[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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?

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.

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.

It was a Private Members Bill.

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.

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.

I meant on here...so Paul said:

Originally Posted by Paul M

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

In post number 56.

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

Maggy (next post) replied with:

It might if it was your skirt someone put their phone up..

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.

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

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.