SAF officer exposed himself in school

[Wolfgang]

As interesting as this topic is may i remind one and all not to stray off topic please?

I do not think it is fair to start dragging schools, organizations etc into this discussion just for the sake for banal comments.

Thank you.

 

[nottipiglet]

Sure you can expose yourself, as long as it is not in public view - ie close your curtains.

IF I were to extend your logic, can I then say that it is not a crime to expose myself in my car? What if I were inside my car, but parked in an extremely open public place - I'm still in my "sanctuary" right?

Now, maybe you can suggest where we can draw the line?

There is no clear line. The law is made up of rules that impose the majority's wishes on the minority, so as to maintain some form of order. Clearly, the judge thought that the man did not have the right to expose himself in his own bedroom. Personally, I think he had every right. The neighbours should close their curtains. If this is such a problem, then HDB should not build the flats so densely.

You see... topless sunbathing is ok in some countries, but it's clearly not ok in Singapore. Again, there is no clear logic... It's just because most of us don't like it.

Don't extend my logic here and there lah... My 'logic' is clouded by my views, just as yours is clouded by your views. Nobody takes off their clothes in their car lah... unless changing for IPPT, or at Mount Faber. But I think everyone takes off their clothes in the bedroom... and we don't draw the curtains all the time. Sometimes, we just forget. It worries me that I can be thrown in jail for changing without drawing the curtains.

Oh... if you expose yourself in your car... I don't think it's really a crime. To me, it's just a minor offence. Someone should just slap a fine on you, so you will behave... but it should not put it in your criminal records.

 

[vince123123]

My statement above is not based on my own views, clouded or otherwise. Nor am I trying to extend your logic. Neither is it also the subjective view of the judge.

My statement is based strictly upon the actual legislation enacted which uses the words "in pubic view".

The clear line is enacted in the Miscellanous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act:

Any person who appears nude — (a) in a public place; or(b) in a private place and is exposed to public view shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both.

FYI - I personally have no views on this issue though.

And, who says no one takes off their clothes in their car? People do make out and have sex in their cars. Just because you don't, doesn't mean other people don't either; in the same way that you wish to walk around nude in your bedroom without the curtains drawn.

Finally, are you sure that you will not get a criminal record? If you are convicted based on the above provision, I'd think you will have a criminal record. Please note that there is a difference between a fine, and a composition (those things you pay for your traffic offences and other "minor" offences).

There is no clear line. The law is made up of rules that impose the majority's wishes on the minority, so as to maintain some form of order. Clearly, the judge thought that the man did not have the right to expose himself in his own bedroom. Personally, I think he had every right. The neighbours should close their curtains. If this is such a problem, then HDB should not build the flats so densely.

You see... topless sunbathing is ok in some countries, but it's clearly not ok in Singapore. Again, there is no clear logic... It's just because most of us don't like it.

Don't extend my logic here and there lah... My 'logic' is clouded by my views, just as yours is clouded by your views. Nobody takes off their clothes in their car lah... unless changing for IPPT, or at Mount Faber. But I think everyone takes off their clothes in the bedroom... and we don't draw the curtains all the time. Sometimes, we just forget. It worries me that I can be thrown in jail for changing without drawing the curtains.

Oh... if you expose yourself in your car... I don't think it's really a crime. To me, it's just a minor offence. Someone should just slap a fine on you, so you will behave... but it should not put it in your criminal records.

 

[yanyewkay]

i think what he meant is that "it would have been better if it didn't leave a record".

the word "shouldn't" wasn't used in a manner of 'uncertainty'.

 

[nottipiglet]

i think what he meant is that "it would have been better if it didn't leave a record".

the word "shouldn't" wasn't used in a manner of 'uncertainty'.

Yah lor... I think it's quite clear that I am stating my opinion. Suddenly got some lawyer / lawyer wannabe / police officer ticking me off. :sweat:

 

[nottipiglet]

And, who says no one takes off their clothes in their car? People do make out and have sex in their cars. Just because you don't, doesn't mean other people don't either; in the same way that you wish to walk around nude in your bedroom without the curtains drawn.

Just because you like having sex in your car doesn't mean that I wish to walk around nude in my bedroom without the curtains drawn. Tsk...

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

Yah lor... I think it's quite clear that I am stating my opinion. Suddenly got some lawyer / lawyer wannabe / police officer ticking me off. :sweat:

who ask u notti? :bsmilie:

tick tick tick... BOOOOM!

well... just remember, over here, its all about personal opinion... likewise... i also agree with you... but lucky thing is none of my windows are adjacent to any other blocks or viewable unless someone deliberately takes a telescope and view... perhaps i would sue them for invasion of privacy...

 

[nottipiglet]

who ask u notti? :bsmilie:

tick tick tick... BOOOOM!

well... just remember, over here, its all about personal opinion... likewise... i also agree with you... but lucky thing is none of my windows are adjacent to any other blocks or viewable unless someone deliberately takes a telescope and view... perhaps i would sue them for invasion of privacy...

