h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Given that it was a hostel rather than a 'proper' hotel and the man was a longterm resident I suspect there was more than the one incident involved, or the incident was a form of protest at the staff not respecting privacy of residents.

Yeah, but everybody is still just guessing.

az

The view from afar:

http://thetyee.ca/Life/2007/11/20/BikeSexuals/

"The cleaning women knocked, twice I think, and believed the room was empty. They were just doing their job, which is to enter the room and clean it if someone isn't there."

So deaf couples should be very careful when they go on holiday?

I still think this case was a waste of public money and that any half decent lawyer would of got him off.

Either you are being faecitious or havent grasped the legal concepts involved.

The man was not prosecuted on behalf of the bicycle or because two women accidentaly saw what he was doing with the bicylce but because he was *deliberately* lewd.

If you have woed in any building where the public have access and spend a large amount of time you are likely to have seen some things other people will pay good money to see. However almost always the general reaction on being caught is shame or if people are a bit bolder at the very least contrition and compliance to "get a room" or "put it away".

This man made the decision to continue when he knew people were watching. People he hadnt warned to stay away even though he'd had the chance. As a long term resident he would have known that there were cleaners, hell, he probably knew the cleaners. Its not beyond the realms of imagining that he was too idle to expose himself outdoors and chose to unveil his kinks to the staff of the hostel from the comfort of his own room.

Now if you are deaf and dont know someone is watching or has even enterd the room how is that the same as what this guy chose to do?

He did "get a room", thats why I still think this case was a waste of public money and that any half decent lawyer would of got him off.

If a person A enters the locked room of person B why should person B have to discontinue what they are doing just because person A has invaded the personal space of person B (no matter however unintentional that invasion might of been).

The proper thing to do would of been for the cleaners to immediately leave the room and to respect the mans privacy - if they chose not to do this that should be their problem not that of the gentleman who has had his privacy invaded.

If things are as you say they were I seriouosly doubt there ever would have even been a prosecution.

Yet there was and he wsa convicted it makes me think that the arguments you use and Im suspected any legal counsel would have gone for first didnt cut the mustard when stacked up against what the allegations were which as far as we can tell the worst was that he continued to pul his pud and made lewd comments.

Lets say you had a "warddrobe malfuntion" in a public place. you were going commando and your trousers were torn off by an angry dog. If you went red int he face and made for hte nearest bush in the park lets say. I think it would be wrong and unfair to bring a case against you. If however you turned round to the people sitting ont he benches and started waving your John Thomas about while shouting "Look at this missus, you dont get many of these tot he pound" then things would be handled quite rightly in a different way.

Now Ive been caught out in lpaces and caught people out and like I say most people stop what they are doing if they suspect people will be offended. He intended to offend and knew he did not have total privacy. The cleaners would have bee on a regular rounds and like it says knocked the door before entering.

"Mr Stewart was caught in the act with his bicycle by cleaners in his bedroom"

"They used a master key to unlock the door and they then observed the accused wearing only a white t-shirt, naked from the waist down"

"The accused was holding the bike and moving his hips back and forth as if to simulate sex"

"Both witnesses, who were extremely shocked, notified the hotel manager, who in turn alerted the police"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/26/nsex126.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7095134.stm

If you can find a report that says different please post the link...

Well apart from this one I cant.
http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_headline=accused---of-having-sex-with-his-bike&method=full&objectid=19347288&siteid=64736-name_page.html



"A Man has been charged with having sex with his bike...The 51-year-old bachelor was charged with the bizarre sexual offence after he was disturbed by the cleaner and her colleague in a private hostel in Ayr.

He wasnt strictly speaking charged with that though which is an error or morelikely a sensationalist trcik used in the same way you did to make it look like he was soley in trouble over the act with the bike which would make the whole thing a little frivolous and silly in terms of the prosecution case.



"The charge alleges he conducted himself in a disorderly manner, simulated sex with a bicycle and continued to do so while naked from the waist down in the presence of two female employees.

There was a thread not long back where firefighters deliberately sought out "courting" homosexuals. This is different because the cleaners were donig their regular job and as a resident Mr Stewart would have known about their visits. Other links previously posted in this thread have reported that the cleaners repeatedly announced their arrival by knocking so he had notice of they were going to be entering his room in the hostel.


Now I dont want to claim he's guilty *because of* this but it is important when viewing this in the round.


"He moved after a separate sex complaint to which he has pleaded not guilty at Ayr Sheriff Court.

In other more well known cases the police have not looked deep enough to uncover a trail of minor offences of allegations not followed through where the series of offences have led to some very serious crimes.

I dont think this was a waste of police time or public money. The defendant pleaded guilty eventually and while there are many innocent people who plead guilty to avoid hassel as someone who as you have put forward had a such a strong defence it suggests to me that something either lacking in his defence or overwhelmigly strong in the prosecutions evidence not widely reported may have made him cough.

Now that he's addmitted his offending it is legal to monitor him what's so wrong with that?

If he was doing this in a public place - no problem, prosecute him to hell but he was doing this in a locked room. It was the staff that barged in on him not the other way round.

The other side of the story - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/news-headlines/he-promised-to-oil-my-chain%2c-claims-abused-bike-20071115537/