Does the urinator deserve
- Thread starter sh1kar
- Start date
- Status
28 Days cleaning defaced memorials.
I always thought - and I'm happy to be corrected - that weeing in public (and getting caught which meant you were seen) was classified as 'indecent exposure' and as such, in this day and age, would place the guilty party on the sex offenders register. I suspect that would have significantly greater impact on his future freedoms than a short custodial sentence.....which he may also get.
FN
FN
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
Indecent exposure you have to prove the intent for indecency - it was clear there was none.
Outraging Public Decency carries a maximum of 7 years - he got away lightly.
I can hear his defence now - "Drunk, did not see the memorial, sorry, ashamed and full or remorse".
He will live with that offence, that particular offence, for the rest of his life.
If he has any decency in his body, that will weigh heavy.
In the UK, any public exposure of genitals, sexual acts or touching oneself will be recognised as an offence. To establish that an offence has been committed, the audience affected by the exposure will be assessed to demonstrate whether the defendant's acts constitute indecency.
For example, if a person chooses to sunbathe with minimal clothes on at a beach that does not actively prohibit nudity, it is unlikely that indecent exposure will be established. However, a person who masturbates in a park or exposes their genitals on a high street, for example, will be considered to have acted indecently.
Outraging Public Decency carries a maximum of 7 years - he got away lightly.
I can hear his defence now - "Drunk, did not see the memorial, sorry, ashamed and full or remorse".
He will live with that offence, that particular offence, for the rest of his life.
If he has any decency in his body, that will weigh heavy.
In the UK, any public exposure of genitals, sexual acts or touching oneself will be recognised as an offence. To establish that an offence has been committed, the audience affected by the exposure will be assessed to demonstrate whether the defendant's acts constitute indecency.
For example, if a person chooses to sunbathe with minimal clothes on at a beach that does not actively prohibit nudity, it is unlikely that indecent exposure will be established. However, a person who masturbates in a park or exposes their genitals on a high street, for example, will be considered to have acted indecently.
Last edited:
Sex offenders Register Really !!!!!
Woodsmoke
Well-Known Member
'The judge said the university had not yet decided on his future, but noted: "I have never seen anyone more contrite for what has happened nor one who regrets more the hurt and distress he has caused." . . '
I think that tells its own story to be honest. As an ex-serviceman myself, I can understand the outrage. But it seems to me this was merely a stupid one-off while he was absolutely off his tits on drink, rather than a deliberately malevolent cat of nastiness. I think he could do with being given a wee bit of slack, especially as he's shown such contrition.
I certainly don't like the widespread vitriol that he's being shown across the internet.
I've seen far worse forgiven, far sooner . . .
I think that tells its own story to be honest. As an ex-serviceman myself, I can understand the outrage. But it seems to me this was merely a stupid one-off while he was absolutely off his tits on drink, rather than a deliberately malevolent cat of nastiness. I think he could do with being given a wee bit of slack, especially as he's shown such contrition.
I certainly don't like the widespread vitriol that he's being shown across the internet.
I've seen far worse forgiven, far sooner . . .
Aye, that has been the case for years, despite urinating in public usually having sweet feck all to do with sexual activity
And as usual the offence, and the punishment/aftermath, applies only to men - again, so much for the (mythical) patriarchal society
I don't know the facts of this case apart from the image shown, was he drunk? where were the nearest toilets and were they open? Whatever the facts may be he made a huge blunder urinating on/near the memorial and did something that anyone who was sober and/or had an ounce of sense would realise was wrong. He has brought shame and humiliation upon himself and it will live with him forever no doubt. It was a stupid thing to do and he deserves to be hauled before the courts, however I suspect the sentence given was influenced by the press coverage and the public outcry, a couple of hundred hours community service cleaning memorials would have been more fitting and useful to society in my mind. The courts will always say they are not influenced by the media but in this case I think its quite obvious they were.
tikka_madras
Well-Known Member
Needed a ****, nowhere to go in central London, found a likely looking spot, turned his back and let fly. Didn’t see the memorial which is nondescript and two foot high. Fixed penalty notice is all it deserves.
I’m starting to get really angry with the heavily politically slanted policing and sentencing in this country.
I’m starting to get really angry with the heavily politically slanted policing and sentencing in this country.
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
I respectfully disagree. The outrage and indignation that this offence caused (and I note your mitigation) warrant a sanction beyond that of an FPN.
The Courts - whilst not heeding the press (nor should they) cannot fail to notice (and take notice of) the temperature of the country - and in that, they have a duty to do so.
tikka_madras
Well-Known Member
And likewise I disagree. The people outraging the public decency here were the media who chose to publicise the image. The culprit couldn’t have been aware of any of this nor of the likely public reaction so there is no mens rea.
He should have pleaded he was from a deprived background and couldn't read due to bad education.
Oh sorry that only applies to BAME people not whites.
Seriously I would have given him 15 strokes of the Birch as a salutory lesson.
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
I do not seek to challenge your views on the publication or otherwise of this offence. They are your views regarding media censorship.
However, on a matter of law, Strict liability offences require no mens rea.
He has pleaded guilty to a Strict liability offence.
Eh?? The Courts have a duty to vary sentences according to the mood of the masses?? That's odd, because I thought they were part of a justice system.
While I tend to agree that this guy deserves appropriate punishment, I hope we will not find that individuals photographed assaulting police officers, vandalising etc either escape justice or receive comparatively lighter sentences.
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
Of course they are. The point being (and recognised by the CJS) is that is punishments must - to do degree - reflect what the public demands (in so far as a democracy works).
The fear being that if it does not, it is seen as "failing" and lynch mentality takes over.
Douglas Hurd's biography is worth a read (I enjoyed it) when he describes and distils the role of Home Secretary down to two issues:-
One to protect society from the people.
Two to protect people from society.
It is a fine line they are required to walk on our behalf.
Sika-Hunter
Well-Known Member
Indecent exposure, certainly not , Not in control of his drinking arm and needed a lash Yes but he picked the wrong rock to water. I reckon they should have given him a tooth brush and told him to clean every defaced Statue in London. Not heard what the Guys who attacked the police or pulled down the Monument have recieved in punishment yet. 
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
No one should ever be prosecuted for ****ing outside, under any circumstances.
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
Utter rubbish.
- Status
Similar threads
