New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Sir Christopher Chope obviously needs real help IMO as anybody in their right mind would support the New upskirting law.:td::(

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

He says it's because it's not been properly debated and he is against laws just being put onto the books without proper parliamentary debate. Not entirely unreasonable but this looks really, really bad in terms of PR.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

when you read the whole article it soudns reasonable...


so, he's agreed to discuss the matter further, which hopefuly will mean a better law can be brought in, which could have less loopholes and wiggle room for supsects.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

This is where there is daft policies and rules within Parliament, no one person should have the power to kill a bill like that by just shouting 'object'.

The Tories have lost their way, Labour is a disaster party. We are in a political situation of being in absolute Limbo.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

I think this is a specific incidence of private members bills and the time allotted to them meaning you can run out the clock on getting it passed. You couldn't do this to any government introduced legislation I think.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Another knee-jerk law stopped in its tracks by someone being sensible. It should be properly debated first.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

I don't think the law itself is stupid, it's more the principle itself that motivated him.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

What's there to debate? Gobsmacked it isn't illegal already.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Thank you! At last someone with a moment to breathe, to think about it. I was going to run a thread on this as the original Sky story ran as if the thing passed.

I see it as a preposterous idea. I'll likely write a longer comment on it, once the bill gets to a debate. (Sounds like a horrible idea though).

---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:30 ----------

Why was there a need to have such a law in the first place? Without being able to prove intent, the bill would have no chance of being effective, at all.

This bill is absurd, on the merits.

Very true, on all fronts, and the answer is not to try more parties. The Lib Dems (with their few MPs) proposed this, then complained when someone opposed. It is dangerous to give power to the brain dead.

---------- Post added at 18:36 ---------- Previous post was at 18:33 ----------

It is illegal though - same rules apply to the paparazzi as they do to any average Joe.

I think that you can't use a lens to zoom in and there are reasonable grounds of privacy in reasonable areas - expectations etc.

Now, I don't even want to get into the absurd hypothetical scenarios that this could effect and end up involving.

This is Britain's version of the French law banning whistling - the latest round of Darwin awards time hitting parliament.

---------- Post added at 18:43 ---------- Previous post was at 18:36 ----------

Yeah, even the lady who decided to fawn faux outrage at the whole process even eventually said that this is nothing but procedural said that Sir Bill is opposed to PMB's:

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsPolitics/...ry-mp-11405840

What was disgusting was her comments at the end which said that it was a "petty thing to do" (to follow procedure - how dare people get the due process expected of a parliamentarian when passing a bill!)

What a piece of work - openly huffing at the idea of her own pet project being thwarted by someone using the framework of the house to analyze something now that "there outta be a law" crowd have picked up steam.

---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 18:43 ----------

Yeah, the optics are indeed terrible, especially as it was a guy that blocked it - as in the current world of femmewhoring anything that does not placate the whims of genderoically inferior crowd is seen as a chauvinist. Of course none of the women in the party could say anything because they are now clamoring for their latest project - abortion in NI!

The modern day conservative party sickens me.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

What could the problem with a law stopping people taking shots under woman’s skirts?

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

I think the issue is making it a specific offence with special penalties whereas now it's covered under a general law.

BTW I'm not against making it a special offence.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

I am 5 foot 10 inches tall...and sadly have a propensity to wear ridiculously short skirts. (Forgive me on that - I age with no dignity).

If a random kid (who is shorter than me) takes a picture and it is at the height of my waist I don't want him charged and tried for something that I see no bad intent in. If I am bent over and someone else takes a picture, I kind of have to suck that up.

Personal responsibility goes a long way. If I chose to wear something short / kinky I kind of need to live with that. Taking a picture as a joke, is not worthy of being labelled a pervert.

The lines of ambiguity are kind of all over the place here, too. Does it have to be directly below the skirt? What are the odds of that?

Or for example, would taking this picture now be a crime:

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1529086301

Damien, if I choose to dress in a way that leaves me embarrassed why should that then infringe upon everyone else to the extent that we need a new law / make them weary of using a camera around a woman with a loose / short skirt?

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Apparently the problem is that it's not quite covered under existing laws: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40955829

Sometimes the police will try for a prosecution but it's not easy.

---------- Post added at 19:26 ---------- Previous post was at 19:21 ----------

The law isn't against taking photos where people are wearing short skirts. It's people putting cameras directly under a woman's skirt to take a photo. The police would not have trouble differentiating between that and someone who happens to be bent over in the background of another shot. In the photo you've given that clearly would not qualify.

Likely if that's what the person is doing and there are perverts who do precisely that.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Looking at some of the links in that article Damien, those issues seem the most severe and some of them shouldn't even be crimes. If you are sat at a bus stop and your dress is flowy / loose it should not be a crime to take a picture of you in it, should it? If there is an upskirt...again, do you want to infringe on the right of every person taking a photograph, just in case?

---------- Post added at 19:37 ---------- Previous post was at 19:34 ----------

Okay so we're not a million miles apart here. What about the lady who was on the tube...should it be a crime to take a picture of her if she is flashing her underwear?

There was a case like this in the US, too - came down to the same thing...you can't claim to have rights to airspace underneath / around you. If someone is under you (glass ceiling etc) and takes a picture and it is up your skirt surely you do not see that as a crime?

