Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
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.
|
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?
Quote:
|
Clearly not an accident and would be illegal under this law. Rightly so. There is no right to do that.
|
True - but then why was that not prosecuted under existing law? There is no need for a new law on this!
Quote:
|
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)?
|
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:
Quote:
|
Outraging public decency (OPD) At common law it is an offence to do in public any act of a lewd, obscene or disgusting nature which outrages public decency.
|
That suffices for both, violations of, and exposure of the body, no?
---------- Post added at 20:23 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
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?
|
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.