Someone will take his monster lens and take a picture of your didi... then send you to jail like Mr Policeman say. :bsmilie:

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

Someone will take his monster lens and take a picture of your didi... then send you to jail like Mr Policeman say. :bsmilie:

cannot sue them for invasion on the privacy of my didi? lao eh... like that i might as well faster sell rights to some photographer liao... :bsmilie:

 

[nottipiglet]

cannot sue them for invasion on the privacy of my didi? lao eh... like that i might as well faster sell rights to some photographer liao... :bsmilie:

Someone stand on top of Bukit Timah Hill, which is a public place... then use monster lens to take picture of your didi when you peeing in your toilet because you never close window... and then law says you shall go to jail. So too bad! :bsmilie:

Good luck selling your rights to some photographer!

 

[vince123123]

Yah lor... I think it's quite clear that I am stating my opinion. Suddenly got some lawyer / lawyer wannabe / police officer ticking me off. :sweat:

You gave the opinion that the law is unclear as far as exposure within your bedroom is concerned. My opinion is that the law is clear as far as your points are concerned - and because I brought up points to substantiate my statement, I get accused and being called names?

Just because you like having sex in your car doesn't mean that I wish to walk around nude in my bedroom without the curtains drawn. Tsk...

I never said you wish to walk around nude, or that I like having sex in my car. You said that "nobody takes off their clothes in their car lah" so i'm just saying that you are wrong. I don't see how your second reply answers that point.

Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, no issues about that.

After some ding dongs, am I correct to say that your view NOW is that you do not agree with the law imposing liability on people who expose themselves in a private place in public view? (Note that this is different from your initial stand that the law is "UNCLEAR" (no clear line) and that the the person only got convicted because "the judge thought so").

If that is indeed your view now, then sure, you are entitled to your own opinion, Mr Cowboy Lawyer / Mr Criminal-Wannabe / Mr Flasher (I shall return you the favour of name calling since you apparently get off on it ).

Personally, I think he had every right. The neighbours should close their curtains.

I also summarise your view that if A does something that B does not like (and indeed will be objected to by most people), the law should be such that B tries his best to avoid the thing that A does.

We should then also repeal all laws prohibiting smoking in lifts (take another lift), spitting chewing gum on sidewalks (use another road), noisy construction late at night (move to another residence) etc etc

 

[Ansel]

All of you are arguing whether his act is a crime or not a crime. But garmen already says that is a crime. So too bad for him. He is guilty.

My question is, why did he do it? Was he stupid? Not sure. A person who is smart most of the time may become stupid momentarily.

Was he insane? Maybe.

What caused his stupidity and insanity? Depression over a failed relationship? Possible, because people are known to do worse things over failed relationships, just that different people have different ways of manifesting that depression. Worse case scenario, one just commits suicide, or buy a few machine guns and kill everyone in his path. Not that we have not heard of such things. He happens to do something between being OK and killing himself and/or others, ie, doing something stupid and insane.

The human mind and emotion is just so fragile! Any psychologist here care to comment?:dunno:

 

[nottipiglet]

You gave the opinion that the law is unclear as far as exposure within your bedroom is concerned. My opinion is that the law is clear as far as your points are concerned - and because I brought up points to substantiate my statement, I get accused and being called names?



I never said you wish to walk around nude, or that I like having sex in my car. You said that "nobody takes off their clothes in their car lah" so i'm just saying that you are wrong. I don't see how your second reply answers that point.

Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, no issues about that.

After some ding dongs, am I correct to say that your view NOW is that you do not agree with the law imposing liability on people who expose themselves in a private place in public view? (Note that this is different from your initial stand that the law is "UNCLEAR" (no clear line) and that the the person only got convicted because "the judge thought so").

If that is indeed your view now, then sure, you are entitled to your own opinion, Mr Cowboy Lawyer / Mr Criminal-Wannabe / Mr Flasher (I shall return you the favour of name calling since you apparently get off on it ).



[/I]I also summarise your view that if A does something that B does not like (and indeed will be objected to by most people), the law should be such that B tries his best to avoid the thing that A does.

We should then also repeal all laws prohibiting smoking in lifts (take another lift), spitting chewing gum on sidewalks (use another road), noisy construction late at night (move to another residence) etc etc

I never said that the law is unclear. I just think the law is unfair. You were the one who asked for the line. The line is obviously very important to you. When I said that there's no clear line... I meant that there is no clear line between right and wrong in this matter. Then you took out the law book and said that's the line. It's fine... you can draw the line wherever you want to since it's so important to you.

Ok. So you do not like to have sex you your car? So you wish to have sex in your car, but you do not like it? Or just people in general have sex in their cars, but you are above all these common people? What is your point?