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

I just rely on my shiny shoe toecaps. ;)

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Yeah that is apparently one of the ways that perverts do capture these things - is it worth an entire law to stop very very few case, though? (Which it will never prevent anyway).

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:40 ----------

So Damien...genuinely curious on this one.

When Trump announced his candidacy for President, he rode down an elevator:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vide...ement-31802261

Melania was with him, there were people everywhere underneath / lower floor. A glass ceiling that you could see up and she looked to be wearing a one piece dress with a pencil skirt finish that looked rather tight. A bunch of the photographs would have been near or around her groin / hips and some may have been up her dress (literally) as she was at the top of the elevator.

In such a circumstance would upskirting be a crime?

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

This is a complete straw man. The guy did not take a picture of her with a flowy dress. He put the camera under her dress to take a photo. The intent is clear and it was not an accident.

And yes the issues 'are the most severe' which is why it should be illegal.

Here is the law. Its makes it quite clear the camera would have to be under the clothes.

https://publications.parliament.uk/p..._en_2.htm#l1g1

Someone else ha having a flowing skirt in a wider shot is clearly not covered by this law since it would both 1) not involve the camera being placed under their clothing and 2) would otherwise be visible. The law is written that it makes it illegal to put the camera under someone's clothing to obtain a image they would not have got otherwise.

Also while I looked at the bill, despite the MPs defence, the vote would only have been seen to the committee stage where it could be further reviewed before returning to the commons for a third reading, a debate and another vote.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

From the article:

I do not agree with your definition on this - even if the intent is clear (which I don't doubt). To me, how can it be under if the lady if she is sat down? That does not add up. (Seems an anatomical impossibility in fact). Unless he was practically on the ground, which I doubt.

The tag teaming on the school seems much more likely - that is the difference.

The lady at the festival was bent over, the guy who took the picture did not do it under her.

Of the ones mentioned the school teacher's seems most valid - some of the others are not fitting the definition of what you are writing.

Then the lady who made such an issue of this to begin with (at the festival) clearly has no case to make. None at all. She was the one bending over - there was no camera placed under her or her clothing at all.

Well, I am not saying that I support his procedural filibustering of the issue but rather want the whole issue to lose on the merits. If there is a debate then hopefully the dissenting opinions will grow louder and louder. Even if this passes (which I assume that it will) I hope that the definitions get narrower and narrower. The parameter and scope of this is huge!

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

He sits down next to her and places his phone lower? It does say he sat down next to her. They place the phone lower.

Not according to her article here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40861875

Clearly not an accident and would be illegal under this law. Rightly so. There is no right to do that.

The scope is not huge. They need to have put the equipment under their clothing to take photos that would not already be visible without having done so. What part of that law do you actually object to since all the examples you have given would not be illegal (although they would still be very dodgy behaviour in most cases)?

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

There seems to be some real ambiguity here - Gina said that the picture of her was taken directly up her skirt, yet there seems to be no mention of a camera under her outer clothing. At all.

The distinction between up and under is enormous and is not just one without a difference.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Well a second ago you said 'she was bending over' and I am not sure what else:

could mean other than he took an upskirt photo.

But we're not prosecuting her case. If we take her at her world and assume the man intentionally placed a camera under her shirt, the camera aimed up it, and took the photo should that be illegal?

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Then it is not directly under her unless you would count the angle of the camera more than the physical object - i.e. the phone.

Yet a Guardian article says that the image was up her skirt...which is it?

True - but then why was that not prosecuted under existing law? There is no need for a new law on this!

So long as that kind of incremental behavior is not prosecuted I would have no problem if this does not become a case of a slippery slope. Only my beef with it is that existing law transformed into this (for no particular reason) seems to be precisely that.

Current law:

That suffices for both, violations of, and exposure of the body, no?

---------- Post added at 20:23 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------

Shit or Skirt?

If he did that and she noticed it through the act then yes, I think that is cause for saying it is a charge. The fact that she did not realize only retrospectively wanted to press charges shows that the camera could not have physically been under her.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

What? How is that different to what she said?

:confused:

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

No, the image...the image was of her crotch / up her skirt, not the camera.

See the problems with this?

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Yes the camera is aimed upwards to take a picture of what's in front of it. The camera is under her skirt to take a picture under it.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

I think the phone could likely be about 10 feet away - no way does a woman not know if someone is doing this in real time. With optical zoom you can do this from a long ways away.

Is the act a crime or having the possession of the image, even?

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

I have linked to the law. No possession is not a crime. The act is. The act is clearly written to cover sticking your camera under someone's shorts/skirt to take a picture you would not get from a distance

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Exactly on the former - she (Gina) did not report the act yet they (police) deleted the materiel anyway. That is a total cop out on the statute even being proposed here.

So long as the act is interpreted as written it will not allow for prosecution of images taken which are not "under the person's crotch" imo.

Which makes it impossible to retrospectively prosecute as to act as if the victim was "unaware at the time".

It just not believable that a non remote device can operate under your skirt without your knowledge. That requires all kinds of mental gymnastics that beggar belief.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Invasion of privacy?Surely that could cover it?

