[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

This is why in my first reply, when I said :

Now, I don't even want to get into the absurd hypothetical scenarios that this could effect and end up involving.

(Actually it may have been my second reply but all the posts were merged into one).

That was something I meant - it gets kind of preposterous / to go through a million different scenarios without knowing the scope / parameter of the law being proposed.

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.

That is a good start - along with the fact that you have to dispute this in real time. Retrospectively coming back months down the line and saying "cop, help - he upskirted me but I just didn't know it at the time" is a willful disbelief of reality, as Hillary would say. (Only in this instance, it really is).

Secondly if it is clear that the perpetrator took the picture between the clothing and the object he was taking a shot of (be it her crotch or whatever) and he was physically using the camera and not using it remotely then it would be a clear crime.

As it currently is already.

Which brings me to my current point why on earth do we then need a new law and offense to cover this? It is already covered by existing law. The cops are struggling to enforce this? Then to put it simply, they need to do a better job.

I didn't even want to focus on the Gina issue...only from your link, it says the two following things:

The police finished by reassuring me that they had "made him delete the picture". At this point, because of the mess I was in, it didn't occur to me that this was my evidence.

I received a call from the police, who told me that the case had been closed but they once again assured me that they had deleted the picture. With a clear head and time to think about it, I couldn't believe what I was hearing. This wasn't good enough.

So which is it - did they make him delete it, or did they delete it?

1. That is sloppy journalism or horrendous policing / response to public

2. Stories changing like that will leave gaping holes for defense to exploit on cross

3. It would hardly be a good idea to do either (delete or force him to delete) what the evidence to make the case is...no? (If they deleted it, then it would likely be a criminal violation of destroying evidence, IMO).

I could go on but that escapade is exactly the wrong way to handle the entire situation. (It became inadmissible for example).

Also it's already been a law in Scotland and doesn't seem to cause issues.

Out of interest (genuinely curious) has this led to even a single prosecution? If so, could any of that been prosecuted under existing law already?

Seriously, I don't think that it is a good idea that I even ask the hypothetical scenarios until we know what specifically is being proposed here and then I think that we can re-visit this, if it helps any?