Upskirting conviction

[Slam62]

Do you think prison is appropriate?

should have been suspended or community service or something.

 

[Pudney]

My point is that the castigation of this MP was ridiculous. As this conviction proves, upskirting is already covered as an offence under existing legislation so a new law is not required - as he argued at the time.

You’re clearly wrong.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Doesn't this prove the point made by Sir Christopher Chope MP (for which he was soundly castigated) that separate legislation covering this offence was unnecessary?

Chope's objection was nothing to do with the legislation. He has an ongoing issue with private member's bills and time to debate it. He's done it on all sorts of bills and specifically said he approved of this legislation.

 

[jsmoke]

Do you think prison is appropriate?

Depends on previous and other things. It's a huge violation to a person filming them like that, very creepy. But then prison make make them worse, i.e huge guilt complex, treated as a sex offender in jail, probably have to go to PC. More guilt complex, more crime when out. Vicious cycle. Probably CS and a fine.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Do you think prison is appropriate?

Depends on aggravating or mitigating factors, previous good or bad character evidence and level of impact on the victim. But I can imagine a circumstance where a custodial sentence would be appropriate.

 

[Orionaut]

Strange as it might seem, I am uncomfortable with this activity being criminalised at all from a legal perspective.

Now, before everybody gets al outraged, consider the situation.

"Up-skirting" is typically carried out in public, surreptitiously without the victim knowing, and without any physical contact being made.

There is clearly no "Assault" involved, either verbal or physical (Actually lifting a woman skirt to get a snap would be a very different matter)

so what it comes down to is having a photo taken of you in public (Which is perfectly legal) from an unflattering camera angle, and under circumstances where one might well not be particularly happy about having ones photo taken (Something that Paps do all the time)

Now my heart says that "Up-skirting" represents a monstrous invasion of somebodies privacy. But as we are frequently told. We have extremely limited legal expectations of privacy when in public, and certainly no right not to be photographed against our will. Indeed, our legal expectation of privacy in private is fairly limited too in fact.

In many ways, using a telephoto lens to snap somebody sunbathing next to their private swimming pool in their back garden is actually a rather more serious invasion of privacy than snapping a womans knickers while she is traveling on the underground. (Unless the law has been changed, I understand that this is also quite legal and that Paps do it all the time)

Criminalising this is basically saying that there is a sort of invisible spherical zone all around a person. from any point on which one is legally permitted to photograph them without getting their express permission first, except for a small zone just around their feet, and then only if the person is wearing a skirt#

This seems sort of cumbersome from a conceptual POV:/

Fair laws should be logical rather than reactionary. unfortunately I am struggling with the "Logic" on this one (Even though I fully understand the "Reactionary" aspect)

(#Of course, Men wear skirts too these days Would any anti-upskirting legislation only apply to women wearing skirts, or would it apply to men wearing skirts too? Also, the thought occus for a sort of Youtube Vlogy type thing.. "Is He or is She?" were the vlogger picks out suitable marks and upskirts them to see whether there is any tackle lurking there out of direct sight! )

 

[TheVoice]

Maybe you should read the Bill, and read the equivalent legislation in Scotland on which it's essentially a copy of. It doesn't make any mention of "assault", doesn't differentiate between males or females as victim or perpetrator, and does states that the purpose of any "upskirting" action must be for:

(a)obtaining sexual gratification,
(b)humiliating, distressing or alarming B (the victim).

Evidently there already is some legal basis for an expectation of personal privacy with regards to people (almost always men) putting cameras up other people's (almost always women) skirts to see things they wouldn't normally be able to see. Convictions have occurred under existing legislation for these types of offences before.

 

[Roland Butter]

Not quite sure how the victim can be either, humiliated, alarmed or distressed by an action they will be totally unaware of.

I'm led to believe the you tube channel is full of pervy videos where the photographer will go to an athletic meeting, cheerleading competition, etc.
with the object being not to record sporting prowess but getting close-up shots of bum cracks, cameltoes, and jiggly bazooms.