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Correct, if this was government business then it couldn’t have been stopped in this way.

It doesn’t look good from a PR point of view but Chope does have a point. Parliament should not be passing laws that can result in a two-year jail sentence without proper debate and scrutiny, no matter how worthy the cause.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

There are already laws on the books to cover that.

We don't need more laws for that and the scope of this means that any such legislation needs further and more thorough analysis than just a private members bill.

On the merits I am opposed but trying to rush it through parliament like this is a total disaster.

Just on the pure philosophy of the matter (on invasion of privacy) it is a debate worth having but that will also extrapolate farther the advances of technology and the ethics of the use of it.

This was my biggest concern when Sony took out a patent for Smart contact lenses a couple years ago - it basically allows people to have hidden cameras in their eyes.

If it is a basic right of privacy then that is already covered...if you need to expand that because of advances in technology your right to that same fundamental right should remain as meretricious as it was before - the fact that variable factors effect its enforcement mean that it would have to be absolute to the extent of infringing upon the rights of others exercise of rights in the process.

Which clearly is not on.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Would such a law also cover men with kilts. :scratch:

When quite a bit more might be visible. :erm:

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

It would. Interestingly, you wouldn’t believe the double standards that prevail at a social occasion in Scotland once some women have got a few Lambrinis in them ... demands to know what’s under the kilt etc.

I personally have never gone fully native. ;)

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

As I posted earlier the amendment is quite narrow and short. It doesn't specify gender.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Nothing like a good picture of the trossachs ;)

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

The daft old fart shouted 'object' even though he didn't really know what 'upskirting'was ! They should make sure any MP has at least been outside their front door in the last 20 years.

At other times he's campaigned for abolition of the minimum wage, was responsible for the 'poll tax legislation', refused to stop referring to House of Common staff as 'servants', claimed £881 off tax payers to repair a sofa, is a climate change denier, voted against equal gender pay, and surprise, surprise a very keen Brexiteer ! He's been knighted for services to ' politics' apparently. :rolleyes:

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Nothing like a good straw man on a Saturday morning is there Mr K.

You don’t have to know what Upskirting is in order to have a principled objection to criminal law being created with minimal debate and effort on a Friday afternoon. That’s what he objected to, on this and many other issues.

If it’s important that this be made a specific criminal offence, then it should be given government time and proper scrutiny.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

I don't think 'proper scrutiny' is appropriate for upskirting... ;)

Sometimes the issues are so obvious that you should just act.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

However he has a history of putting up and sponsoring Private members bills himself

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...re_Parliament/


https://services.parliament.uk/bills...copayment.html

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-06-15/s...-members-bill/
Just two of those that might make you think. However some of his proposals might just be acceptable to some. Maybe if he would just explain a little better what he's trying to do.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

When it comes to criminal law you can’t afford to ‘just act’. If you do that you risk criminalising innocent people or else failing to criminalise those it was intended to catch.

Any legislation that could result in jailing someone must be properly drafted and reviewed. Appealing to emotion in order to short-cut that process doesn’t help anyone, least of all the victims of the activity in question.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

So all of the House of Commons, apart from 1 MP, were wrong?

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

The issue is about proper scrutiny of the wording and ensuring that the Bill is effective and properly targeted. Again, Mr K, the objection wasn't the principle of having a law on upskirting, it was simply about the principle that all new legislation proposed should be debated and looked at properly.

Poorly worded and ill thought out laws are what causes injustice and leads to unnecessary court cases to test the view of the Courts on what that wording actually means.

The politicians need to look at their procedures and modernise them. It's all very quaint to continue to operate outdated, arcane procedures, rituals and protocols, but I think most people think they are ridiculous.

I think new procedures should be installed and ALL proposed legislation should be subject to scrutiny.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Totally agree - let Parliament have the final say in all legislation.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Chloé, as an uncle & brother to females, I would never concider taking a picture of a female showing off tomorrows washing.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

The house was mostly empty such was the importance of this bill.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

I’m guessing you haven’t actually watched the footage then? There were a couple of dozen MPs in the chamber at most, out of a maximum 650. It is almost always that way on a Friday. That is part of Chope’s objection.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

The Government is going to reintroduce it before the summer recess. Backed by Govt so little chance it doesn't get past 2nd reading.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

it needs debating and scrutinising properly, we do not need a bad law on the books due to rushing and knee jerk reactions .

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

It will go largely though the same process except there will be more people at the 2nd reading. It's not as if last time it was going to go straight into law.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Why does this need a specific new offence ?

What about up-shorts ?
I've seen very loose shorts that are almost as bad as short skirts.
At this rate we'll start having laws for different lengths and colours of skirts.

I'm quite sure that someone caught doing this could be prosecuted now, without new laws needed.

... and 2 years in jail, seriously ??
How on earth is it "worth" that much ? Two years seems way OTT.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Because the current way the law is structured makes it hard for the police to charge suspects: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40955829

The Police and CPS have to be creative with existing laws in do it when in reality it would be easier if it were a specific offense.

The proposed change doesn't specify the type of clothing so shorts would count too. It says that it would be illegal to put a camera under someone's clothing to obtain a picture that they would have been unable to have obtained without them putting the camera there:

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

If someone looks up my shorts i would recommend therapy for the poor sod not prison .

