Upskirting bill blocked by single Tory mp

Tefal said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry "obviously concealing"??? :confused:

How is wearing a garment with a massive gaping hole between the legs, "obviously" concealing your groin area??? That's pretty much 100% oxymoronic.

If you are actively trying to conceal your groin area then the obvious choice is anything EXCEPT a skirt LMAO. Specifically things called trousers, they have a seam on the inside leg designed especially to keep inside leg and groin area concealed.

The whole point of a skirt, it's unique selling point, is that it's got a massive gaping hole on the bottom, so how on earth can you say a skirt is trying to "conceal" anything whatsoever. Any woman who wears a skirt as a best choice to conceal her groin area must be absolutely insane to be honest.

Woman 1: "I really want to 'obviously conceal' my groin area today so I'll wear a garment with a massive gaping hole in the groin area" Yeah I'm sorry but that's just nonsense, I'm not buying that one.


Tefal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly, so you don't see how ridiculous this is?? Take a photo of a woman in a bikini and it's all kosher, but as soon as she wraps a bedsheet around her waist it's suddenly illegal. Stuff like this just makes me think you're not thinking of this rationally and objectively. Bikini + Bedsheet = illegal, but Bikini - Bedsheet = legal. There's a very basic level mathematical hole in your reasoning.



Also, criminalising more things isn't magically going to reduce perverts. The whole reason a pervert is a pervert is because everyone is too covered up and this leads them to get a sexual kick out of just glancing at whatever skin they can lol. Just think of nudists or ancient tribes, you think they are all perverts or do you think they are desensitised to female skin?
 
By the way I'm not for perverts/upskirts before anyone tries pulling that one! I just think we need to think VERY carefully and not act on emotions etc.


How could you even define the law like this? There are just FAR too many variables for this law to be abused. Was the image pointing up? Was the woman sitting down, were her legs open, how many inches of leg could you see, was the woman wearing underwear, was the groin captured fully?

This is just bizarre and a mockery of what we call law. The BEST course of action for all humanity is that if anyone feels that they will become severely hurt/damaged by the act of someone glimpsing or capturing their thighs or underwear, then they should simply wear trousers.
 
VincentHanna said:
So in asims World, it's not the pervy men who should have any consequences...women should all just wear trousers
Click to expand...

You make it sound as if I don't really want any societal issues to be fixed. In fact I spend hours upon hours thinking hard about how to fix societies problems, probably about 20+ hours a week thinking about psychology, sociology and criminology, as well as 20+ hours per week talking with and trying to understand people and their problems, even perverted problems, various victims of various things, etc.

And yes, if woman (or man) thinks they will be so damaged by someone seeing/capturing their groin, then simply not wear a garment with a massive gaping hole between the groin! You seem to think there is some great practicality and actual reason for wearing a skirt lol.


Also, Consequences of what?

You do realise most up skirts go completely undetected so there's no point in most situations. Women who catch someone up-skirting will eventually stop wearing skirts. Telling women that they can go around wearing skirts and that a "law" will magically protect them is just absurd. It's going to fuel more up skirting and create an illegal trade out of it.
 
Also, what on earth has my work got to do with logic and reasoning in a debate? First you make it sound as if I don't want the best for society or something and then you start questioning my work without even looking at what I'm posting or having any sort of retort to anything I've specifically said.
 
VincentHanna said:
Well someone with Asperger's would find it hard to emphaphise with other people.

I'm just trying to understand how anyone would put the solution to this, on to the victims.

Why bother with knife crime laws? We could all just wear suits of armour.
Click to expand...

Comparing someone getting stabbed and potentially dying to someone simply being LOOKED at. And I have aspergers. Lol.
 
It's not serious, but that's the logical conclusion to your solution.

Essentially you have said the victims should change their own behaviour, the upskirting should still be legal in case a poor pervy man gets put in prison.
 
You are literally victim blaming. I was trying to understand why...

I've no issue with you volunteering with mental health charities. My fiancée works in adult age social care.
 
Angilion said:
It does have a point though - a couple of dozen MPs shouldn't be enough by themselves to decide on what is and what isn't illegal for the whole country and what the sentencing should be. Even when I think that the law is clearly enough defined, narrowly enough defined and just, because I shouldn't be enough
Click to expand...

On the other side of that argument, this was a well publicised bill, with strong cross party and government backing, which has been available for review by the house prior to being tabled Friday. Despite all of this very few other members viewed it as controversial enough to attend for, and only 1 person, out of the entire house (not just those few in attendance as, if anybody had a view, they could have shown up), felt the need to block it.

I unserstand what you're saying about process and to an extent i agree but this guy appears to have a history of acting in a particular way in relation to particular topics, which paints a picture not unlike that of a pantomime villain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom