Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
It's an issue that needs to be addressed, there is a cross-party consensus, and it's a relatively small change to existing laws which will make the job of the police a lot easier. Seems like a sensible thing for Parliament to do. It's not going to take up huge amounts of time and effort to enact.
|
How? How is it sensible to just pass a law without any debate or because it seems like the stealth idea of the day (no pun intended) ...but my bigger question is why does it need to be addressed???
What makes this such a priority?
I remember when this first hit the news months back - I am surprised that it even garnered the signatures needed to get a debate going.
So I guess this might well be important, to someone.
---------- Post added at 01:02 ---------- Previous post was at 00:54 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J
It might if it was your skirt someone put their phone up..
|
What???
A majority of the folks in favor of this are men, and aside from some Scottish pride I doubt any of them have ever worn a skirt.
I wear one...maybe 4 times a week and at least once on the weekends, and no-one has ever stuck their phone up my skirt (best I know).
If your logic is that the reason people do seem to care is because they are not in the unique position that Paul is (not to have a camera up a skirt) then please explain why a majority who
do seem to support this / think that it is a good idea, are men?!?
FYI, if you come back and say that they are all cross dressers I will apologize for this post.
Quote:
And it seems that many times PC Plod has said they cannot prosecute under present laws so some victims have just got annoyed enough to ask why and if the present laws aren't good enough to ask their MP to do something about it.
|
Except the laws
are strong enough if prosecuted under OPD guidelines:
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.
|
Quote:
Apparently the laws about peeping toms and voyeurism can't be applied because that involves the use of a window..and it does sound daft that we would need such a law.
|
Okay we at least agree on the latter part of this....this is horrendous. There is no need for this and good on the MP who put a stop to this.
---------- Post added at 01:09 ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
The law seems to cover this but saying it only applies to shots you wouldn't have gotten without sticking the phone under someone's clothes.
|
So if she is like say 30 foot above you, are you still prosecuted for it???
Say she is in a tree-house and you take a picture if the tree from the ground...?
Or she is up on a balcony and you are under.
I mean WTF...if I chose to wear a flowy skirt (which I do almost every other day, of the skirts I have) then it is my risk to take if I have a M. Monroe moment, but to prosecute someone for taking a picture of me would mean that I would have lost my sense to not know it at the time.
If I then retrospectively go and press charges (aloof to the idea that it was happening at the time) then how the heck did I know that it even happened??? How can I ask that someone was charged if I didn't know that they did it?
Gina would have to have contorted into gymnastics for this to have happened - while being deaf and blind at the same time.
---------- Post added at 01:16 ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r
Chloé, as an uncle & brother to females, I would never concider taking a picture of a female showing off tomorrows washing.
|
That makes you a good person. (Or just a very normal person, not to behave like that).
Pretty much nobody has said that this is something that they would
want to have a law made, to protect them from and that is because a majority of women do not have the horrific idea of someone putting a camera up their skirt.
I don't know how your sisters feel about it but I feel kind of horrified at the idea of someone passing a law to protect me because of a threat that they perceive might be headed my way.
This might be an awkward question to ask them but I would be curious to hear what they think.
---------- Post added at 01:28 ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
|
Yes, but that is also because there is a complete disconnect between reporting the act and retrospectively claiming that you were unaware that the act took place!!!
How someone can claim that they were unaware that a picture was being snapped between their legs is beyond me.
If it happened at the time and the alleged victim knew it there are plenty of legal avenues to follow.
Quote:
The Police and CPS have to be creative with existing laws in do it when in reality it would be easier if it were a specific offense.
|
To over-legislate the issue will lead to over-litigation and it will be easier to beat the rap on technicalities to begin with. Also when you narrow the specific parameters it will be a lot harder to prove the case, on the merits due to the criteria being a lot more stringent. (Has to be _ _ _ _ and so on). Though the narrower the boundaries, the better for avoidance of some unsuspecting person being wrongly prosecuted seeing as the government seems hell bent on going through with this.
Quote:
The proposed change doesn't specify the type of clothing so shorts would count too. It says that it would be illegal to put a camera under someone's clothing to obtain a picture that they would have been unable to have obtained without them putting the camera there:
|
Do they have to be in possession of the camera at the time? There are loads of places I just visited in Switzerland that use motion sensors (on the ground) so if they use video / picture imaging from the ground up is that a crime or only if someone is actually taking the image?
What about underwater photography? (Which is a huge thing these days btw)...the bottoms of pools now use that technology and it might be rather unseemly if a woman has a picture beneath her costume, no?
Does that count seeing as the clothing is not specified? See why the broadness of this is a problem? Not to mention the difficulties when you narrow the scope?