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

On the glass floor business I'd say there is a difference between taking a picture that happens to show up outer garments and deliberately positioning so you can capture that subject. It comes to intent and that can be harder to prove than the act itself.

That's why it is important to legislate properly. You don't want to prosecute someone who takes a photo of a glass ceiling that happens to have people walking over it but you may want to handle it differently if someone sets up in that location for the purpose of capturing images up garments.

Similarly if a woman is "exposed" either because of shortness of skirt or wind lifting up that garment there is a difference between a photo that includes that "exposure" and one "focussed" (sic) on that "exposure".

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

The law seems to cover this but saying it only applies to shots you wouldn't have gotten without sticking the phone under someone's clothes.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

TBH, I have to wonder if this is really the most important issue that (supposedly) needs a new law.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

It might if it was your skirt someone put their phone up..And it seems that many times PC Plod has said they cannot prosecute under present laws so some victims have just got annoyed enough to ask why and if the present laws aren't good enough to ask their MP to do something about it.
Apparently the laws about peeping toms and voyeurism can't be applied because that involves the use of a window..and it does sound daft that we would need such a law.:erm:

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

It's an issue that needs to be addressed, there is a cross-party consensus, and it's a relatively small change to existing laws which will make the job of the police a lot easier. Seems like a sensible thing for Parliament to do. It's not going to take up huge amounts of time and effort to enact. :shrug:

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Which is why it needs proper debate and scrutiny, normally done by their Lordships as they don't need to worry about being reelected and can question questionable bills.

We must be certain that the law covers what it needs to but doesn't also encompass some other factor not thought of at the time of drafting. You can bet that there would be those who would try to wiggle round the law for some reason or those prosecuted for innocently taking a snap at the wrong time/place.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

The bill would still have gone though the committee stage (where the most substantive examinations and changes happen), a report stage (where MPs can propose and debate changes) and a third reading before going to the lords. It wasn't going straight upstairs.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

How? How is it sensible to just pass a law without any debate or because it seems like the stealth idea of the day (no pun intended) ...but my bigger question is why does it need to be addressed???

What makes this such a priority?

I remember when this first hit the news months back - I am surprised that it even garnered the signatures needed to get a debate going.

So I guess this might well be important, to someone.

---------- Post added at 01:02 ---------- Previous post was at 00:54 ----------

What???

A majority of the folks in favor of this are men, and aside from some Scottish pride I doubt any of them have ever worn a skirt.

I wear one...maybe 4 times a week and at least once on the weekends, and no-one has ever stuck their phone up my skirt (best I know).

If your logic is that the reason people do seem to care is because they are not in the unique position that Paul is (not to have a camera up a skirt) then please explain why a majority who do seem to support this / think that it is a good idea, are men?!?

FYI, if you come back and say that they are all cross dressers I will apologize for this post.

Except the laws are strong enough if prosecuted under OPD guidelines:

Okay we at least agree on the latter part of this....this is horrendous. There is no need for this and good on the MP who put a stop to this.

---------- Post added at 01:09 ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 ----------

So if she is like say 30 foot above you, are you still prosecuted for it???

Say she is in a tree-house and you take a picture if the tree from the ground...?

Or she is up on a balcony and you are under.

I mean WTF...if I chose to wear a flowy skirt (which I do almost every other day, of the skirts I have) then it is my risk to take if I have a M. Monroe moment, but to prosecute someone for taking a picture of me would mean that I would have lost my sense to not know it at the time.

If I then retrospectively go and press charges (aloof to the idea that it was happening at the time) then how the heck did I know that it even happened??? How can I ask that someone was charged if I didn't know that they did it?

Gina would have to have contorted into gymnastics for this to have happened - while being deaf and blind at the same time.

---------- Post added at 01:16 ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 ----------

That makes you a good person. (Or just a very normal person, not to behave like that).

Pretty much nobody has said that this is something that they would want to have a law made, to protect them from and that is because a majority of women do not have the horrific idea of someone putting a camera up their skirt.

I don't know how your sisters feel about it but I feel kind of horrified at the idea of someone passing a law to protect me because of a threat that they perceive might be headed my way.

This might be an awkward question to ask them but I would be curious to hear what they think. :)

---------- Post added at 01:28 ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 ----------

Yes, but that is also because there is a complete disconnect between reporting the act and retrospectively claiming that you were unaware that the act took place!!!

How someone can claim that they were unaware that a picture was being snapped between their legs is beyond me.

If it happened at the time and the alleged victim knew it there are plenty of legal avenues to follow.

To over-legislate the issue will lead to over-litigation and it will be easier to beat the rap on technicalities to begin with. Also when you narrow the specific parameters it will be a lot harder to prove the case, on the merits due to the criteria being a lot more stringent. (Has to be _ _ _ _ and so on). Though the narrower the boundaries, the better for avoidance of some unsuspecting person being wrongly prosecuted seeing as the government seems hell bent on going through with this.


Do they have to be in possession of the camera at the time? There are loads of places I just visited in Switzerland that use motion sensors (on the ground) so if they use video / picture imaging from the ground up is that a crime or only if someone is actually taking the image?

