Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas
I have asked a bunch of questions in this thread about potential scenarios and even though it is difficult to answer hypothetical situations in absolute answers, what is the point if a load of the questions lead to no response?
|
I answered some but then you come back with even more hypothetical questions. You also ask these in amongst a load of other questions which would take considerable time to continue with.
To most of the examples I have answered that I do not think they would fall in within the law since you could not be physically putting the phone under someones clothing and to be sure the amendment specifies that shots that can be obtained without doing so are not within the law. So people walking on glass panels or going down escalators would unlikely count.
Quote:
|
Being accused of a crime like this will lead to someone fighting back - you can't just wrongly accuse someone of being a voyeur like the numerous cases that you have cited (like Gina) that turn out not to be covered by this proposed law, in the slightest.
|
What? She would be covered:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40861875
He put his phone under her skirt and took a picture.
Quote:
|
I give you credit though, at least you have tried your best to answer these questions, and you are not a parliamentarian so you can't even base answers on any proposed legislation yet to be forward and are not privy to it but in a broad sense, the notion of this proposal just doesn't work. It will likely pass, and never do anything other than waste time.
|
The legislation is published and I have linked to multiple times.
Also it's already been a law in Scotland and doesn't seem to cause issues.