Upskirting bill blocked by single Tory mp

[Tefal]

Sir Christopher Chope objected to a bill that would criminalise taking picture sup women's skirts in public.

1) how is this not illegal in the first place?

2) why on earth can one no object without giving a reason to block stuff?

3) good Lord how much of a perve does this dude look

 

[Tefal]

What is wrong with these people and they wonder why the Tories are known as the nasty party?

Also voted against lgbt rights 28 times lol.

Still got a knighthood thouhh

 

[Tefal]

Did he have to justify this position/decision at all? Maybe his son is some sort of massive perv?

No that's what's confusing me he's given no reason and doesn't seem to need to give one.

 

[Tefal]

I don't think we should necessarily take the **** too much on this 'no' MP. There may have been some element of the legislation that he thought would make it an onerous law. Like the possibility that accidentally taking a pic with someone's undercrackers in could potentially be criminal. Or whatever (I've not seen it, of course)

If only someone had stood up to that ridiculous law that banned British made 'extreme' porn (as 'extreme' as spanking, period sex, and female ejaculation ffs!). But no-one was brave enough to risk looking like a perv, so that law got rolled out.

That said, maybe he is just a perv. i dunno.

Taking a picture undersomoens clothes without consent.

It's currently illegal as outtanging public decency but that requires 2 people to witness it.

So take a pic up a girls skirt with 2 people present its illegal, take it woth just 1 person present and its legal.


I dont see how this law could be abused really.

I mean have you ever "accidently" taken q picture under somones clothes?

 

[Tefal]

Getting into silly examples probably isn't helpful (especially as we don't know if he was actually concerned by the law's overreach), but I could imagine a red-carpet situation where you accidentally get an upskirt of someone exiting a limo when taking a pic of someone else (as opposed to the daily mail deliberate upskirts). Would that become illegal? Hopefully, there would be provision that such shouldn't be illegal.

Thst would be illegal currently as there's more than 2 people present but that does raise the issue of why the daily mail types aren't charged?
Maybe it's because it s a public event without the expectation of privacy?

 

[Tefal]

this guy seems like the ultimate troll

also, i thought you couldn't take photos of people if they told you not to?

You can in public

 

[Tefal]

What's an up skirt picture exactly? What about bikini's? What's a skirt, women wear lots of different bottoms? What if it was accidental? What if the girl deliberately exposes herself and then complains later? I understand that sticking your camera up a skirt should very obviously be illegal, but the law needs to be implemented correctly, it's not just black and white.

It is taking a picture under somones clothes. there is no mention of a skirt at all in the bill or gender etc simply deliberately taking a picture under somones clothes of something they are obviously concealing.

So no a bikini would not be an upskirt unless they where wearing a dres/skirt over the top and you stuck your phone up under heath.

Deliberate exposure again not covered as its no longer under her clothes.

It's exactly what you are saying should be illegal that's they want to make illegal.

Remember this isn't a he said she said there's usualy photo evidence

 

[Tefal]

Here is the exact wording

“67A Voyeurism: additional offences
(1) 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),
to 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.
(2) A person (“A”) commits an offence if A—
(a) without another person (“B”) consenting, and
(b) without any reasonable belief that B consents,
records an image beneath B’s clothing of 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, with the
intention that A or another person (“C”), for a purpose mentioned in
subsection (3), will look at the image.

Very specific and not really open to abuse

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/voyeurismoffences.html

 

[Tefal]

What about blokes in dresses as well? It is almost the weekend after all.

Yes it doesn't mention anyones gender or even the type of clothing

 

[Tefal]

How is there no law to cover this already!?

I suppose when most decency laws were written there wasn't small easily concealed cameras?

So theyr e trying to update them but are blocked by one of the biggest embarrassments in goverbment

 

[Tefal]

Technically speaking he's not really done anything actionable has he? I'd really like to hope that someone within his party would have a stern word though.

He was the only mp to block Alan Turings pardon and they had to find a workaround to side step his block.

No one's having a word with him, were just gonna have to wait for him to retire or die of gout

 

[Tefal]

Yeah the law does actually seem very reasonable and well worded

Yeah it just seems like a common sense update to existing voyeurism laws as time and tech has moved on.


Its the sort of stuff you'd think would be back office civil service stuff as its essentially just "maintenance"

 

[Tefal]

Before all the tory bashers come on and embarrass themselves the government had backed this so this chap is fighting his own line.

As a Tory voter, i disagree he's done stuff like this before he holds the whip and is supported by the party.

By not removing him they are implicit in all his actions like this he's only in power because of a safe seat as an independent he would be out.

So by default he's purely the responsibility of the Tory party

 

[Tefal]

1. It is illegal already.

2. Probably because of the upto 2 years jail time.

3. Yea, no good looking people are perverts

1) it's not illegal theyve been loophpling it in under putting public decency but that requires 2 other people to be present as witnesses.

2) there's 2 years jail time that lets mp block bills without reason???

3) typically yeah

 

[Tefal]

You should read why he objected to the bill before calling him names. The way the bill has been introduced and could have ended up on the statue books people could have potentially ended up in jail for committing such an offense.

He hasn't said why as far as I can find?

And how?

I posted the wording of the law up above I can see no way anyone could be unwittingly caught by the law.

I mean it even has a provision that it can be done with consent for our consensual perves/couples.

 

[Tefal]

Your seriously in favor of putting someone in prison for doing this? A large fine payable to the defendant I think would be more appropriate.

So the guy who took thousands of pictures up school girls skirts you think should just get a fine?

Just because you can go to prison doesn't mean you do.

See the two guys who broke somones neck and got suspended sentence

 

[Tefal]

Honestly, it's as though that picture has been taken from my brain. That's exactly what I expected him to look like.

That is how I pictured him to look the second after he shouted object

 

[Tefal]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427
Theres a section of this article going into why he objected

So he blocked it because it hadn't been berated, while he was currently filibustering and preventing another sensible bill being debated?

And just to be clear he he didn't block it being passed he blocked it moving onto debate....because it hadn't been debated...to describe it as "flabby" is laughable given its not even half an a4 page of wirting

 

[Tefal]

I don't think that's correct, there is no reference to nudity or not. The text is:



I am not a lawyer, obviously! Heh.

Private act would be the issue.

Standing in a bus stop for instance is not a private act

 

[Tefal]

Yawn, not read thread but usual uneducated kneejerk reactions.

This guy has spent most his life objecting to anything and everything people try to sneak through on fridays in parliament. And with good cause.

As noble intentioned as anything might be, if it doesnt come under proper scrutiny it can be a disaster in the making.

Eg, im sure there are probably actors in the porn industry who do "upskirt" shots or videos, does this law provide exemptions for such circumstances? Or does any upskirt, under any circumstances land you 2 years at her majesty's pleasure?

Yes if you bothered to read it does.

Law is posted above its very concise very specific makes alowance for consent etc.

He has absolutley not rejected this because it needs debate.