Upskirting bill blocked by single Tory mp

NewGamer11 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
Tefal said:
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.
Click to expand...

On principal, none of it, but im not a lawmaker so maybe he has spotted something of concern that needs to be amended or clarified or debated.
 
This is a government page on it

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-acts-to-make-upskirting-a-specific-offence

Currently, ‘upskirting’ does not go unpunished in England and Wales, and there have been successful prosecutions under the Outraging Public Decency (OPD) offence. Recent examples of successful prosecutions for ‘upskirting’ under OPD include someone who was convicted in January for taking photos up women’s skirts on trains, on a beach and at work, and a student who was convicted in March for taking photos up women’s skirts in Oxford.
Click to expand...

However, existing criminal law does not necessarily cover every instance of ‘upskirting.’ Creating a specific ‘upskirting’ offence would strengthen the law in this area, as it doesn’t have the same limitations as existing offences. It would also allow this intrusive behaviour to be treated as a sexual offence and, with Government amendments, ensure that the most serious offenders are made subject to notification requirements (commonly referred to as the ‘sex offenders register’).
Click to expand...

Does anyone have an example which the current law can't be applied?

The second paragraph seems to imply that outraging public decency isn't part of the sexual offences act? I find that abit odd if it isn't. What about people who have a pee outside, I thought it was under the outaging public decency act that they was charged.. though we know they get put on the sex offenders register too.
 
kindai said:
On principal, none of it, but im not a lawmaker so maybe he has spotted something of concern that needs to be amended or clarified or debated.
Click to expand...

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
 
kindai said:
On principal, none of it, but im not a lawmaker so maybe he has spotted something of concern that needs to be amended or clarified or debated.
Click to expand...

As if, he blocked the pardoning of potentially one of the greatest men of WW2 just because disagrees with men liking men, he can rot in a commoners grave.
 
Tefal said:
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
Click to expand...

That there is already a suitable law which could be amended to cover this type of offence rather than duplicating it in a separate law. Makes the statute book more cumbersome to manage. Doesn’t matter as that isn’t the case.

I was incorrect and I’ve had my questions answered so I’m ducking out.
 
BowdonUK said:
This is a government page on it

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-acts-to-make-upskirting-a-specific-offence





Does anyone have an example which the current law can't be applied?

The second paragraph seems to imply that outraging public decency isn't part of the sexual offences act? I find that abit odd if it isn't. What about people who have a pee outside, I thought it was under the outaging public decency act that they was charged.. though we know they get put on the sex offenders register too.
Click to expand...


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 :p
 
Tefal said:
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 :p
Click to expand...

And just because they may have been present, doesn't mean they noticed it.
 
Tefal said:
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 :p
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for explaining. Yes, I can see that is a problem.
 
Freakbro said:
We do?
Click to expand...


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
 
Tefal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yea, I thought there would be context to 1 incident

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
Click to expand...

Oh yea, it was just being put on the SOR i was highlighting
 
StriderX said:
As if, he blocked the pardoning of potentially one of the greatest men of WW2 just because disagrees with men liking men, he can rot in a commoners grave.
Click to expand...

There are lots of objections to pardoning anyone correctly convicted at the time for an offence on the books at the time of conviction as it means you are setting up a precedent for retrospectively changing the law.......
 
What precedent is that? Parliament IS sovereign, no acts of parliament may bind it and no previous government may impinge on future governments.

Hes a ****, nothing more.
 
Caracus2k said:
There are lots of objections to pardoning anyone correctly convicted at the time for an offence on the books at the time of conviction as it means you are setting up a precedent for retrospectively changing the law.......
Click to expand...

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.
 
StriderX said:
What precedent is that? Parliament IS sovereign, no acts of parliament may bind it and no previous government may impinge on future governments.

Hes a ****, nothing more.
Click to expand...

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
 
Thekwango said:
can you post a link to why he objected, i can't find anything off the back of my own searching
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom