Of course its an offense you halfwit... You only have to look at the current Hartlepool MP Candidate to see
Noel Clarke
- Thread starter Youngie
- Start date
bear66
Well-known member
Just because someone has been convicted of an offence, it does not mean someone else is guilty of an offence. Prior to the 2019 Act, there were very specific reasons as to why voyeurism might be a sexual assault. Since then, there are more activities that are now deemed to be illegal.
FatCat
Well-known member
I like him as an actor and producer - I was a disappointed when this stuff came out as I always thought he had done quite well for himself. I haven’t read the exact allegations but I get the gist of it.
I am assuming given the swift action by sky following bafta who had originally defended him that there is more evidence to come.
I am assuming given the swift action by sky following bafta who had originally defended him that there is more evidence to come.
You are either daft, on a wind up or not well educated.
I suggest you start by looking here...2003 section 67
If he has done as what is alleged then he has committed a criminal act....
bear66
Well-known member
There is nothing in the Guardian allegation to meet the criteria under the 2003 Act for an offence to have occurred. There may be under the 2019 Act if it occurred after that date, or there may be more evidence not in the reported allegation, but I wouldn't be so stupid to make such an ill informed judgement.
" including footage he told her he had secretly filmed during naked auditions.
Powell says Clarke once showed her a secretly recorded video of one such audition with Jahannah James, an actor in Brotherhood. Powell told four people about Clarke’s alleged secret filming, all of whom confirmed the conversation to the Guardian. They include James, her friend, whom she told about the incident in the winter of 2017, in a pub in south London. The naked audition had taken place more than four years previously, for the film Legacy. Powell was able to describe the exact haircut James had at that time – her hair is usually long and blond, but after a “hair disaster” she had cropped it short and returned to her natural brown.
James recalls Clarke had talked her into auditioning for the role. She had been hesitant. She was only 23 and fresh out of drama school. But Clarke persuaded her, explaining that the naked audition wouldn’t be filmed; an email from her agent confirmed this agreement. “I was told 100% it was not going to be on camera,” James says. As she understood it, the naked audition was purely to check she could do the scene and wasn’t going to “bottle it” on the day."
67Voyeurism
[F1(1)A person commits an offence if—(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.
(2)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he operates equipment with the intention of enabling another person to observe, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, a third person (B) doing a private act, and
(b)he knows that B does not consent to his operating equipment with that intention.
(3)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he records another person (B) doing a private act,
(b)he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B doing the act, and
(c)he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with that intention.
(4)A person commits an offence if he instals equipment, or constructs or adapts a structure or part of a structure, with the intention of enabling himself or another person to commit an offence under subsection (1).
You sure about that.... or are you on a wind up like I suspect....
Nice to see you get your kicks out of trolling an alleged sexual crime... I bet you wouldnt dare say the above to a victim.
bear66
Well-known member
The allegation in the Guardian does not meet that criteria. If you know the name of any person or persons who have obtained sexual gratification from the alleged filming, report it to the police.
Otherwise, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?
3)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he records another person (B) doing a private act,
(c)he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with that intention.
Sexual gratification is required.
bear66
Well-known member
And that again is not necessarily a criminal offence, according to the Act you linked to.
Your opening post is a statement used regarding criminal activity. And I rightly wouldn't be prosecution, judge and jury from the information presented, as the Guardian also isn't.
I simply pointed out that harassment doesn't have to be illegal for employers to take appropriate actions with regard to their business. That is nothing about "innocent until proven guilty" but whether the actions are inappropriate for the protection of other employees.
bear66
Well-known member
Exactly. It is required and that is what makes such prosecutions so difficult in the past. The 2019 act lowers the threshold for it to be an offence, in certain circumstances, not having to prove sexual gratification.
(b)he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B doing the act, and
Jonny Ingbar
Well-known member
I'm conflicted on this if I'm honest; clearly it can only be a good thing that victims of his alleged crimes feel confident enough to report wrongdoings. Conversely though, when something like this is played out in a public arena there is always the issue that irreparable damage is caused to the perpetrator.
On the face of it it looks very damning, anyone can see that, but as far as I can see nothing has been reported to the police and there hasn't been any kind of internal investigation.
Broadly speaking it can be very easy to make an allegation regarding someone's behaviour, but often very difficult to disprove.
On the face of it it looks very damning, anyone can see that, but as far as I can see nothing has been reported to the police and there hasn't been any kind of internal investigation.
Broadly speaking it can be very easy to make an allegation regarding someone's behaviour, but often very difficult to disprove.
Laughing
Well-known member
It always ***** me off when people say innocent until proven guilty. That is not the case not legally and not factually.
The law says you are presumed to be innocent at the start of a trial. That is no evidence of previous convictions can be used. You are in no way shape or form innocent until proven otherwise. In fact a judge can refuse bail if the presumption of guilt is great.
The law says you are presumed to be innocent at the start of a trial. That is no evidence of previous convictions can be used. You are in no way shape or form innocent until proven otherwise. In fact a judge can refuse bail if the presumption of guilt is great.
Borobuddah
Well-known member
Do you have details?
Foggysfplandiet3
Well-known member
Cliff Richard, anyone?
Its on ITV Hub until sunday
Borobuddah
Well-known member
What time is it available tonight, I have ITV hub and a search on it reveals only up to episode 4 available?
The Card Cheat
Well-known member
A commonly misunderstood and misapplied legal term.
If there is significant evidence of a crime, the media is entitled to report on that evidence. That does not affect a person's legal right to the presumption of innocence in a court of law.
It's also reasonable and fair for an employer to take negative action against an employer immediately upon discovering significant evidence. For example if a shopkeeper catches an employee with his hand in the till, he is not impinging on his legal right to the presumption of innocence if he fires them on the spot.
Randy
Well-known member
I hope the Bulletproof series' aren't removed from Sky. They are on my watchlist after been recommended by a friend and it would be highly unfair to everybody else who worked on the program if it's pulled.