Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas
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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Not according to her article here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40861875
Quote:
|
At some point he put his phone between my legs, positioned his camera up my skirt and took pictures of my crotch in broad daylight.
|
Clearly not an accident and would be illegal under this law. Rightly so. There is no right to do that.
Quote:
|
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!
|
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)?