New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP

[Chloé Palmas]

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 ----------

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.

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:

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.

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 ----------

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 ----------

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Because the current way the law is structured makes it hard for the police to charge suspects: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40955829

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.

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.

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 ----------

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.

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& )

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 ----------

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 ----------

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 ----------

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.

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 ----------

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.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

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???

As I have previously said it is not 'without a debate'. There would have been at least two more plus the committee stage where the law would be examined in more detail.

Some times government legislation passes this stage without any debate. Even if this 2 hour debate which everyone objected too was too short the outrage over it seemed a bit much.

What makes this such a priority?

It isn't but the commons can focus on more than one thing at a time. It's not like it's doing that much at the moment.

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.

It was a Private Members Bill.

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.

Do you have a source for the majority of the support being men? The MP who introduced it and the campaigners for it were women.

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.

The MP objected to the process not the law. He is supporting the law.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Damien

As I have previously said it is not 'without a debate'. There would have been at least two more plus the committee stage where the law would be examined in more detail.

Some times government legislation passes this stage without any debate. Even if this 2 hour debate which everyone objected too was too short the outrage over it seemed a bit much.

Yeah though doing things by means of being procedural and correctly seems to have become the fad of the day. Should be done anyway, but procedural hurdles now seem to be something of a badge of honor, for whatever reason. Of course the objection I have, is on the merits. I do not agree with the law - if it was to be rammed through then it would be like the objections over Obamacare (rammed through without proper debate / not in the open / using methods that do not convene with parliamentary norms etc etc) and you would have to go through the court system to get a resolution - get it ruled unconstitutional etc. Had this private members bill passed then I would expect legal challenges immediately but the problem is that to have legal standing you need to find someone charged and then appeal the merits of the entire bill - which to me, sound preposterous. Finding a guy who has been wrongly accused to fight this, is one thing but finding a pervert who argues on technicalities / legal grounds is another matter altogether. The chance of the latter telling counsel to go to the judge and say "your honor the parameters of the definition of this ruling allow for the fact that part of her G String being visible to allow me to take the picture as the item was otherwise visible" is not an argument I see being used a lot. No self respecting representative would use such a defense. It has merit, but lacks the seriousness that an a lawyer would otherwise seek. (Even if it gets the client off the charges). I am glad that the process was taken seriously to warrant changing the way it went through parliament but I am rather surprised actually that there is not more opposition to this, on the merits of the idea proposed which I see as deeply flawed. Going back to the idea of more debate...to the questions I asked, there has thus far been no response. Does the human have to take the picture or is a sensory based system also a violation? If the latter who gets charged - does it effect the "here and now" only, or can it be formally charged up some time down the line? Is there also a standard 6 month summary sentence also available if it goes to magistrate? What about the glass ceiling issue - is that an area where intent should matter - how is intent proven here? Can you use the behavioral pattern of said suspected pervert? (Like a history of interest in this kind of field etc). Even though I oppose this on the merits, can you see how more time would at least allow the process to see debate on some of this issue and there might be some more clear answer to the specific parameter of the rule? Even though I do not like the idea of this one bit, time to discuss it may at least iron out a lot of the ambiguity. No?

It isn't but the commons can focus on more than one thing at a time. It's not like it's doing that much at the moment.

True but my objection is that this was never really an issue to begin with. There are almost 35 million women in the UK - your link showed 4, maybe 5 women who have found this to be a serious issue having been effected. One of them (a teacher) looks like she has the most serious case. As it turns out, another solution being proposed to take care of an entirely different problem may well have the answer:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...-a8407356.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44546360

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/educatio...hool-1-5569218

How about that, huh? (Some of those are very localized papers / issues and this varies on a school by school basis). Which is where the issue should rest.

Without the need for any additional laws on upskirting. This is where I usually fire off a "the system works" kind of line but I promised to be less flippant.

It was a Private Members Bill.

See I don't think that it ever needed to get to that point to begin with. But let's look at it this way...look at this thread.

Of the first 9 messages, including your thread starter not one message had more than 2 lines.

Then instead of being like a roll call, we had some actual debate and as it turns out the vast majority of the people here, do not agree with the process and some (like me / Paul etc) do not agree with the proposals at all.