I don't understand what A does this and that and B likes this and that...etc.. has got to do with anything. Suddenly people are smoking in lifts, laws are being repealed, and people are moving houses... wow. Very imaginative, but quite unintelligible.

 

[nottipiglet]

All I am trying to say is... it is not fair that the man should be charged because he walked about naked in his own bedroom. That's all. No need for lengthy summary.

 

[vince123123]

Alright, point taken - unfortunately, that's the way the law is right now so perhaps the police's and judge's hands are tied. (although I do note that in some cases, the police choose not to prosecute even where there are offences disclosed).

Perhaps you should air your views on some newspaper and maybe it will generate sufficient interest for a review of this particular law that you disagree with.

All I am trying to say is... it is not fair that the man should be charged because he walked about naked in his own bedroom. That's all. No need for lengthy summary.

 

[vince123123]

Ok. So you do not like to have sex you your car? So you wish to have sex in your car, but you do not like it? Or just people in general have sex in their cars, but you are above all these common people? What is your point?

The point was initially brought up to rebutt your allegation that "Nobody takes off their clothes in their car lah". I am saying that it is not inconceivable that people may want to take off their clothes in the car, citing an example of one situation where someone may take off their clothes in the car. This has nothing to do with whether I, as an individual, like to, or wish to, take off my clothes in the car, or have sex in the car.

I don't understand what A does this and that and B likes this and that...etc.. has got to do with anything. Suddenly people are smoking in lifts, laws are being repealed, and people are moving houses... wow. Very imaginative, but quite unintelligible.

This point was raised in response to your point that "Personally, I think he had every right. The neighbours should close their curtains." - ie you are suggesting that rather than the flasher closing his curtains to curb his exposure from others, the others must close their curtains because of the flasher's act. The other examples were then raised to show you how this logic would play out if we apply it to other instances where instead of a person having to stop doing an act which annoys another person, that other person must take steps to avoid the annoying act.

EDIT to correct font size problems.

 

[Yappy]

There is no clear line. The law is made up of rules that impose the majority's wishes on the minority, so as to maintain some form of order. Clearly, the judge thought that the man did not have the right to expose himself in his own bedroom. Personally, I think he had every right. The neighbours should close their curtains. If this is such a problem, then HDB should not build the flats so densely.

You see... topless sunbathing is ok in some countries, but it's clearly not ok in Singapore. Again, there is no clear logic... It's just because most of us don't like it.

Don't extend my logic here and there lah... My 'logic' is clouded by my views, just as yours is clouded by your views. Nobody takes off their clothes in their car lah... unless changing for IPPT, or at Mount Faber. But I think everyone takes off their clothes in the bedroom... and we don't draw the curtains all the time. Sometimes, we just forget. It worries me that I can be thrown in jail for changing without drawing the curtains.

Oh... if you expose yourself in your car... I don't think it's really a crime. To me, it's just a minor offence. Someone should just slap a fine on you, so you will behave... but it should not put it in your criminal records.

It got to do with morale value. Your accetaple standard must also be accepted by the general public. It very much depends on the society we are in and thus I agreed with you on the point.

As in Singapore context, exposing yourself is an criminal offence. The term 'Insult the modesty of.....' You will get a fine but it will be recorded. So don't try doing it!

I think it is time we close this chapter. Lets not discuss it anymore!!!

 

[XXX Boy]

Wonder if he PCC-ed in front of the teenage gals??? :sticktong

 

[nottipiglet]

The point was initially brought up to rebutt your allegation that "Nobody takes off their clothes in their car lah". I am saying that it is not inconceivable that people may want to take off their clothes in the car, citing an example of one situation where someone may take off their clothes in the car. This has nothing to do with whether I, as an individual, like to, or wish to, take off my clothes in the car, or have sex in the car.




This point was raised in response to your point that "Personally, I think he had every right. The neighbours should close their curtains." - ie you are suggesting that rather than the flasher closing his curtains to curb his exposure from others, the others must close their curtains because of the flasher's act. The other examples were then raised to show you how this logic would play out if we apply it to other instances where instead of a person having to stop doing an act which annoys another person, that other person must take steps to avoid the annoying act.

EDIT to correct font size problems.

Oh I see. Point taken.

 

[nottipiglet]

It got to do with morale value. Your accetaple standard must also be accepted by the general public. It very much depends on the society we are in and thus I agreed with you on the point.

As in Singapore context, exposing yourself is an criminal offence. The term 'Insult the modesty of.....' You will get a fine but it will be recorded. So don't try doing it!

I think it is time we close this chapter. Lets not discuss it anymore!!!

Why cannot discuss? This is Kopitiam right? We come in to voice our opinions... learn about each other's view points and hopefully grow in the experience. Sometimes, we talk to broaden our minds... Sometimes, we talk to entertain ourselves... We need not get a solution/conclusion all the time right?