Upskirting bill blocked by single Tory mp

Upskirters can be charged under the guise of outraging public decency. However, there must be two witnesses, and since this is an old law, not many victims know enough about it to utilise their rights and invoke it.
 
For a country that claims to have bought democracy to the world, some of our goings on are mental. In who's right mind is simply shouting out "object" a right and proper way of objecting to a bill? If you have an objection you should be made to produce documentation on your issues with the matter, simply shouting it out like some 13 year old internet troll is pathetic.
 
VincentHanna said:
Upskirters can be charged under the guise of outraging public decency. However, there must be two witnesses, and since this is an old law, not many victims know enough about it to utilise their rights and invoke it.
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer to this (and don't expect you to either) but isn't voyeurism its own offence and outraging public decency is a separate offence which does require two witnesses (this article makes reference to it: https://www.corkerbinning.com/should-there-be-a-new-sexual-offence-of-public-place-voyeurism/)? However, the sentencing guidelines for voyeurism do not mention the requirement for two witnesses. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...ffences_Definitive_Guideline_content_web1.pdf
 
NewGamer11 said:
I don't know the answer to this (and don't expect you to either) but isn't voyeurism its own offence and outraging public decency is a separate offence which does require two witnesses (this article makes reference to it: https://www.corkerbinning.com/should-there-be-a-new-sexual-offence-of-public-place-voyeurism/)? However, the sentencing guidelines for voyeurism do not mention the requirement for two witnesses. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...ffences_Definitive_Guideline_content_web1.pdf
Click to expand...

I think the offence of voyuerism requires nudity which causes issues if the upskirt victim was wearing underwear. At least that’s what the campaigner said she was told by the police last year.
 
I think it is something along those lines.
Also there might be nuances in the devolved regions, as I recall some case of some turd in a swimming pool changing room getting caught at it, but they had to charge him with something else to actually get a prosecutable crime.
 
Pudney said:
I think the offence of voyuerism requires nudity which causes issues if the upskirt victim was wearing underwear. At least that’s what the campaigner said she was told by the police last year.
Click to expand...

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

67Voyeurism
F1(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and

(b)he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification.

(2)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he operates equipment with the intention of enabling another person to observe, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, a third person (B) doing a private act, and

(b)he knows that B does not consent to his operating equipment with that intention.

(3)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he records another person (B) doing a private act,

(b)he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B doing the act, and

(c)he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with that intention.

(4)A person commits an offence if he instals equipment, or constructs or adapts a structure or part of a structure, with the intention of enabling himself or another person to commit an offence under subsection (1).

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer, obviously! Heh.
 
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?
 
chaparral said:
I saw this in my local news paper today :eek:

https://guernseypress.com/news/2018/06/15/post-office-upskirter-given-three-month-prison-sentence/
Click to expand...

Sending people to prison for it seems a bit silly when prisons are already over-crowded and criminals are avoiding it for more serious stuff. It's not like they are an actual DANGER to the public. It's slap on the wrist stuff really.



Telecaster said:
For a country that claims to have bought democracy to the world, some of our goings on are mental. In who's right mind is simply shouting out "object" a right and proper way of objecting to a bill? If you have an objection you should be made to produce documentation on your issues with the matter, simply shouting it out like some 13 year old internet troll is pathetic.
Click to expand...

People in their position have already done their homework.
 
Last edited:
kindai said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
RoboCod said:
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.
Click to expand...


Wait how old are you?
 
NewGamer11 said:
I don't know the answer to this (and don't expect you to either) but isn't voyeurism its own offence and outraging public decency is a separate offence which does require two witnesses (this article makes reference to it: https://www.corkerbinning.com/should-there-be-a-new-sexual-offence-of-public-place-voyeurism/)? However, the sentencing guidelines for voyeurism do not mention the requirement for two witnesses. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...ffences_Definitive_Guideline_content_web1.pdf
Click to expand...

Voyeurism only applies to filming actions taking place in private
 
Tefal said:
He has absolutley not rejected this because it needs debate.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

Just because there might be an exception for a generic example I used of why something might be blocked, doesn't mean the bill deserves to just be slapped through without any debate.

Creating laws, especially those which can land people in jail, need to be rigorously vetted and debated, not just washed through on a Fridays empty chamber.
 
Last edited:
kindai said:
Prove it.

Just because there might be an exception for a generic example I used of why something might be blocked, doesn't mean the bill deserves to just be slapped through without any debate.

Creating laws, especially those which can land people in jail, need to be rigorously vetted and debated, just just washed through on a Fridays empty chamber.
Click to expand...


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.
 
NewGamer11 said:
@Tefal @VincentHanna Yes, you’re right there is the extra requirement for it to be a ‘private act’ which I’d overlooked. Seems easier to amend this existing law than make a new one?
Click to expand...


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

“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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Tefal said:
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
Click to expand...

Alright, keep your pants on. I’m asking questions to understand. It’s called discussion.

I’ve now read the document and can see it’s an amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom