New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP

[Taf]

I just rely on my shiny shoe toecaps.

[Chloé Palmas]

Yeah that is apparently one of the ways that perverts do capture these things - is it worth an entire law to stop very very few case, though? (Which it will never prevent anyway).

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:40 ----------

So Damien...genuinely curious on this one.

When Trump announced his candidacy for President, he rode down an elevator:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vide...ement-31802261

Melania was with him, there were people everywhere underneath / lower floor. A glass ceiling that you could see up and she looked to be wearing a one piece dress with a pencil skirt finish that looked rather tight. A bunch of the photographs would have been near or around her groin / hips and some may have been up her dress (literally) as she was at the top of the elevator.

In such a circumstance would upskirting be a crime?

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

Looking at some of the links in that article Damien, those issues seem the most severe and some of them shouldn't even be crimes. If you are sat at a bus stop and your dress is flowy / loose it should not be a crime to take a picture of you in it, should it? If there is an upskirt...again, do you want to infringe on the right of every person taking a photograph, just in case?

This is a complete straw man. The guy did not take a picture of her with a flowy dress. He put the camera under her dress to take a photo. The intent is clear and it was not an accident.

And yes the issues 'are the most severe' which is why it should be illegal.

Here is the law. Its makes it quite clear the camera would have to be under the clothes.

https://publications.parliament.uk/p..._en_2.htm#l1g1

A person (“A”) commits an offence if A—

• (a)without another person (“B”) consenting, and
• (b)without any reasonable belief that B consents,operates equipment beneath B’s clothing with the intention of enabling

A or another person (“C”), for a purpose mentioned in subsection (3),
10to observe B’s genitals or buttocks (whether exposed or covered with
underwear) or the underwear covering B’s genitals or buttocks, in
circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would not
otherwise be visible.

Someone else ha having a flowing skirt in a wider shot is clearly not covered by this law since it would both 1) not involve the camera being placed under their clothing and 2) would otherwise be visible. The law is written that it makes it illegal to put the camera under someone's clothing to obtain a image they would not have got otherwise.

Also while I looked at the bill, despite the MPs defence, the vote would only have been seen to the committee stage where it could be further reviewed before returning to the commons for a third reading, a debate and another vote.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Damien

This is a complete straw man. The guy did not take a picture of her with a flowy dress. He put the camera under her dress to take a photo. The intent is clear and it was not an accident.

From the article:

But when I turned around to look at him he was holding up his mobile phone. It was a video of my bum - he had been trying to video up my dress. He was showing me, as if he was proud of it, and he was touching himself at the same time.

I do not agree with your definition on this - even if the intent is clear (which I don't doubt). To me, how can it be under if the lady if she is sat down? That does not add up. (Seems an anatomical impossibility in fact). Unless he was practically on the ground, which I doubt.

The tag teaming on the school seems much more likely - that is the difference.

The lady at the festival was bent over, the guy who took the picture did not do it under her.

And yes the issues 'are the most severe' which is why it should be illegal.

Of the ones mentioned the school teacher's seems most valid - some of the others are not fitting the definition of what you are writing.

Here is the law. Its makes it quite clear the camera would have to be under the clothes.

https://publications.parliament.uk/p..._en_2.htm#l1g1



Someone else ha having a flowing skirt in a wider shot is clearly not covered by this law since it would both 1) not involve the camera being placed under their clothing and 2) would otherwise be visible. The law is written that it makes it illegal to put the camera under someone's clothing to obtain a image they would not have got otherwise.

Then the lady who made such an issue of this to begin with (at the festival) clearly has no case to make. None at all. She was the one bending over - there was no camera placed under her or her clothing at all.

Also while I looked at the bill, despite the MPs defence, the vote would only have been seen to the committee stage where it could be further reviewed before returning to the commons for a third reading, a debate and another vote.

Well, I am not saying that I support his procedural filibustering of the issue but rather want the whole issue to lose on the merits. If there is a debate then hopefully the dissenting opinions will grow louder and louder. Even if this passes (which I assume that it will) I hope that the definitions get narrower and narrower. The parameter and scope of this is huge!

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

I do not agree with your definition on this - even if the intent is clear (which I don't doubt). To me, how can it be under if the lady if she is sat down? That does not add up. (Seems an anatomical impossibility in fact). Unless he was practically on the ground, which I doubt.

