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.

Advertisement

NEXT: This May Make You Feel Less Guilty About Shopping Online On Company Time

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 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.

  2. “Well, I shoveled shit in Louisiana.”

  3. 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.)

  4. That’s not really a perverted hobby. It’s just a creepy hobby.

  5. 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.

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

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.