What about underwater photography? (Which is a huge thing these days btw)...the bottoms of pools now use that technology and it might be rather unseemly if a woman has a picture beneath her costume, no?

Does that count seeing as the clothing is not specified? See why the broadness of this is a problem? Not to mention the difficulties when you narrow the scope?

In a situation like this when the situation isn't broken, why try fix it?

There isn't a problem here that needs to be addressed using measures not already available, please don't fall for the faux outrage of people (like Gina) who see a need to manufacture it.

---------- Post added at 01:41 ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 ----------

*Applauds!!*

Finally someone used the correct word....offense. Not just that we need a "law" but somehow, we now need to have invented a brand new crime here!!! Even though the same act, is a crime under existing law.

Right? So you have seen my attire so I figure that there should be about 50 different regulations - a simple "but it was visible your honor, it just had to be a windy day" is going to be an excuse for a bunch of them. But then yes...does this rule out prosecution of when I wear my A-line miniskirts? Those are so roomy it likely is visible if someone wants to look hard enough. Pencil skirts, now that is a challenge. Does video count?

What about dresses...my slip collection would usually be larger than the entire wardrobe of most women so that calls into question if I wear them as outerwear / or under my dresses and skirts.

A simple "no your honor, she intended for it to be seen as she wears it as outerwear!!!" defense would likely be enough to get a case thrown.

(Further reading in case anyone else is interested: http://www.elite-politics.com/showth...w-ad-campaign& )

Exactly...then watch the "we should go farther" crowd set in, claiming that it should be a crime worthy of being put on the sex offenders register and then 2 years should be made longer, with fines added in.

*Sigh*

---------- Post added at 01:46 ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 ----------

So speed cameras / sensors that might on the ground / ground level?

In both Switzerland this year and Italy last there are dozens of women who cycle in skirts / dresses in this weather and I notice it ; if the publicly free (to use) bikes were equipped with cameras (for security purposes), then...?

At the very least you would agree that this kind of needs to be discussed before some random floor vote takes place, no?

---------- Post added at 01:52 ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 ----------

Or all the female MPs were worried that there were secret cameras filming up their dresses and skirts in the chamber?

:shrug:

---------- Post added at 01:59 ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 ----------

Yeah I was wondering in the Trump announcement (that he was running) if images up Melania's dress (inadvertently) would constitute a violation?

IMO it will be very difficult to legislate the intent. Which is what it will come down to.

Yeah I mean it is a rather unique situation so I may have caught Damien off guard with the question but for most people when they time an announcement to run for President they plan everything down to the wire. So, if it showed some, she probably intended for it to.

So if the outfit it is sheer does she intend for it to show under? Women who have major VPL issues rarely, if ever have any excuse to say "it wasn't meant to be seen"...because if it wasn't then you wouldn't wear a fat old thong under sweatpants!

---------- Post added at 02:15 ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 ----------

Looking at the way this thread has gone, I would say that it started off as a sort of one line "yeah, we need a law - look at the evil white man Tory who stopped this!!!" (That is not meant as an insult to anyone who replied at the beginning btw).

It came across as such a slam dunk from Gina that she likely thought that anyone opposed to this would be seen as someone "who hates puppies / babies and likes to drink blood" but credit to the courageous MP who blocked this. He himself even said that he feels like he has been made a scapegoat:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...pskirting-bill

Clearly he did the correct thing. Whether or not people support going through this the procedural or more debated way (process) or like me and opposed on the merits, this thread started off being given as a "why would anyone oppose this" kind of thread. This is in no way a slight against Damien but eventually having me (a woman) come in and rage off against this has (I believe) given a lot of people some covering fire to be able to show their own opposition to the bill and or the process without being labelled a "sexist" or whatever and a lot are still more interested in the process.

I think there is probably the odd poster or two who doesn't agree with me on much who thinks "huh even a broken clock is correct twice a day!"

Whether it is for the purpose of a more comprehensive legislative deliberation process or just opposition on the merits I think we are all coming to the right place, here. :)

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

As I have previously said it is not 'without a debate'. There would have been at least two more plus the committee stage where the law would be examined in more detail.

Some times government legislation passes this stage without any debate. Even if this 2 hour debate which everyone objected too was too short the outrage over it seemed a bit much.

It isn't but the commons can focus on more than one thing at a time. It's not like it's doing that much at the moment.

It was a Private Members Bill.

Do you have a source for the majority of the support being men? The MP who introduced it and the campaigners for it were women.


