close
Free minds and free markets are not free! If you like visiting Reason Online and Hit & Run, please make your tax-deductible contribution today! Click Here

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:


(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245

advertisements

Print|Email

What Did You Do During the War On Terror, Daddy?

The married anti-terrorist officer told police he was working undercover to video al-Qaeda suspects. But back at the station they found his camera had close-ups of bottoms and knickers.

He was nabbed by a plain-clothes team watching out for perverts and paedophiles in Trafalgar Square, Central London, on Tuesday. A police source claimed the man, a Scotland Yard surveillance expert with more than 20 years' experience, had the camera hidden in a sports bag. He added: "The officer used surveillance techniques for his own perverted hobby - taking pictures up women's skirts.

Whole thing here. Rule, Britannia.

|7.27.06 @ 3:43PM|

Really, now. I'm all for whatever floats your boat, but stroking it to out-of-focus shots of underwear is just plain stupid. Third only photos of mimes and head shots of Minnie Pearl.

|7.27.06 @ 8:42PM|

"Well, I shoveled shit in Louisiana."

|7.27.06 @ 9:08PM|

Jeff P.,
Native of Nashville am I. You are correct that Minnie is not the most titillating to focus upon sexually, but I still think of her very, very fondly.
Instead of an "upskirt," I'm thinking a close-up ot the tag hanging from her hat may say, "Harvey's has it!"
THAT is stimulating. (To a certain minuscule element.)

|7.27.06 @ 11:09PM|

That's not really a perverted hobby. It's just a creepy hobby.

|7.28.06 @ 9:50AM|

The use of the name 'Minnie Pearl" and the word "teabag" in one sentence make me shudder.
I agree, I found Minnie very funny. But if I ever walked in one someone stroking it to a picture of her, well, someone's got issues.

|7.28.06 @ 10:59AM|

How does a libertarian justify laws against Peeping Toms? Is demonstrable harm done to the person whose private regions are being viewed?

|7.28.06 @ 12:46PM|

How does a libertarian justify laws against Peeping Toms? Is demonstrable harm done to the person whose private regions are being viewed?

I don't think there should be laws against it, unless of course some other right was violated in an effort to do the peeping. I agree that it is creepy, though.

BTW, you look nice today.

|7.28.06 @ 12:58PM|

He was nabbed by a plain-clothes team watching out for perverts and paedophiles in Trafalgar Square, Central London

I didn't realize Trafalgar Square was that seedy.

Leave a Comment

500 donors in 8 days? Help us raise the bar!

Support Reason's Webathon '09 today!

advertisements