The way that the MP who addressed and introduced the bill seems to have expected ascent / passage is that every single MP just went along with this - nay Sayers be damned. That is horrible.

Do you have a source for the majority of the support being men? The MP who introduced it and the campaigners for it were women.

I meant on here...so Paul said:

Originally Posted by Paul M

TBH, I have to wonder if this is really the most important issue that (supposedly) needs a new law.

In post number 56.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...8&postcount=56

Maggy (next post) replied with:

It might if it was your skirt someone put their phone up..

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...8&postcount=57

That is the snippet that I replied to in reference to the fact that people here (by an overwhelming majority) that support the idea (like yourself) are not at risk of having a camera pointed up their skirt.

The idea that people at risk of being snapped with a camera up their skirt being the only ones who can see a risk and ergo support a law is one of the most depraved arguments going.

Let's try applying that to other scenarios:

Member of parliament votes against DP for religious reasons.

Objection from Maggy: "Well if it was you that they murdered you might see a reason to hang him!"

Member of parliament opposed to life imprisonment terms for child abuse

Objection from Maggy: "well if you were at ever at risk of being abused as a child you might feel differently".

Member of Congress opposed to further reparations for ancestors from slaves

Objection from Maggy: "well if you were the ancestor of a slave you may take this more seriously".

It is a heinous argument, and honestly I expected better from her. That was my point in commenting on the whole "you don't know what it is like so you don't get a say" kind of comments.

It is why the barbarism of abortion carries on day by day in the name of "I have to carry the child so I get to kill it" vantage point of the women who kills her child.

It also does a great disservice to people who support the law / proposal on upskirting.

That was the "Scottish men / kilts" jibe from me - I mean you gain nothing from this but support the law, right? So I wanted to know what her reasoning behind that was. With Hom3r was it just the self vested interest in protecting his sisters / nieces? She made it out like any objection = something that hasn't effected them, is not their business / they don't know what it feels like and undermines the likes of you / Hom3r / Mr K (I assumed that he too was a guy from the Prefix) who legitimately do want to stop upskirting to protect innocent women.

Me and you may differ on the merits of this but we go at it from a genuine place of wishing to see a discussion with ideas of a potential solution (if one is needed) ; her post came off so badly to me and pissed me off to such an extent that I don't think that I worded my question terribly, so my apologies on that front.

The MP objected to the process not the law. He is supporting the law.

I know, but my hope is that in the more debate that there is on the issue the more traction that it will gain in answering some of the meaningful issues around it - like all the technical ones asked here.

Not one person has answered some of it and I don't mean that with any slide at you, some of those questions just don't have an answer as there is no legal text not to form a hypothetical argument on. They will have to write the law first (or the proposed one) and then we will debate it.

[OLD BOY]

For once, I'm speechless!

I object to words being put in my mouth..

[Chloé Palmas]

And cameras up your skirt apparently.

Though, by your own comments, if you were not at that risk you would have no right to object, either...

Well at least I never put words into others mouths..

[Chloé Palmas]

But do apparently dictate when someone else's opinion has validity or not....

I think that using those analogies showed how utterly flawed your thinking on the issue was - when put in practical example rather than political theory it comes off as even more abhorrent.

Your own words indicate that you are comfortable with half the population having no say on this debate so why would it be different for any other issue? It comes off as utterly repellent to me.

Also, it wreaks of complete hypocrisy ; Damien started this thread and seems to be in favor of the proposal...I don't see you telling him that his opinion is not valid due to his lack of risk / exposure (given that the likely chance of someone sticking a camera up his skirt is zero, too). Of course, he agrees with your thinking so you won't say anything to him. Double standard much?

Even worse...you see some reason to find a flaw with someone based on their viewpoint being different to yours. So, in Paul's case it is because he is a guy / doesn't wear skirts etc.

How is that any different to people who wanted control through the immigration debate (in the EU referendum) being labelled as "racists" or "xenophobes"? If you want, you could go through all the isms, if you like? Or just continue to demean and belittle someone else and their opinion to masquerade your own inferiority complex.

