I didn’t see all the press coverage simply because there was so much of it, but here are just some of the things that were rubbish, most of which came from The Journal and The Shields Gazette:

– Alongside “sex pest”, “sick” and some other things, all of the press insisted on calling me a “pervert”. What exactly is a pervert? I am no more a “pervert” than any other man I know, young or old. The press seems to think that anyone who has sex more than once a week at 3 pm on a Sunday afternoon, in the missionary position only, of course, is a pervert!

Anyway, if my motives were sexual, then maybe they might’ve had a point, but did any of them talk to me to get my side of what happened? Nope, just the guy from the Gazette who I mentioned earlier, and who still insisted on calling me a pervert.

– The next problem that I have is that most of the press said I was “hidden” and that I was “hiding” in various places, laying in wait. This is complete rubbish, and when the prosecution used those words in the transcript, my defence made them take that out, as they had added words that I hadn’t said.

I am 6 foot 1 inches tall. How exactly am I going to hide?? I was never hidden at any point and at any place, and I know that almost all of the people that I filmed had seen me and choose to pee anyway.

– Some of the papers said I had filmed up to 30 women, others up to 15. Can’t they make their minds up? Which is it?

The fact is that there were only 3-4 minutes of people on the tape, and so how exactly could I get 30 women into that much time? There were some groups and 3 or 4 people together, along with some men, but I could never fit that many people into that small space of time. The press is just making up whatever numbers they like.

– The press printed quotes from the prosecutor that I went through “dense woodland” to film these women. The tape showed quite clearly that the woodland was not dense at all. Everyone could see 30 to 40 feet around them, and it was all very open. Some women were right up against the town moor fence where there were members of the public walking by just 10 yards away! And the prosecutor thinks these people were in a “private place”??? I think he needs his glasses checked. More lies and embellishments.

– The Gazette reported that I had filmed women “getting changed next to the beach”. Wrong. Nobody was getting changed at all. They’re trying to make it sound like I was hiding in the dunes filming people changing clothes after they had been in the water. As explained earlier, two girls walked over to a very open area where they were being seen by lots of people, dropped their pants and peed, and then walked off. There is so little of that on the tape that I wasn’t even charged with anything to do with that, and believe me, if the Police could’ve charged me, they would. More lies and exaggerations from the press.

– The press reported that I showed “no remorse” during the trial. Based on what?? Did they ask me? No. Did the judge ask me? No. If they had taken the time to do so, then they would’ve known how sorry I was. Lazy reporting.

– The press reported that “I followed” people into these places in order to film them. I actually “followed” no one. They all came into areas and places where I was already. I was simply walking around. Everybody saw me! How do you think I got “caught”?

– Finally, one of the papers claimed that the Police recovered other footage after searching my house. Wrong. They got nothing from my house because there was nothing to get. Everything was on that one tape.

So that’s it! I think I’ve explained it all. I’m sure most of you will agree that what the press printed about me was massively exaggerated and that I got screwed over in court. I’ll find out soon if I have to go to jail for this.

Any questions or comments? Just ask me!

Thanks again for reading all of this.