too, right? Peeping Toms and voyeurism is not a new phenomenon. It’s not the location, it’s the men.

2