The MP objected to the process not the law. He is supporting the law.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Yeah though doing things by means of being procedural and correctly seems to have become the fad of the day. Should be done anyway, but procedural hurdles now seem to be something of a badge of honor, for whatever reason. Of course the objection I have, is on the merits. I do not agree with the law - if it was to be rammed through then it would be like the objections over Obamacare (rammed through without proper debate / not in the open / using methods that do not convene with parliamentary norms etc etc) and you would have to go through the court system to get a resolution - get it ruled unconstitutional etc. Had this private members bill passed then I would expect legal challenges immediately but the problem is that to have legal standing you need to find someone charged and then appeal the merits of the entire bill - which to me, sound preposterous. Finding a guy who has been wrongly accused to fight this, is one thing but finding a pervert who argues on technicalities / legal grounds is another matter altogether. The chance of the latter telling counsel to go to the judge and say "your honor the parameters of the definition of this ruling allow for the fact that part of her G String being visible to allow me to take the picture as the item was otherwise visible" is not an argument I see being used a lot. No self respecting representative would use such a defense. It has merit, but lacks the seriousness that an a lawyer would otherwise seek. (Even if it gets the client off the charges). I am glad that the process was taken seriously to warrant changing the way it went through parliament but I am rather surprised actually that there is not more opposition to this, on the merits of the idea proposed which I see as deeply flawed. Going back to the idea of more debate...to the questions I asked, there has thus far been no response. Does the human have to take the picture or is a sensory based system also a violation? If the latter who gets charged - does it effect the "here and now" only, or can it be formally charged up some time down the line? Is there also a standard 6 month summary sentence also available if it goes to magistrate? What about the glass ceiling issue - is that an area where intent should matter - how is intent proven here? Can you use the behavioral pattern of said suspected pervert? (Like a history of interest in this kind of field etc). Even though I oppose this on the merits, can you see how more time would at least allow the process to see debate on some of this issue and there might be some more clear answer to the specific parameter of the rule? Even though I do not like the idea of this one bit, time to discuss it may at least iron out a lot of the ambiguity. No?

True but my objection is that this was never really an issue to begin with. There are almost 35 million women in the UK - your link showed 4, maybe 5 women who have found this to be a serious issue having been effected. One of them (a teacher) looks like she has the most serious case. As it turns out, another solution being proposed to take care of an entirely different problem may well have the answer:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...-a8407356.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44546360

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/educatio...hool-1-5569218

How about that, huh? (Some of those are very localized papers / issues and this varies on a school by school basis). Which is where the issue should rest.

Without the need for any additional laws on upskirting. This is where I usually fire off a "the system works" kind of line but I promised to be less flippant. :)

See I don't think that it ever needed to get to that point to begin with. But let's look at it this way...look at this thread.

Of the first 9 messages, including your thread starter not one message had more than 2 lines.

Then instead of being like a roll call, we had some actual debate and as it turns out the vast majority of the people here, do not agree with the process and some (like me / Paul etc) do not agree with the proposals at all.

The way that the MP who addressed and introduced the bill seems to have expected ascent / passage is that every single MP just went along with this - nay Sayers be damned. That is horrible.

I meant on here...so Paul said:

In post number 56.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...8&postcount=56

Maggy (next post) replied with:

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...8&postcount=57

That is the snippet that I replied to in reference to the fact that people here (by an overwhelming majority) that support the idea (like yourself) are not at risk of having a camera pointed up their skirt.

The idea that people at risk of being snapped with a camera up their skirt being the only ones who can see a risk and ergo support a law is one of the most depraved arguments going.

Let's try applying that to other scenarios:

Member of parliament votes against DP for religious reasons.

Objection from Maggy: "Well if it was you that they murdered you might see a reason to hang him!"

Member of parliament opposed to life imprisonment terms for child abuse

Objection from Maggy: "well if you were at ever at risk of being abused as a child you might feel differently".

Member of Congress opposed to further reparations for ancestors from slaves

Objection from Maggy: "well if you were the ancestor of a slave you may take this more seriously".

It is a heinous argument, and honestly I expected better from her. That was my point in commenting on the whole "you don't know what it is like so you don't get a say" kind of comments.

It is why the barbarism of abortion carries on day by day in the name of "I have to carry the child so I get to kill it" vantage point of the women who kills her child.

It also does a great disservice to people who support the law / proposal on upskirting.

That was the "Scottish men / kilts" jibe from me - I mean you gain nothing from this but support the law, right? So I wanted to know what her reasoning behind that was. With Hom3r was it just the self vested interest in protecting his sisters / nieces? She made it out like any objection = something that hasn't effected them, is not their business / they don't know what it feels like and undermines the likes of you / Hom3r / Mr K (I assumed that he too was a guy from the Prefix) who legitimately do want to stop upskirting to protect innocent women.

Me and you may differ on the merits of this but we go at it from a genuine place of wishing to see a discussion with ideas of a potential solution (if one is needed) ; her post came off so badly to me and pissed me off to such an extent that I don't think that I worded my question terribly, so my apologies on that front.

I know, but my hope is that in the more debate that there is on the issue the more traction that it will gain in answering some of the meaningful issues around it - like all the technical ones asked here.

Not one person has answered some of it and I don't mean that with any slide at you, some of those questions just don't have an answer as there is no legal text not to form a hypothetical argument on. They will have to write the law first (or the proposed one) and then we will debate it.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

For once, I'm speechless! :p:

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

I object to words being put in my mouth..

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

And cameras up your skirt apparently.

Though, by your own comments, if you were not at that risk you would have no right to object, either...

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Well at least I never put words into others mouths..

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

But do apparently dictate when someone else's opinion has validity or not....

I think that using those analogies showed how utterly flawed your thinking on the issue was - when put in practical example rather than political theory it comes off as even more abhorrent.