We live in world full of weirdos.

 

[Chris Wilson]

The Japanese have long had a penchant for young women in short skirts, preferably incontinent ones in hosiery taken suddenly short. No surprise at his name here... Always listen to mum girls, and wear clean substantial underwear, modern technology can catch you out.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

GD: IF THE CHICKS DON'T KNOW WE'RE DOING IT, WHAT'S THEIR PROBLEM? AMIRITE?

 

[Distracted]

The Japanese have long had a penchant for young women in short skirts, preferably incontinent ones in hosiery taken suddenly short. No surprise at his name here... Always listen to mum girls, and wear clean substantial underwear, modern technology can catch you out.

In Japan every phone has a shutter sound when the camera is used. Not joking. Ask yourself why they had to enforce this.

Naturally for those with the desire to do so, they have found various ways around this such as using a non default camera app that allows them to continue their perversions discretely.

 

[Slam62]

I find the practice totally unacceptable and the gentleman referred to seemed to be a horrible little pervert.

How would you feel if someone did that to anyone you were close to, how would you react if you caught him in the act.?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

No, because as Roland Butter has stated, if they're not aware of it, no harm no foul.

Not quite sure how the victim can be either, humiliated, alarmed or distressed by an action they will be totally unaware of.

:/

 

[Ahleckz]

No, because as Roland Butter has stated, if they're not aware of it, no harm no foul.



:/

GHBing girls and raping them is fine as well, they won’t remember.

 

[Distracted]

GD needs a sarcasm tag or smiley. That and some cleansing fire.

 

[h4rm0ny]

My point is that the castigation of this MP was ridiculous. As this conviction proves, upskirting is already covered as an offence under existing legislation so a new law is not required - as he argued at the time.

No it doesn't. To prosecute someone for this act previously, it was only possible under the rules of Public Decency, which means unless there are third parties around to be offended, it's not prosecutable. It wasn't covered under voyeurism laws because the idea of portable concealeable camera phones being widespread was in no-ones mind. The bill was a very short amendment to existing voyeurism laws to include upskirting. And if you think surreptitious unwanted photographs of someone's private parts doesn't fall under voyeurism then you don't think at all. You plainly have read neither the bill itself nor the arguments for it.

 

[h4rm0ny]

We have extremely limited legal expectations of privacy when in public, and certainly no right not to be photographed against our will. Indeed, our legal expectation of privacy in private is fairly limited too in fact.

The point of this law is to say otherwise. One cannot use "there's no legal expectation" as a counter-argument to a law providing a legal explanation. And I disagree - one has a reasonable expectation that nobody should be filming up your skirt and that someone doing so is very much doing something wrong. Both law and society agree on this.

In many ways, using a telephoto lens to snap somebody sunbathing next to their private swimming pool in their back garden is actually a rather more serious invasion of privacy than snapping a womans knickers while she is traveling on the underground. (Unless the law has been changed, I understand that this is also quite legal and that Paps do it all the time)

More typically paparazzi are doing it out and about in public places. Photographing someone sunbathing in their private property using a telephoto lens is actually likely breaching Invasion of Privacy laws. The law states that it's a violation if the subject "has a reasonable expectation of privacy". Obviously that's open to interpretation but the law is written in such a way to allow courts to make sensible rulings and avoid the kind of pedantic loopholes beloved by arguers on the Internet. So if I'm sunbathing topless in a chair at the front of my house, it's not invasion of privacy. If I'm in my back garden where I have a high solid fence and you're filming me from a drone or on a ladder with a telescope, it is. You may be thinking of US law where they're a little more on the side of the photographer but even there you'd likely be breaching the law. A paparazzi did exactly what you described to Angelina Jolie, filming her with a telephoto lens whilst she was on private property. She sued him and he was forced to settle. I suspect you got these ideas from shots of celebrities out and about in town (not private property) or abroad in various locations or on yachts where it's not on US/UK soil and prosecution or even identifying the perpetrator becomes much harder to pursue. In any case, you're incorrect.

