I saw the video on The Sun this morning, she wasnt doing a wee at all, her and her BF were about to do the dirty lol and a passer by was filming on his phone.
She got many yards before she figured oput her knicks were at her cankles.. she was more than wasted...
I saw them too, and in the pic where they were getting it on it looked like her BF had no trousers on either.
[QUOTE=alfiewozere;51372261]It's an invasion of privacy whichever way you look at it. The majority of people, seeing someone either having a sneaky pee in public, or having a quick one up against the wall, would look the other way, NOT whip out their phone and film it, surely?[/QUOTE]
Well.. it's a bit hard to claim 'invasion of privacy' when you are trying to have sex in a public car-park.
It's an invasion of privacy whichever way you look at it. The majority of people, seeing someone either having a sneaky pee in public, or having a quick one up against the wall, would look the other way, NOT whip out their phone and film it, surely?
Unfortunately nowadays many people's immediate reaction to anything is to get out their phone to photograph or video it then either sell or upload to YouTube.
It's intriguing, if you video a normal member of the public having sex in public then you are likely to be charged as a voyeur but if it is a celebrity then you make money. Hardly counts as "public interest", it seems in the same class as hacking their telephone.
They were doing it in public. They can't even claim that they were in the privacy of their own car! How can the video person be a voyeur if it happened in public?
What about the public's right to not see indecent activity? There could have been children around there. Where's the outrage for the public?
Honestly, Charlotte Church and her bf should be charged with indecent exposure and the video should be used as evidence.
Comments
I saw them too, and in the pic where they were getting it on it looked like her BF had no trousers on either.
Well.. it's a bit hard to claim 'invasion of privacy' when you are trying to have sex in a public car-park.
They were doing it in public. They can't even claim that they were in the privacy of their own car! How can the video person be a voyeur if it happened in public?
What about the public's right to not see indecent activity? There could have been children around there. Where's the outrage for the public?
Honestly, Charlotte Church and her bf should be charged with indecent exposure and the video should be used as evidence.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3702360/Charlotte-Church-says-she-was-not-having-sex-when-filmed-with-knickers-around-knees.html