Your own words indicate that you are comfortable with half the population having no say on this debate so why would it be different for any other issue? It comes off as utterly repellent to me.

Also, it wreaks of complete hypocrisy ; Damien started this thread and seems to be in favor of the proposal...I don't see you telling him that his opinion is not valid due to his lack of risk / exposure (given that the likely chance of someone sticking a camera up his skirt is zero, too). Of course, he agrees with your thinking so you won't say anything to him. Double standard much?

Even worse...you see some reason to find a flaw with someone based on their viewpoint being different to yours. So, in Paul's case it is because he is a guy / doesn't wear skirts etc.

How is that any different to people who wanted control through the immigration debate (in the EU referendum) being labelled as "racists" or "xenophobes"? If you want, you could go through all the isms, if you like? Or just continue to demean and belittle someone else and their opinion to masquerade your own inferiority complex.

In fact, perhaps I should even be weary of voicing an opinion on the issue altogether for today only I went to church and was wearing a pencil skirt. You can't really take an upskirt of my groin in it as it is so tight so maybe I need stop voicing an opinion as there is clearly little to no chance of me being at risk of voyeurism - especially at church. At least until I wear a much loser skirt / dress.

Your faux outrage comes off as attention seeking, but telling others that their opinion does not matter because it does not effect them is a logical fallacy, and then some. Claiming that they have some sort of ism is ironic (be it sexism / racism etc) is ironic, because your behavior here is showing far more signs of a pathological disorder as detailed by most psychologists / psychiatrists than anyone else here.

Now feel free to tell me to shut up, as my opinion is irrelevant to you, too.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Are you feeling ok? :)

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

I'm still speechless.:erm:

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Okay so back to the topic rather than the thread (as we should), this post kind of caught my eye.

Is it not a good thing that Chope decided to get more time to find out about the issue / thoroughly figure out if it warrants more legislative fixes etc? Being an older man (of fine standing given his honors) surely it would be a bad thing if he was so well versed on the subject? Being involved in the fashion and modelling industry my entire life I may have a unique understanding but I would not expect your average MP to be clued in...that would lead to bad illusions, no? If he knew a lot about it I would suspect that the accusatory views would be that he was clued in either because something had happened to a female loved one of his, or that he was into the act or had spent a lot of time "researching" it (i.e. watching porn / pulling a Greene).

Given that he is not too familiar with it all (as you suspect) surely debating the issue more is a good thing, right?

Only looking at some of the supporters here (on the issue) not one has answered any of the more substantive questions that I have asked - or would you prefer that MPs also blindly follow onto a bandwagon and just vote in favor without any clue what they are voting on, too?

The most infamous quote through Obamacare's debate was the infamous lie of "if you like your healthcare plan / doctor, then you can keep your health care plan / doctor, Period" (which Obama said repeatedly, ad nauseum) but the biggest parliamentary obstacle / hurdle was passing the bill, and the then Speaker of the House (soon to be re-elected to the majority perhaps) said this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usJ-pMomvLQ

It was lampooned, over and over and over again.

Sounds very similar to what you folks want it to be the case of, with this.

In post 63, aside from ripping on Maggie I did have something very specific to the procedure of the bill's passage which seems to have gotten lost through all the other stuff:

First, parliament needs to know what it is even discussing / contemplating legislating. Then, after that debate it on the merits. If it passes then fine, let's see if it holds up in a court of law.

You don't however go with the approach of "let's pass it first, then see what is in it". That would be a little too Pelosi of you. ;)

Be happy that Chope knows nothing of this, too - after the sex scandal in Westminster at least he is one honorable politician, if he is indeed clueless on the issue.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

But as I have said several times now this isn’t what would have happened. There were still several stages to go on the bill.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

What I find very strange here is, putting aside what you think of the MP who objected to the bill, is why there is no quorum set for such reading of Bills? After all, if a Law is to be passed by the Commons, shouldn't we have a minimum number of the MP there to assess it? This is their primary job function after all ..

Was he objecting to this lack of MP numbers or was he objecting to the contents of the Bill? Maybe it was the former since he did ask was the "upskirting" was ..

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

I expect a lotmore were watching the debate from the Commons bar!

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Okay, that is great and all but what practical purpose would that serve to have more debate if this is a way that things carry on? I have asked a bunch of questions in this thread about potential scenarios and even though it is difficult to answer hypothetical situations in absolute answers, what is the point if a load of the questions lead to no response? All a shrug of the shoulders does is to waste more time, money and parliamentary privilege along with confusion among officers and judges and will clog up the court system more, lead to more frivolous apprehensions, more appeals and eventually a load of settlements from police. Being accused of a crime like this will lead to someone fighting back - you can't just wrongly accuse someone of being a voyeur like the numerous cases that you have cited (like Gina) that turn out not to be covered by this proposed law, in the slightest.

I give you credit though, at least you have tried your best to answer these questions, and you are not a parliamentarian so you can't even base answers on any proposed legislation yet to be forward and are not privy to it but in a broad sense, the notion of this proposal just doesn't work. It will likely pass, and never do anything other than waste time.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

I answered some but then you come back with even more hypothetical questions. You also ask these in amongst a load of other questions which would take considerable time to continue with.

