“A man fined for having oral sex in a bank foyer was cleared yesterday — because a CCTV camera was the only witness. Keith Rose had to pay £50 after the camera, in a Lloyds TSB in Sheffield, recorded the act. But the appeal court in London quashed the conviction after Mr Rose’s lawyer argued ‘there had been no act which outraged public decency since there had been no public to outrage’.” — Mirror (UK)

Sometimes the literal-mindedness of the law can be exasperating. You read stories about murderers being set free because of technicalities, and you think the law is crazy. Here, though, is the opposite, a case in which the literality of the law rather makes sense. How could a man be charged with public outrage when there’s no public?

Unfortunately, PervScan was unable to make the internet cough up any further details on this case. It’s hard not to wonder about the specifics. How did they catch the man? Did they correlate the CCTV footage with a withdrawal or deposit? (Ahem, must’ve been a deposit…) And did the perp not have a partner in crime? Why wasn’t that person charged with public outrage as well? Or was this guy capable of performing that rare snake-eating-its-own-tail sexual position, thus giving oral sex to himself? And if he could do that, why would he do it in a bank? Did he need to pay himself? That would have been something: he could have been charged with being both john and prostitute simultaneously.

VideoBox

It's like the iTunes Music Store for Porn. Download unlimited high-quality video for only $9.95/month.