He sits down next to her and places his phone lower? It does say he sat down next to her. They place the phone lower.

Then the lady who made such an issue of this to begin with (at the festival) clearly has no case to make. None at all. She was the one bending over - there was no camera placed under her or her clothing at all.

Not according to her article here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40861875

At some point he put his phone between my legs, positioned his camera up my skirt and took pictures of my crotch in broad daylight.

Clearly not an accident and would be illegal under this law. Rightly so. There is no right to do that.

Well, I am not saying that I support his procedural filibustering of the issue but rather want the whole issue to lose on the merits. If there is a debate then hopefully the dissenting opinions will grow louder and louder. Even if this passes (which I assume that it will) I hope that the definitions get narrower and narrower. The parameter and scope of this is huge!

The scope is not huge. They need to have put the equipment under their clothing to take photos that would not already be visible without having done so. What part of that law do you actually object to since all the examples you have given would not be illegal (although they would still be very dodgy behaviour in most cases)?

[Chloé Palmas]

There seems to be some real ambiguity here - Gina said that the picture of her was taken directly up her skirt, yet there seems to be no mention of a camera under her outer clothing. At all.

The distinction between up and under is enormous and is not just one without a difference.

Well a second ago you said 'she was bending over' and I am not sure what else:

At some point he put his phone between my legs, positioned his camera up my skirt and took pictures of my crotch in broad daylight.

could mean other than he took an upskirt photo.

But we're not prosecuting her case. If we take her at her world and assume the man intentionally placed a camera under her shirt, the camera aimed up it, and took the photo should that be illegal?

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Damien

He sits down next to her and places his phone lower? It does say he sat down next to her. They place the phone lower.

Then it is not directly under her unless you would count the angle of the camera more than the physical object - i.e. the phone.

Not according to her article here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40861875

Yet a Guardian article says that the image was up her skirt...which is it?

Clearly not an accident and would be illegal under this law. Rightly so. There is no right to do that.

True - but then why was that not prosecuted under existing law? There is no need for a new law on this!

The scope is not huge. They need to have put the equipment under their clothing to take photos that would not already be visible without having done so. What part of that law do you actually object to since all the examples you have given would not be illegal (although they would still be very dodgy behaviour in most cases)?

So long as that kind of incremental behavior is not prosecuted I would have no problem if this does not become a case of a slippery slope. Only my beef with it is that existing law transformed into this (for no particular reason) seems to be precisely that.

Current law:

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.

That suffices for both, violations of, and exposure of the body, no?

---------- Post added at 20:23 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Well a second ago you said 'she was bending over' and I am not sure what else:

could mean other than he took an upskirt photo.

But we're not prosecuting her case. If we take her at her world and assume the man intentionally placed a camera under her shirt, the camera aimed up it, and took the photo should that be illegal?

Shit or Skirt?

If he did that and she noticed it through the act then yes, I think that is cause for saying it is a charge. The fact that she did not realize only retrospectively wanted to press charges shows that the camera could not have physically been under her.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

Yet a Guardian article says that the image was up her skirt...which is it?

What? How is that different to what she said?

At some point he put his phone between my legs, positioned his camera up my skirt and took pictures of my crotch in broad daylight.

[Chloé Palmas]

No, the image...the image was of her crotch / up her skirt, not the camera.

See the problems with this?

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

No, the image...the image was of her crotch / up her skirt, not the camera.

See the problems with this?

Yes the camera is aimed upwards to take a picture of what's in front of it. The camera is under her skirt to take a picture under it.

[Chloé Palmas]

I think the phone could likely be about 10 feet away - no way does a woman not know if someone is doing this in real time. With optical zoom you can do this from a long ways away.

Is the act a crime or having the possession of the image, even?

I have linked to the law. No possession is not a crime. The act is. The act is clearly written to cover sticking your camera under someone's shorts/skirt to take a picture you would not get from a distance

[Chloé Palmas]

Exactly on the former - she (Gina) did not report the act yet they (police) deleted the materiel anyway. That is a total cop out on the statute even being proposed here.

So long as the act is interpreted as written it will not allow for prosecution of images taken which are not "under the person's crotch" imo.

Which makes it impossible to retrospectively prosecute as to act as if the victim was "unaware at the time".

It just not believable that a non remote device can operate under your skirt without your knowledge. That requires all kinds of mental gymnastics that beggar belief.

Invasion of privacy?Surely that could cover it?