In a situation like this when the situation isn't broken, why try fix it?
There isn't a problem here that needs to be addressed using measures not already available, please don't fall for the faux outrage of people (like Gina) who see a need to manufacture it.
---------- Post added at 01:41 ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul M
Why does this need a specific new offence ?
|
*Applauds!!*
Finally someone used the correct word....offense. Not just that we need a "law" but somehow, we now need to have invented a brand new crime here!!! Even though the same act, is a crime under existing law.
Quote:
What about up-shorts ?
I've seen very loose shorts that are almost as bad as short skirts.
At this rate we'll start having laws for different lengths and colours of skirts.
|
Right? So you have seen my attire so I figure that there should be about 50 different regulations - a simple "but it was visible your honor, it just had to be a windy day" is going to be an excuse for a bunch of them. But then yes...does this rule out prosecution of when I wear my A-line miniskirts? Those are so roomy it likely is visible if someone wants to look hard enough. Pencil skirts, now that is a challenge. Does video count?
What about dresses...my slip collection would usually be larger than the entire wardrobe of most women so that calls into question if I wear them as outerwear / or under my dresses and skirts.
A simple "no your honor, she
intended for it to be seen as she wears it as outerwear!!!" defense would likely be enough to get a case thrown.
(Further reading in case anyone else is interested:
http://www.elite-politics.com/showth...w-ad-campaign& )
Quote:
I'm quite sure that someone caught doing this could be prosecuted now, without new laws needed.
... and 2 years in jail, seriously ??
How on earth is it "worth" that much ? Two years seems way OTT.
|
Exactly...then watch the "we should go farther" crowd set in, claiming that it should be a crime worthy of being put on the sex offenders register and then 2 years should be made longer, with fines added in.
*Sigh*
---------- Post added at 01:46 ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
The law seems to cover this but saying it only applies to shots you wouldn't have gotten without sticking the phone under someone's clothes.
|
So speed cameras / sensors that might on the ground / ground level?
In both Switzerland this year and Italy last there are dozens of women who cycle in skirts / dresses in this weather and I notice it ; if the publicly free (to use) bikes were equipped with cameras (for security purposes), then...?
At the very least you would agree that this kind of needs to be discussed before some random floor vote takes place, no?
---------- Post added at 01:52 ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf
The house was mostly empty such was the importance of this bill.
|
Or all the female MPs were worried that there were secret cameras filming up their dresses and skirts in the chamber?
---------- Post added at 01:59 ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh
On the glass floor business I'd say there is a difference between taking a picture that happens to show up outer garments and deliberately positioning so you can capture that subject. It comes to intent and that can be harder to prove than the act itself.
|
Yeah I was wondering in the Trump announcement (that he was running) if images up Melania's dress (inadvertently) would constitute a violation?
IMO it will be very difficult to legislate the intent. Which is what it will come down to.
Quote:
That's why it is important to legislate properly. You don't want to prosecute someone who takes a photo of a glass ceiling that happens to have people walking over it but you may want to handle it differently if someone sets up in that location for the purpose of capturing images up garments.
|
Yeah I mean it is a rather unique situation so I may have caught Damien off guard with the question but for most people when they time an announcement to run for President they plan everything down to the wire. So, if it showed some, she probably intended for it to.
So if the outfit it is sheer does she intend for it to show under? Women who have major VPL issues rarely, if ever have any excuse to say "it wasn't meant to be seen"...because if it wasn't then you wouldn't wear a fat old thong under sweatpants!
---------- Post added at 02:15 ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
Totally agree - let Parliament have the final say in all legislation.
|
Looking at the way this thread has gone, I would say that it started off as a sort of one line "yeah, we need a law - look at the evil white man Tory who stopped this!!!" (That is not meant as an insult to anyone who replied at the beginning btw).
It came across as such a slam dunk from Gina that she likely thought that anyone opposed to this would be seen as someone "who hates puppies / babies and likes to drink blood" but credit to the courageous MP who blocked this. He himself even said that he feels like he has been made a scapegoat:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...pskirting-bill
Clearly he did the correct thing. Whether or not people support going through this the procedural or more debated way (process) or like me and opposed on the merits, this thread started off being given as a "why would anyone oppose this" kind of thread. This is in no way a slight against Damien but eventually having me (a woman) come in and rage off against this has (I believe) given a lot of people some covering fire to be able to show their own opposition to the bill and or the process without being labelled a "sexist" or whatever and a lot are still more interested in the process.
I think there is probably the odd poster or two who doesn't agree with me on much who thinks "huh even a broken clock is correct twice a day!"
Whether it is for the purpose of a more comprehensive legislative deliberation process or just opposition on the merits I think we are all coming to the right place, here.