Nope. The dumb ones get caught. The clever ones don't.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Senior Bank Executive Accused Of Taking Upskirt Videos ( ST 16 April 14 )
- Thread starter CoffeeAhSoh
- Start date
Nope. The dumb ones get caught. The clever ones don't.
lianbeng replies: women think more dirty u know?
Indeed. Especially those shy-shy types, look like decent woman with decorum on the streets, cover mouth when laughing.
Some of them might be Pan Jinlian reincarnated.
Maybe there a a lot of slutty, "bitches" there, wanting his attention to get promoted & might have "flashed" him with their "light"...he got blinded by the "light"...got light headed & went after a different "light" outside. Banks have a lot of these "bitches", how you think that typist from the typing pool became a manager heading marketing....hmmm!!
Last edited:
I more inclined to think that this some kind of illness. They are perfectly normal, come from all walks of life but just can't help themselves. Its a kind of fetish. Its like some people are with PAP but dare not tell anyone but attend function in all white and feeling shiok.
MAS's approval is needed for appointment his level.
Expect MAS to say and do something.
Expect MAS to say and do something.
moral ethics dnt seem to matter to them
Ex-bank exec fights upskirt video charge
By Elena Chong Court Correspondent
A former senior bank executive accused of taking an upskirt video on an escalator told a court yesterday that he was filming women in different clothes in preparation for a shopping trip with a friend.
Yuen Kum Fai, 44, was global head of personal banking and preferred banking at Standard Chartered Bank when he allegedly took a video of the woman in front of him with his mobile phone at Marina Bay Link Mall.
They had been on an escalator in Marina Boulevard at about 9.20am on Dec 9, 2013.
A 41-year-old witness told the court that he was on his way to work at a bank when he saw Yuen five to six steps ahead of him on the escalator.
Yuen, he said, was holding his iPad and folder in his right hand and took out his mobile phone from his left trouser pocket, then held it so it faced upwards.
The 27-year-old woman standing two steps in front of Yuen happened to be the witness' colleague.
"I felt curious. I observed the accused," the witness said through a Mandarin interpreter.
When they reached the upper end of the escalator, Yuen put his leg up on the step and tilted his mobile phone.
The witness, who had been watching Yuen the whole time, told two security officers that Yuen may have taken an upskirt video.
When a security officer called out to him, Yuen kept on walking until he reached the escalator going towards StanChart.
After he was stopped, Yuen handed his phone to the security officer, who found a video recording.
"The accused panicked, shivered," the witness said.
Yuen claimed he took the video accidentally and told the witness repeatedly that he wanted to apologise to the victim, the witness added.
He rejected Yuen's request to talk to him in private.
Earlier, defence counsel Amarjit Singh Sidhu, together with Mr Javern Sim, had challenged the admissibility of his client's statement to the police.
The statement, recorded by the investigation officer the same day, was ruled admissible after a trial-within-a-trial.
Yuen had admitted to taking the upskirt video of the victim in the statement.
He claimed it was part of his preparation for a shopping trip to Malaysia with a friend.
The hearing was adjourned to dates to be fixed.
If convicted, he could be jailed for up to one year and/or fined. Two other similar charges were stood down.
[email protected]
Sir , He found himself a good Lawyer
maybe a heavy fine and treatment at IMH
No Jail .
https://guysver34woodland.wordpress...of-him-with-his-mobile-phone-at-marina-bay-l/
It is. Taking upskirt videos is a variant of voyeurism, which has been classified as a paraphilia by the American Psychiatric Association.
