Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas
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?
|
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
Quote:
A person (“A”) commits an offence if A—- (a)without another person (“B”) consenting, and
- (b)without any reasonable belief that B consents,operates equipment beneath B’s clothing with the intention of enabling
A or another person (“C”), for a purpose mentioned in subsection (3),
10to observe B’s genitals or buttocks (whether exposed or covered with
underwear) or the underwear covering B’s genitals or buttocks, in
circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would not
otherwise be visible.
|
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.