That bloke with the bike then – what’s that all about?

 I have thus far avoided posting anything about the man with the bike.  The story is reported in various places, some with pictures of the individual attempting to block the camera with an outstretched hand, as if he is about to appear in Hush, hush.  There is little that one can add to the lines from the reports indicating that when interrupted by the cleaners he paused only to say,

“Whit is it hen?”

And his explanation that his activity arose as a result of a “misunderstanding” due to consuming drink.  (As a tee-totaller myself how drunk do you have to be to have that sort of misunderstanding?)

I am still bemused as to how best to describe the guilty man:  the sheriff called him a “cycle sexualist”; but my own preference thus far is to describe him as a “pedalphile”.

Anyway, a poll to answer the pressing question of the day.

Advertisements

About loveandgarbage

I watch the telly and read when not doing law stuff and plugging my decade and a half old unwatched Edinburgh fringe show.
This entry was posted in news, poll, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to That bloke with the bike then – what’s that all about?

  1. alfaguru says:

    He may have been inspired by Derek Raymond’s disturbing crime novel “I was Dora Suarez” which contains a scene of extreme masochism involving a bicycle.
    Probably not. It’s a good book, though.

    • I’ve not read that one of Raymond’s but have read the paperback reprinted earlier this year/late last year “He died with his eyes opn” IIRC and keen to try more. I’ll keep an eye for Dora Suarez.
      Scott

  2. As you may have seen, The Register’s commenters lean heavily towards the libertarian (small l) view that things have come to a pretty pass if a man cannot have sex with a bicycle in the privacy of his own room whilst too drunk to stop when cleaners unlock the door and barge in…
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/15/bike_bloke_sentenced/comments/

    • My inclination (in relation to the case rather than in terms of preferences) is similar. How this type of conduct within one’s own accommodation is criminal causes me some concern? However, the facts of the case are that he was in a hostel where the rooms were cleaned by employed cleaners. The evidence of the cleaners (corroborating each other) was that they had knocked on the doors for a protracted period of time before using the master key to gain entry. And the accused continued the conduct after speaking to them. I suspect that if he had stopped/been embarrassed it would not have gone any further. The conduct (continuing his activities) is what the Scottish courts used to refer to as shamelessly indecent conduct. I think the public element creates the crime here. No doubt around the country every evening many bring out their Chopper in the privacy of the bedroom and take their pleasure without any general public consciousness.

      • So essentially we are back into the realm of ‘The law in its infinite majesty forbids the rich as well as the poor from shagging bicycles whilst pissed out of their brains’

        • if it’s done in public (or at least before people that are offended/alarmed).
          However, what you get up to in the privacy of your own potting shed (alone and/or with a consenting adult or bicycle) is unlikely to lead to criminal proceedings.
          (PS just trying to explain, not necessarily endorsing either the activity or the prosecution)

          • But isn’t a hotel room / hostel room / prison cell ‘private’ in this sense?

          • yes, but…
            The cleaners were doing their job as usual. They knocked to see if anyone was there and gave evidence that they would not have entered if he had told them he was there and not to come in (the Telegraph report I think).
            He continued his activity after they had come into the room (meaning he now had an audience and the room was public), having paused to greet them.

          • I bet Claridges would have behaved differently 🙂

      • andrewducker says:

        Aaah, that makes sense.
        So when there’s an expectation that the private may become public one has a duty to be prepared for this eventuality :->

        • camies says:

          Which sounds like a snooper’s charter: “I could see the people next door having sex. Disgusting! I had to climb onto the shed roof …”

          • I suspect this could be legally distinguished (although this case sets no precedent as there is unlikely to be an appeal) on the basis that the cleaners were doing their job and had taken precuations to avoid any embarrassing confrontations by knocking repeatedly on the door.

        • Free legal advice for the day:
          close the curtains
          😉

          • The law seems to have a somewhat worrying trend of prosecuting those who indulge in sexual conduct of a deviant nature, i.e. lets not forget R v Brown where the men were indulging in sexual conduct completely in private, yet were still successfully prosecuted.
            as a widening liberal, i think that whatever happens in the bedroom (within reason) stays in the bedroom.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s