New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP

Originally Posted by Damien

I think this is a specific incidence of private members bills and the time allotted to them meaning you can run out the clock on getting it passed. You couldn't do this to any government introduced legislation I think.

Correct, if this was government business then it couldn’t have been stopped in this way.

It doesn’t look good from a PR point of view but Chope does have a point. Parliament should not be passing laws that can result in a two-year jail sentence without proper debate and scrutiny, no matter how worthy the cause.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Invasion of privacy?Surely that could cover it?

There are already laws on the books to cover that.

We don't need more laws for that and the scope of this means that any such legislation needs further and more thorough analysis than just a private members bill.

On the merits I am opposed but trying to rush it through parliament like this is a total disaster.

Just on the pure philosophy of the matter (on invasion of privacy) it is a debate worth having but that will also extrapolate farther the advances of technology and the ethics of the use of it.

This was my biggest concern when Sony took out a patent for Smart contact lenses a couple years ago - it basically allows people to have hidden cameras in their eyes.

If it is a basic right of privacy then that is already covered...if you need to expand that because of advances in technology your right to that same fundamental right should remain as meretricious as it was before - the fact that variable factors effect its enforcement mean that it would have to be absolute to the extent of infringing upon the rights of others exercise of rights in the process.

Which clearly is not on.

[heero_yuy]

Would such a law also cover men with kilts.

When quite a bit more might be visible.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Would such a law also cover men with kilts.

When quite a bit more might be visible.

It would. Interestingly, you wouldn’t believe the double standards that prevail at a social occasion in Scotland once some women have got a few Lambrinis in them ... demands to know what’s under the kilt etc.

I personally have never gone fully native.

As I posted earlier the amendment is quite narrow and short. It doesn't specify gender.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Chris

It would. Interestingly, you wouldn’t believe the double standards that prevail at a social occasion in Scotland once some women have got a few Lambrinis in them ... demands to know what’s under the kilt etc.

I personally have never gone fully native.

Nothing like a good picture of the trossachs

[Mr K]

The daft old fart shouted 'object' even though he didn't really know what 'upskirting'was ! They should make sure any MP has at least been outside their front door in the last 20 years.

At other times he's campaigned for abolition of the minimum wage, was responsible for the 'poll tax legislation', refused to stop referring to House of Common staff as 'servants', claimed £881 off tax payers to repair a sofa, is a climate change denier, voted against equal gender pay, and surprise, surprise a very keen Brexiteer ! He's been knighted for services to ' politics' apparently.

Nothing like a good straw man on a Saturday morning is there Mr K.

You don’t have to know what Upskirting is in order to have a principled objection to criminal law being created with minimal debate and effort on a Friday afternoon. That’s what he objected to, on this and many other issues.

If it’s important that this be made a specific criminal offence, then it should be given government time and proper scrutiny.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Chris

Nothing like a good straw man on a Saturday morning is there Mr K.

You don’t have to know what Upskirting is in order to have a principled objection to criminal law being created with minimal debate and effort on a Friday afternoon. That’s what he objected to, on this and many other issues.

If it’s important that this be made a specific criminal offence, then it should be given government time and proper scrutiny.

I don't think 'proper scrutiny' is appropriate for upskirting...

Sometimes the issues are so obvious that you should just act.

However he has a history of putting up and sponsoring Private members bills himself

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...re_Parliament/


https://services.parliament.uk/bills...copayment.html

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-06-15/s...-members-bill/
Just two of those that might make you think. However some of his proposals might just be acceptable to some. Maybe if he would just explain a little better what he's trying to do.

Originally Posted by Mr K

I don't think 'proper scrutiny' is appropriate for upskirting...

Sometimes the issues are so obvious that you should just act.

When it comes to criminal law you can’t afford to ‘just act’. If you do that you risk criminalising innocent people or else failing to criminalise those it was intended to catch.

Any legislation that could result in jailing someone must be properly drafted and reviewed. Appealing to emotion in order to short-cut that process doesn’t help anyone, least of all the victims of the activity in question.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Chris

When it comes to criminal law you can’t afford to ‘just act’. If you do that you risk criminalising innocent people or else failing to criminalise those it was intended to catch.

Any legislation that could result in jailing someone must be properly drafted and reviewed. Appealing to emotion in order to short-cut that process doesn’t help anyone, least of all the victims of the activity in question.

So all of the House of Commons, apart from 1 MP, were wrong?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

So all of the House of Commons, apart from 1 MP, were wrong?

The issue is about proper scrutiny of the wording and ensuring that the Bill is effective and properly targeted. Again, Mr K, the objection wasn't the principle of having a law on upskirting, it was simply about the principle that all new legislation proposed should be debated and looked at properly.

Poorly worded and ill thought out laws are what causes injustice and leads to unnecessary court cases to test the view of the Courts on what that wording actually means.

The politicians need to look at their procedures and modernise them. It's all very quaint to continue to operate outdated, arcane procedures, rituals and protocols, but I think most people think they are ridiculous.

I think new procedures should be installed and ALL proposed legislation should be subject to scrutiny.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The issue is about proper scrutiny of the wording and ensuring that the Bill is effective and properly targeted. Again, Mr K, the objection wasn't the principle of having a law on upskirting, it was simply about the principle that all new legislation proposed should be debated and looked at properly.

Poorly worded and ill thought out laws are what causes injustice and leads to unnecessary court cases to test the view of the Courts on what that wording actually means.

The politicians need to look at their procedures and modernise them. It's all very quaint to continue to operate outdated, arcane procedures, rituals and protocols, but I think most people think they are ridiculous.

I think new procedures should be installed and ALL proposed legislation should be subject to scrutiny.

Totally agree - let Parliament have the final say in all legislation.

[Hom3r]

Chloé, as an uncle & brother to females, I would never concider taking a picture of a female showing off tomorrows washing.