New upskirting law blocked by Tory MP

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mr K

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

The house was mostly empty such was the importance of this bill.

Originally Posted by Mr K

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

I’m guessing you haven’t actually watched the footage then? There were a couple of dozen MPs in the chamber at most, out of a maximum 650. It is almost always that way on a Friday. That is part of Chope’s objection.

The Government is going to reintroduce it before the summer recess. Backed by Govt so little chance it doesn't get past 2nd reading.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Damien

The Government is going to reintroduce it before the summer recess. Backed by Govt so little chance it doesn't get past 2nd reading.

it needs debating and scrutinising properly, we do not need a bad law on the books due to rushing and knee jerk reactions .

Originally Posted by papa smurf

it needs debating and scrutinising properly, we do not need a bad law on the books due to rushing and knee jerk reactions .

It will go largely though the same process except there will be more people at the 2nd reading. It's not as if last time it was going to go straight into law.

Why does this need a specific new offence ?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Paul M

Why does this need a specific new offence ?

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

The difficulty was that the police couldn't really find much that they could charge him with because she was an adult and it was in a public place. First of all they wanted to charge him with voyeurism but apparently that can only happen if you're in your own home and someone's taking a picture through your window. So in the end I think they charged him with something like public nuisance.

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.

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.

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:

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.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Paul M

Why does this need a specific new offence ?

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.

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.

If someone looks up my shorts i would recommend therapy for the poor sod not prison .

[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.

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.

Similarly if a woman is "exposed" either because of shortness of skirt or wind lifting up that garment there is a difference between a photo that includes that "exposure" and one "focussed" (sic) on that "exposure".

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.

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.

Similarly if a woman is "exposed" either because of shortness of skirt or wind lifting up that garment there is a difference between a photo that includes that "exposure" and one "focussed" (sic) on that "exposure".

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.

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

Originally Posted by Paul M

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

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

Originally Posted by Paul M

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

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.

[tweetiepooh]

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.

Which is why it needs proper debate and scrutiny, normally done by their Lordships as they don't need to worry about being reelected and can question questionable bills.

We must be certain that the law covers what it needs to but doesn't also encompass some other factor not thought of at the time of drafting. You can bet that there would be those who would try to wiggle round the law for some reason or those prosecuted for innocently taking a snap at the wrong time/place.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Which is why it needs proper debate and scrutiny, normally done by their Lordships as they don't need to worry about being reelected and can question questionable bills.

The bill would still have gone though the committee stage (where the most substantive examinations and changes happen), a report stage (where MPs can propose and debate changes) and a third reading before going to the lords. It wasn't going straight upstairs.