| Voyeurism |
| Voyeurism is one of the behaviors in a group of sexual problems called paraphilias. Paraphilias are associated with sexual arousal in response to stimuli not associated with normal sexual behavior patterns. Voyeurism is a practice in which an individual derives sexual pleasure from observing other people. |
| Understanding Voyeurism |
| Voyeurism is a practice in which an individual derives sexual pleasure observing other people engaged in sexual acts, nude, in underwear, or dressed in whatever other way the "voyeur" finds appealing. Differentiating innocent enjoyment of nudity from behavior that is similar but deviant in other circumstances can sometimes be difficult. Voyeuristic practices may take a number of forms but their characteristic feature is that the voyeur does not directly interact with the object of their voyeurism (often unaware that they are being observed), instead observing the act from a distance by peeping through an opening or using aids such as binoculars, mirrors, cameras (including camera phones and video cameras), etc. This stimulus sometimes becomes part of a masturbation fantasy during or after the observation. A subset of voyeurs derive sexual pleasure from looking under articles of clothing, an act sometimes known as an "upskirt". This can be accomplished by camera or simply by a chance viewing up skirts or shorts. Some voyeurs also derive pleasure by looking down shirts and blouses and viewing breasts, particularly when a person is bending over. This is commonly referred to as a "downblouse". |
| Paraphilias and Voyeurism |
| The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the prevailing resource for diagnostic criteria of paraphilias, describes the essential feature of paraphilias as recurrent, intense, sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies generally involving nonhuman objects, the suffering or humiliation of oneself or partner, or children or other non consenting persons. The DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for voyeurism are as follows: The patient has recurrent and intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies involving the act of observing an unsuspecting person who is naked, in the process of disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity. The person must experience significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning because of the fantasies, urges, or behaviors. When severe, the act of peeping constitutes the exclusive form of sexual activity. Onset usually is in persons younger than 15 years, and the disorder tends to be chronic. The wide extent of voyeuristic tendencies in the general population is evidenced in the common desire to indulge in exploitative activities such as live shows and pornography (see sexual addiction and pornography addiction). |
American Hero Sues For Right To Take Up Skirt Pictures
Read more: http://www.thegloss.com/2013/11/06/culture/upskirts-protected-by-first-amendment/#ixzz3QafciAGp
Michael Robertson (a statue of whom I’m told will soon be added to the National Mall, right across from Abraham Lincoln) is suing for the right to take upskirts of women on the subway, claiming that it’s protected under the First Amendment. Robertson was arrested in August of 2010 for trying to take up skirt photos on the Boston subway (the T), but is bravely fighting back. It’s more than gratifying to know that while the rest of sit apathetically watching television and unhinging our jaws to shove more Cheetos in, one American hero hasn’t given up on fighting the good fight. God bless America.
Michelle Menken, Robertson’s attorney who almost certainly is getting paid a shit ton of money to completely betray all women, argued in front of the Supreme Judicial Court that women “‘cannot expect privacy’ in a subway from people like her client.” I didn’t realize that the subway was a rule-free, Italian parliament meeting.
Menken’s argument is largely based on semantics of peeping tom laws, which protect people from being photographed if they are partially or fully naked. Because the women who were photographed were fully clothed, Menken says the women on the T are not protected.
Prosecutor Cailin Campbell argued that there is “an understandable expectation” of privacy on a subway car. Or anywhere. Haven’t we, as humans, figured out that regardless of where you are, there is an understandable expectation that people can’t take sexually explicit photos without your consent? Even though upskirt photos rarely show actual genitals, they are sexually explicit because they are intended as such. I don’t want to live in a world where anyone is allowed to take jerk off photos of my underpants without my consent. I fully admit that personal experience may make me biased about the harassment women experience literally everywhere, but I feel like this goes beyond my experience and sits firmly in the realm of common sense.
The arguments have basically devolved into what is considered “partially nude” versus fully clothed, which is completely arbitrary. Can we seriously not agree that regardless of your state of undress, you cannot be photographed against your will for sexual purposes?
What do you all think? Is Robertson a brave fighter for the right to take upskirt photos that women are asking for by wearing skirts, or just a dumb perv who should be held responsible for his actions?
Read more: http://www.thegloss.com/2013/11/06/culture/upskirts-protected-by-first-amendment/#ixzz3Qafjge76
alvin has a very expensive photostating machine...
lianbeng replies: hey, laksaboy, i dived into gutter but cannot see any uncensored upskirt pics or videos leh!
Gutter kena kicked from their domain recently...lol... all gone
have yellow colour ones also .
Shopping trip to Malaysia to buy Panties ???
Why the Judge never ask to view the Video ??
some people will sue for anything
... this banker thinks any old excuse will get him off??????????
this lady is not going to jail.
I doubt you know..........but I've never been able to see any of your delicious images cos you use the forum image attachment that picks up the image from your PC. This is cos my browser security hinders the parsing of images due to the need for vbulletin to have the user log in, but is not able to know I'm already log in.
Similar threads