In fact, perhaps I should even be weary of voicing an opinion on the issue altogether for today only I went to church and was wearing a pencil skirt. You can't really take an upskirt of my groin in it as it is so tight so maybe I need stop voicing an opinion as there is clearly little to no chance of me being at risk of voyeurism - especially at church. At least until I wear a much loser skirt / dress.

Your faux outrage comes off as attention seeking, but telling others that their opinion does not matter because it does not effect them is a logical fallacy, and then some. Claiming that they have some sort of ism is ironic (be it sexism / racism etc) is ironic, because your behavior here is showing far more signs of a pathological disorder as detailed by most psychologists / psychiatrists than anyone else here.

Now feel free to tell me to shut up, as my opinion is irrelevant to you, too.

Thats enough from all of you, debate this without the digs at each other.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

For once, I'm speechless!

Are you feeling ok?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Are you feeling ok?

I'm still speechless.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by 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.

Okay so back to the topic rather than the thread (as we should), this post kind of caught my eye.

Is it not a good thing that Chope decided to get more time to find out about the issue / thoroughly figure out if it warrants more legislative fixes etc? Being an older man (of fine standing given his honors) surely it would be a bad thing if he was so well versed on the subject? Being involved in the fashion and modelling industry my entire life I may have a unique understanding but I would not expect your average MP to be clued in...that would lead to bad illusions, no? If he knew a lot about it I would suspect that the accusatory views would be that he was clued in either because something had happened to a female loved one of his, or that he was into the act or had spent a lot of time "researching" it (i.e. watching porn / pulling a Greene).

Given that he is not too familiar with it all (as you suspect) surely debating the issue more is a good thing, right?

Only looking at some of the supporters here (on the issue) not one has answered any of the more substantive questions that I have asked - or would you prefer that MPs also blindly follow onto a bandwagon and just vote in favor without any clue what they are voting on, too?

The most infamous quote through Obamacare's debate was the infamous lie of "if you like your healthcare plan / doctor, then you can keep your health care plan / doctor, Period" (which Obama said repeatedly, ad nauseum) but the biggest parliamentary obstacle / hurdle was passing the bill, and the then Speaker of the House (soon to be re-elected to the majority perhaps) said this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usJ-pMomvLQ

It was lampooned, over and over and over again.

Sounds very similar to what you folks want it to be the case of, with this.

In post 63, aside from ripping on Maggie I did have something very specific to the procedure of the bill's passage which seems to have gotten lost through all the other stuff:

Not one person has answered some of it and I don't mean that with any slide at you, some of those questions just don't have an answer as there is no legal text not to form a hypothetical argument on. They will have to write the law first (or the proposed one) and then we will debate it.

First, parliament needs to know what it is even discussing / contemplating legislating. Then, after that debate it on the merits. If it passes then fine, let's see if it holds up in a court of law.

You don't however go with the approach of "let's pass it first, then see what is in it". That would be a little too Pelosi of you.

Be happy that Chope knows nothing of this, too - after the sex scandal in Westminster at least he is one honorable politician, if he is indeed clueless on the issue.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

First, parliament needs to know what it is even discussing / contemplating legislating. Then, after that debate it on the merits. If it passes then fine, let's see if it holds up in a court of law.

You don't however go with the approach of "let's pass it first, then see what is in it". That would be a little too Pelosi of you.

But as I have said several times now this isn’t what would have happened. There were still several stages to go on the bill.

[ianch99]

What I find very strange here is, putting aside what you think of the MP who objected to the bill, is why there is no quorum set for such reading of Bills? After all, if a Law is to be passed by the Commons, shouldn't we have a minimum number of the MP there to assess it? This is their primary job function after all ..

Was he objecting to this lack of MP numbers or was he objecting to the contents of the Bill? Maybe it was the former since he did ask was the "upskirting" was ..

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

What I find very strange here is, putting aside what you think of the MP who objected to the bill, is why there is no quorum set for such reading of Bills? After all, if a Law is to be passed by the Commons, shouldn't we have a minimum number of the MP there to assess it? This is their primary job function after all ..

Was he objecting to this lack of MP numbers or was he objecting to the contents of the Bill? Maybe it was the former since he did ask was the "upskirting" was ..

I expect a lotmore were watching the debate from the Commons bar!