He had a good acting gig going there, and it could have been very big. But he wanted to be a legend in his own lunchbox...
Lawrence Fox is a total loser
- Thread starter JP_
- Start date
And now potentially a sex offender
www.theguardian.com
Laurence Fox charged with sexual offence over photo of TV presenter
Political activist accused of sharing a compromising picture of Narinder Kaur on social media without her consent
www.theguardian.com
He is such a sad man, these days.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,807
- Reaction score
- 5,351
- Country
Sexual Offences Act 2003
An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes.
I haven't seen the photo, but it is described as a shot taken as she exited a taxi. If so it may not fit the bill.
It's a summary offence, so Magistrates. Max 6 months. If there is no link to sexual gratification.
Some reports show he's been charged with
Sexual Offences Act 2003
An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes.
So not the up skirting law. In which case 2 years. max.
He wouldn't have to take the photo, sharing it is enough.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,807
- Reaction score
- 5,351
- Country
not quite.
There must be an intent to cause alarm, distress or humiliation or for sexual gratification.
His immediate apology and claim that it was a mistake, goes far.
It was in the middle of a twitter spat. Accidental my arse. If the rest of the thread is still in the public domain we can see for ourselves, but Fox is the sort of person that goes for the person not the ball. Humiliation is probably exactly what he was going for.
Remember this?
Laurence Fox loses libel battle with Twitter users he called paedophiles
Reclaim party founder defamed two men on site now known as X after they called him a racist, judge rules
www.theguardian.com
Edit: I believe it was a mistake in the sense that he shouldn't have done it, but one he did deliberately and should live with the repercussions.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,807
- Reaction score
- 5,351
- Country
He appears to be a bit of a nutter, so I don't find his life particularly interesting, but it doesn't change the mens rea of the offence.
Mens rea means intent? That's pretty bloody clear.
Also, as a correction, he left that tweet up for three days and only gave a half arsed apology a day after that, coincidentally around the time it was being reported to the police.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,807
- Reaction score
- 5,351
- Country
Ok lets go back up a bit.. You said...
(1)A person (A) who intentionally sends or gives a photograph or film of any person’s genitals to another person (B) commits an offence if—
(a)A intends that B will see the genitals and be caused alarm, distress or humiliation, or
(b)A sends or gives such a photograph or film for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and is reckless as to whether B will be caused alarm, distress or humiliation.
mens rea is a latin for a guilty mind.
This offence requires there to be an intent to cause alarm, distress or humiliation or obtain sexual gratification
In other words
I corrected you, because the offence requires more... my bold
(1)A person (A) who intentionally sends or gives a photograph or film of any person’s genitals to another person (B) commits an offence if—
(a)A intends that B will see the genitals and be caused alarm, distress or humiliation, or
(b)A sends or gives such a photograph or film for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and is reckless as to whether B will be caused alarm, distress or humiliation.
mens rea is a latin for a guilty mind.
This offence requires there to be an intent to cause alarm, distress or humiliation or obtain sexual gratification
In other words
sharing it is not enough.
So sharing it to cause humiliation or distress is?
Similar threads
