Upskirting bill blocked by single Tory mp

[touch]

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.

Yep. I'd have no problem with people going to prison for this.

As other's have clarified in this thread, the wording is clear and it's not an offence that you'd commit accidentally.
If you dont want to go to prison, dont stick your camera under somebody's skirt.

 

[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

 

[StriderX]

Someones gotta be that guy

Yeah someones gotta be the guy to waste the countries resources and time on being the "dick", yeah it's REAL funny. HAHA.

You really are a troll.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Yeah that is really really reallllllllllly strange.

Who would not be against some dude taking pictures up womans skirts? very odd.....

 

[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

 

[steve45]

can you post a link to why he objected, i can't find anything off the back of my own searching

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

Ms Martin's lawyer, Ryan Wheeler, tweeted that Sir Christopher objected to the bill because it had "not been debated".

Why did Sir Christopher object?

By Mark D'Arcy, BBC parliamentary correspondent

Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statue book by a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting.

And after all this is a bill to create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail.

So, however worthy the cause, he insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that.

Indeed, a few minutes before he blocked the upskirting bill, he was forcing a delay to the final debate on the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill, or Seni's Law, which also had strong support from the government.

The upskirting bill is not dead - there will be other opportunities to get it a formal second reading debate - but they will only succeed if Sir Christopher and his allies can be persuaded not to object again.

The only other alternative is for the government to provide debating time for it, or, far more likely, to add the proposals to a bill of their own.

 

[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

 

[StriderX]

Debating time for a bill, wow.

Like all that debating time for the Brexit bill we had? No? oh dear, guess different rules for Tories then huh?

 

[Nasher]

If that's the case then he is doing a good job really. I can imagine without someone doing that, others would try and sneak all kinds of dodgyness through on a Friday when no one else CBA to turn up.

 

[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

 

[Uther]

I'm not even surprised any more.

 

[Chojin]

This law seems a bit moot really when so many women wear yoga pants that are as tight fitting as underwear these days.

 

[Snax]

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

The outcome is poor but, if I understand it correctly, I think his original logic is actually quite important.

Chope objected because he doesn’t like draft legislation not being given proper scrutiny at each stage of the process and, on Fridays, attendance is too poor for any substantive scrutiny from the house.

Why on earth is attendance poor with majority of politicians being career politicians?

This legislation and the police animals legislation absolutely need to pass but the process should also be followed in substance rather than just in form. It astounds me that our legislature has degenerated to this.

 

[Destination]

Attendance is poor as Friday are an extra weekend day, often offside by pretending to be home doing constituency business. If this were the case it should be timetabled for all. And indeed no official govt business being done during such times.

 

[NewGamer11]

Lots of knees jerking in this thread as per standard GD operating procedure.

Voyeurism is already an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 so he is correct to say we shouldn't be creating specific acts just for one specific offence. We've already got an extremely bloated set of laws in this country so adding more doesn't help.

I'd also argue whether this is worth 2 years in jail. No doubt the victims feel degraded and afraid but 2 years in the slammer? Is that proportionate?

EDIT to add - It's probably Fatcher's fault all this.

 

[FishFluff]

I understand that sticking your camera up a skirt should very obviously be illegal

Apparently you don't...

 

[RoboCod]

To be fair, most the girls we snapped upskirts of when we were young mongrel heathens, ended up bedding one of us by the end of the night. Goes to show the class of women (and us men) we used to prowl around. What's concerning is, a law like this would have lumped us into the dirty old pervy bracket of men who probably go out purposefully collecting photos of womens upskirts for their twisted perversions. Not that I excuse our abhorrent actions, it was of course just as bad, but I think our reasons for doing it was more bravado/childish dares/boys chasing girls etc. Like newgamer11 said, it's a bit of an overreaction and laws already exist to protect people from perverts anyhow.

 

[VincentHanna]

Lots of knees jerking in this thread as per standard GD operating procedure.

Voyeurism is already an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 so he is correct to say we shouldn't be creating specific acts just for one specific offence. We've already got an extremely bloated set of laws in this country so adding more doesn't help.

As has been pointed out though, to get a conviction for upskirting at the moment, you need two witnesses.

 

[NewGamer11]

I can't see anything in the text of the Act that says two witnesses are required? Again, no need to introduce a new law when you could amend the existing one. @VincentHanna