To most of the examples I have answered that I do not think they would fall in within the law since you could not be physically putting the phone under someones clothing and to be sure the amendment specifies that shots that can be obtained without doing so are not within the law. So people walking on glass panels or going down escalators would unlikely count.

What? She would be covered: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40861875

He put his phone under her skirt and took a picture.

The legislation is published and I have linked to multiple times.

Also it's already been a law in Scotland and doesn't seem to cause issues.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

This is why in my first reply, when I said :

(Actually it may have been my second reply but all the posts were merged into one).

That was something I meant - it gets kind of preposterous / to go through a million different scenarios without knowing the scope / parameter of the law being proposed.

That is a good start - along with the fact that you have to dispute this in real time. Retrospectively coming back months down the line and saying "cop, help - he upskirted me but I just didn't know it at the time" is a willful disbelief of reality, as Hillary would say. (Only in this instance, it really is).

Secondly if it is clear that the perpetrator took the picture between the clothing and the object he was taking a shot of (be it her crotch or whatever) and he was physically using the camera and not using it remotely then it would be a clear crime.

As it currently is already.

Which brings me to my current point why on earth do we then need a new law and offense to cover this? It is already covered by existing law. The cops are struggling to enforce this? Then to put it simply, they need to do a better job.

I didn't even want to focus on the Gina issue...only from your link, it says the two following things:

So which is it - did they make him delete it, or did they delete it?

1. That is sloppy journalism or horrendous policing / response to public

2. Stories changing like that will leave gaping holes for defense to exploit on cross

3. It would hardly be a good idea to do either (delete or force him to delete) what the evidence to make the case is...no? (If they deleted it, then it would likely be a criminal violation of destroying evidence, IMO).

I could go on but that escapade is exactly the wrong way to handle the entire situation. (It became inadmissible for example).

Out of interest (genuinely curious) has this led to even a single prosecution? If so, could any of that been prosecuted under existing law already?

Seriously, I don't think that it is a good idea that I even ask the hypothetical scenarios until we know what specifically is being proposed here and then I think that we can re-visit this, if it helps any? :)

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Sill stuck in the stone age it seems our Mr Chope..

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ens-conference

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Hmmm, so is that before or after global men’s conference ?

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

I am sure a men's conference exists somewhere.

I don't really see the problem with this women's conference though. It's that kind of organisation that allowed them to combat discrimination and inequality.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Siting in the commons is a privilege afforded to those who have been democratically elected by the people not any tom dick or Harriet who fancies a seat .

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

It's not as if it'll be in session and besides you can do tours of it. I think there a probably better locations for such I thing but I don't see the harm so long as they don't damage anything.

Chope seems to be bothered by the smallest things.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Indeed I was in the House of Commons in December 2016 on a tour of the Houses of Parliament when the houses were not in session...I stood in the hallowed chamber.

I thoroughly recommend it as it's very informative and interesting.

I would have thought one of the restaurants in Westminster might be a bit more convivial myself though.

However I think Chope was merely backtracking myself to avoid being labelled as sexist.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

So if there was a men's conference, can women who object be determined to be "picking nits at the smallest of things" , too?

(Sorry for the late reply, I thought this thread had died some).

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

In the dark, away from all the looks and jeers? They have been shamed into secrecy, huh? No such thing exists in parliament. Those who do not feel like permanent victims see no need to clamor for some perceived status of equality (that they already have), like certain inferior women, do - all for the sake of seeking attention.

Of course you don't. Because in that sense, your condescension is no less patronizing then any other do gooding male who has lost sense of his gender's ability to see it's own value, without the need for an apologist agenda for the pathetically inferior. You are a perfectly decent, nice young person who I think is about one of the most polite people that I have ever come across when discussing politics so of course you would have a "go along to get along" mentality when it comes to gender perceptions. In that way you are the perfect kind of gentleman to fall victim to the kind of garbage hoisted on the world by the modern feminist movement which insists on total obedience when it comes to an acceptance of a perceived slight against my entire gender for being born inferior. I am sure that your blessing will mean everything to the groups who seek your approval in the first place ; had they not got it then it wouldn't have mattered anyway because dissent really is admonished.

Right, because nothing says a perennial sense of victim hood like constantly viewing yourself as a second class citizen due to some nefarious claptrap in the head of someone else. I guess some of us in life were already born equal ; as much as some organization may tell me otherwise, I am not a second class citizen. Some among my gender are born victims, but not because of it. Or to put it another way: I am equal. To you, and to any other man or woman. God created me as equal as any other human being. I don't need the validation or vindication of some arbitrary group of women, especially if they claim to have won it for me, in their fight.

At some point in life, it might be interesting to see if there is some element / basis of reality in that whole organization / conference. Or maybe we should all go full Hillary and just assume that we need a wilful suspension in...well you get the idea. :)

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

Women want to organise a women's conference and I don't care. That isn't being condescending or patronising. I also don't see it as a threat to me.

Re: New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP
 

:clap:

Exactly!
Personally I'm getting a tad fed up with the divisions being forced upon us by some people of all sexes and genders and inclinations when we should be pulling together as a society to protect all members of that society whatever their sexual preferences and inclinations..and it's not always men who are being condescending and patronising.