Criminalising this is basically saying that there is a sort of invisible spherical zone all around a person.

No, it's saying you can't film up someone's skirt without their consent. There's abstraction to illustrate a principle, and then there's nonsense.

This seems sort of cumbersome from a conceptual POV:/

Well it is if the law were to actually be "there's a sort of invisible spherical zone all around a person" but thankfully the law is quite simple and clear on the subject. Because it's written for courts, not Internet forums.

Fair laws should be logical rather than reactionary. unfortunately I am struggling with the "Logic" on this one

Strangely, others are not struggling with these concepts. Perhaps because they are considering what the law actually says rather than taking what it says, re-phrasing it into some weird interpretation and then declaring it "cumbersome."

(#Of course, Men wear skirts too these days Would any anti-upskirting legislation only apply to women wearing skirts, or would it apply to men wearing skirts too? Also, the thought occus for a sort of Youtube Vlogy type thing.. "Is He or is She?" were the vlogger picks out suitable marks and upskirts them to see whether there is any tackle lurking there out of direct sight! )

Yes, as written, it applies to both sexes. So if you're wearing your kilt out one day and find that some man has been taking photos up it against your wishes, you have just as much right as a woman to pursue legal consequences.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Strange as it might seem, I am uncomfortable with this activity being criminalised at all from a legal perspective.

Now, before everybody gets al outraged, consider the situation.

"Up-skirting" is typically carried out in public, surreptitiously without the victim knowing, and without any physical contact being made.

There is clearly no "Assault" involved, either verbal or physical (Actually lifting a woman skirt to get a snap would be a very different matter)

so what it comes down to is having a photo taken of you in public (Which is perfectly legal) from an unflattering camera angle, and under circumstances where one might well not be particularly happy about having ones photo taken (Something that Paps do all the time)

Now my heart says that "Up-skirting" represents a monstrous invasion of somebodies privacy. But as we are frequently told. We have extremely limited legal expectations of privacy when in public, and certainly no right not to be photographed against our will. Indeed, our legal expectation of privacy in private is fairly limited too in fact.

In many ways, using a telephoto lens to snap somebody sunbathing next to their private swimming pool in their back garden is actually a rather more serious invasion of privacy than snapping a womans knickers while she is traveling on the underground. (Unless the law has been changed, I understand that this is also quite legal and that Paps do it all the time)

Criminalising this is basically saying that there is a sort of invisible spherical zone all around a person. from any point on which one is legally permitted to photograph them without getting their express permission first, except for a small zone just around their feet, and then only if the person is wearing a skirt#

This seems sort of cumbersome from a conceptual POV:/

Fair laws should be logical rather than reactionary. unfortunately I am struggling with the "Logic" on this one (Even though I fully understand the "Reactionary" aspect)

(#Of course, Men wear skirts too these days Would any anti-upskirting legislation only apply to women wearing skirts, or would it apply to men wearing skirts too? Also, the thought occus for a sort of Youtube Vlogy type thing.. "Is He or is She?" were the vlogger picks out suitable marks and upskirts them to see whether there is any tackle lurking there out of direct sight! )

So taking your point and changing context. Would you be happy if paedophiles were not criminalised for taking photos of young children in public and masturbating to them at home? It

 

[dowie]

So taking your point and changing context. Would you be happy if paedophiles were not criminalised for taking photos of young children in public and masturbating to them at home? It

Are they? What do they get charged with and how are they differentiated from say a street photographer legitimately taking candid photos?

There seems to have been a thread on this a few years back:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/candid-photography-involving-children.17843398/

 

[Chris Wilson]

We really must respect women more, they go out coyly attired and behave in a modest and decorous fashion, only for some perv to try and grab a surreptitious photo of their underwear, shocking!


https://metro.co.uk/2016/01/01/happ...up-how-new-year-went-down-in-britain-5594998/