Upskirting bill blocked by single Tory mp

[Tefal]

I'm sorry "obviously concealing"???

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.



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?

If your skirt has a gaping hole in the groin sera asim you shpuld probbaly go and see your dressmaker....Or stop shopping at fetish shops.

 

[Tefal]

His words not mine.

Given the consequences of the final legislation passing this as a private members billi isn't correct as it's not getting the close and detailed scrutiny it deserves. It also has to work, by that I mean you don't want cases being brought the trial only for a judge to throw out the case because the legislation hasn't been worded correctly/loopholes. And as I've stated before the punishment is far too excessive.

Well that's why I asked you what you think these loop holes are?

 

[Tefal]

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.

Why. are you asking "How would we even define a law like this" then posing a bunch of straw man questions to your own rather silly question instead of reading the very short law that's been posted multiple times and seeing exactly how it is defined.


It's just bizzare and makes a mockery of any kind of debate when you out right refuse to even read what's being discussed and instead just make up random stuff in your head.

All your points are addressed in this law, it's almost as if legal experts wrote it

 

[Tefal]

Also you're the one who shops at fetish shops, stop deflecting. If your skirt has any sort of seam between the legs then it's not a skirt.

I do shop at fetish shops and have worn kilts in public too its fun try getting out of your bed room once in a while

And you're still so hilariously wrong and csnt read the law that's shorter than the posts you've made to see why

 

[Tefal]

Just for @asim18 as he's a bit special

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

“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.

See every single one of your half arsed concerns stressed by common sense

If you've ever operated equipment under somoen else's clothes, intentionally trying to get q picture of thier genitals, buttocks or under wear where without that equipment you would not have other wise seen it without consent or without reasonable reasons for assuming consent then I would love to hear how you acidentaly did that totally intentionally....

I mean even my Friday night's aren't that weird

 

[Tefal]

Do these 40+ hours a week involve actual work?

Asim frequently make sup these little posts where he claims some kind of medical knowledge or experience it actually means he's just talked to people he knows and classes that as psychoanalysis sessions.

Its a new one to claim he spends time thinking about social issues as if that means anything though.

If we counted stuff we thought about in our free time as work my CV would be way cooler

 

[Tefal]

He does, yes, and it's one of the few things I am kind of in mild agreement with. with Muslims. Ladies should dress reasonably modestly in public.

So does/did your mum ever wear dresses or skirts?


If somone snuck a picture up there while she was waiting at the bus stop, you'd be ok with it because young women get drunk and naked at weekends?

 

[Tefal]

This thread and the entire issue is about people saying that should have happened and deriding this MP for stopping it happening this time!

Up to and including judging him guilty of sexual abuse and child abuse because they don't like his appearance, unsurprisingly. That tells you a lot about what sort of people they are.

Private Member's Bills rarely pass, but if they do then they do. If a bill has passed through the House of Commons, it has passed through the House of Commons. Regardless of how many MPs were in the House of Commons at the time.

Incidentally, Chope has publically spoken in favour of this law. He's not opposed to the law. He's opposed to (a) laws being passed without a proper vote and (b) MPs being stripped of what little Parliamentary time they are allowed for raising their own political concerns (which is what they should be doing - representating their constituents) by that time being taken up by whatever the government demands (which is what is happening).

It's another aspect of the issue Moses and I were talking about a few posts back - the PM functioning as something close to a dictator.

I think Moses summed up the issue very well with this:



And that's what Chope is trying to do and has been trying to do for years...and look what the response has been.

This is what he's said:



He's also spoken publically in favour of this particular law and asked the government to introduce it into Parliament as a government bill.

But hey, who gives a damn about what he actually says and why, what his position actually is? He's old, "white" and male, so he must be scum and there's nothing wrong in lying about what he's said and in presuming he's an abuser because "he looks like one". That's the way to go!

Haha so actually he's opposed it because it came up the same time as some of his bills?

Like he did when he wanted to debate his pension not hilsbourgh?