Upskirting bill blocked by single Tory mp
- Thread starter Tefal
- Start date
Which part of the law do you specifically disagree with or have concerns about?
It's a very brief law so it should only take you 3 minutes to read it.
They are amending the existing law....
It's a bill to pass an amendment to the voyeurism act....
The bill is posted above why not read it? It's litteraly half a page pong
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/voyeurismoffences.html
How often in your life have you acidentaly operated equipment underneath somones clothes with the intention of taking an image of thier genitals or buttocks?
Heck you can't even do it accidentally as it require content to break the law so any "accidental" upskirt wouldn't be a crime.
Just as you can't accidentally murder somone
Ok so what exactly would be the issue or differnce in your opinion if this was the "upskirt act" instead of an amendment to the voyeurism act?
What practical or technical differnce would there be
Given his voting record that's unlikley.
I mean he's blocked things in the past as he wanted to discuss his pension first as he thought it was more important.
He blocked legislation which may have affected his private business interests too
As has been covered repeatedly not he thread outpacing public decency needs 2 other witnesses.
So say there are 4 people at a bus stop of them one person takes a picture under the clothing of another, that is currently illegal.
Now say there's only 3 people, the same thing happens it is now legal
Current law doesn't cover it because small cameras you can do it with are a fairly new thing and the gears of govenrment are slow.
You can see how it was never an issue with old mechanical cameras people might notice the click
Indeed I'm not sure they need to be witnesses or simply potential witnesses. Ie there needs to be a public whos decency you can outrage
Iirc the case in question the guy wasnt put on it for public urination, it was more the fact that while urinating he exposed his genitals to a group of children.
Public urination is a crime of its own though. Fairly hefty fine too, though from watching some of those late night police programs they often seem willing to just let the drunk clean it up and go on home if the means are available. Which is sensible
Well they would be setting a precident if they retrospectively changed the law a pardon doesn't do that. Because the law remains the same.
I think he's pointing out (in a flawed way) if you can retrospectively change the law I could say for a hyperbolic one change the age of consent to 40 retrospecivly and put the entire adult population on the sex offenders register.
But we have systems to avoid that, which has caused some issues but not been changed.
Take people being convicted of historic sex abuse. They are getting verybliennt sentences because they can only be sentenced according to the law at the time they commited the crime not today's sentence.
The mobile phone in cars going from 3 to 6 points to, they csnt go and give another 3 points to everyone whownas caught in the year before say
So given its been posted numerous times now, and is really just updating an existing act to the modern-day, which part of it do you think is flabby or in some way wrong
Seems this as really got tefals back up
Great thing we live in a country where, he can try next election to have this guys seat taken by another party!
That'll show him.
It's only 1 of 2 active threads atm and I'm bored.
It's just funny there's a rumour of a clearly be reason people are agreeing with but csnt formulate any actual argument about what needs to be debated by legal laymen in the commons.
This seems exactly the stuff that should be done on a Friday in the commons, routine updating of minor laws.
I think the best way to remove him would simply be to send him a massive gift basket of foie gras each month
It's not covered by voyeurism this bill is to make it covered by the voyeurism act...
Voyeurism applies only to private acts, being out in public is not a private act so it does not cover upskirting.
Outtanging public decency requires 2 witnesses so again while it a been used it does not cover upskirting if there isn't 4 people present.
The law has been posted many times in this thread it is very specific and well worded.
What part of it do you personally feel is "ineffectual?
Don't mention dogs, bit of a sore point with him he just blocked another bill to try and get stronger protections for police dogs and horses from attack
I'm actually amazed it isn't banned already under animal cruelty laws, i know it's illegal to make it here.
Finally one solid pro brexit law?
But one question here given private members bill are only heard on a Friday and people are claiming he blocked it because it was raised one Friday.
How exactly do you expect it to ever move forward as it can only be heard one Friday and he objects to it because it was raised on friday
How exactly do you expect it to ever move forward as it can only be heard one Friday and he objects to it because it was raised on friday
Do we need primary school teachers to come in and lecture mps during the very limited time available in the commons as they don't do thier home work before showing up?
Maybe we should implement detention or summer school for mps who repeatedly turn up to the commons not having briefed themselves on the days issues?
Well they aren't is isnt like if it got passed yesterday it becomes law like you and many others are making out it has to go for royal assent then come back to be voted on by both the house of lords and the house of commons.
These few mps (which is any who feel about the bills posted that Friday in advance) are basically a filter so both houses aren't dealing with every proposal from every back benches every day