[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

From the article:

But when I turned around to look at him he was holding up his mobile phone. It was a video of my bum - he had been trying to video up my dress. He was showing me, as if he was proud of it, and he was touching himself at the same time.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!