Upskirting bill blocked by single Tory mp

VincentHanna said:
It clearly doesn't, as it's not currently a criminal offence
Click to expand...

Well, a bloke I used to work with was prosecuted for taking pictures up a lasses skirt in Meadowhall. I was in the pub on a Tuesday evening and I saw him on the telly! It was on one of those fly on the wall documentaries that were popular in the late '90s and early 2000s.

He was charged with a public order offence. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure he was dating a copper at the time too.
 
Tefal said:
The same article says he has Stated he doesn't actually know what upskirting is..
Click to expand...
Should we really allow MPs to put laws through when they don't even know what they are about? Surely that's why a debate is needed? I don't disagree that it should be a crime (and it seems many people have been jailed for it already anyway) but we complain when MPs talk rubbish about internet laws they have no idea about, why is this any different?
 
Em3bbs said:
Should we really allow MPs to put laws through when they don't even know what they are about? Surely that's why a debate is needed? I don't disagree that it should be a crime (and it seems many people have been jailed for it already anyway) but we complain when MPs talk rubbish about internet laws they have no idea about, why is this any different?
Click to expand...
A simple Google search of 5 seconds will tell you what upskirting is. He knew that a vote on upskirting was going to commence so the very least he can do is look up what it means before objecting. I'm sorry, but I don't buy his excuse for a second.
 
Would this bill also have made it illegal for drunken women to do the same thing when they see a bloke in kilt? You know, in the spirit of equality and all that.
 
ltron said:
A simple Google search of 5 seconds will tell you what upskirting is. He knew that a vote on upskirting was going to commence so the very least he can do is look up what it means before objecting. I'm sorry, but I don't buy his excuse for a second.
Click to expand...
Maybe he did do that? We haven't heard his 'excuse' yet, I was just replying to Tefal.
 
FortuitousFluke said:
That text detailing hia efforts to stop flabby laws also reads like a pr exec desperately trying to justify belligerent behaviour. Is thia group of MPs a formal gathering or just a group of like minded arses throwing their weight around?
Click to expand...

It does have a point though - a couple of dozen MPs shouldn't be enough by themselves to decide on what is and what isn't illegal for the whole country and what the sentencing should be. Even when I think that the law is clearly enough defined, narrowly enough defined and just, because I shouldn't be enough either.

sideways14a said:
[..]
The Turing thing was out of order, why did he moan about that?
Click to expand...

Maybe he doesn't like retroactive changes to law. Maybe he doesn't like parliamentary time wasted on debates about pointless pardons (Turing was already dead, so the pardon had no effect on anyone or anything). Maybe he doesn't like homosexuals. Maybe he was just doing it because he could and it makes him feel important and he didn't actually care either way about the ruling. Maybe he thought there weren't enough MPs present to justify the vote being binding (how many were there?).
 
Tefal said:
Sir Christopher Chope objected to a bill that would criminalise taking picture sup women's skirts in public.

1) how is this not illegal in the first place?

2) why on earth can one no object without giving a reason to block stuff?

3) good Lord how much of a perve does this dude look :p
Click to expand...

ref: 3, my thoughts exactly when seeing this story on the newsreader app, he looks just like the sort of person who'd you'd expect would be into up skirt photos or jumping out of bushes, flashing school girls in the local park.



though aside from him looking like a pervy old guy I believe both him and one of his buddies make it their mission in the house to disrupt pretty much all private members bills viewing most of them as pointless "nanny state" type legislation, it isn't specific to this up skirting bill
 
terley said:
There has to be a logical political reason why he voted against it..
Click to expand...

He and some other MPs object to laws being passed by a handful of MPs without any debate, whatever the laws are. They do it all the time, it just doesn't usually get any attention. Private member's bills usually fail and that's been the case for donkey's years. I first read about that when reading up on voting reform in the early 19th century and it was true then. An MP used a private member's bill to propose universal adult suffrage as a right in the early 1820s, when a few percent of men had the privilege of voting. Of course it didn't pass and I doubt if they had the slightest hope it would. Private member's bills are mainly for raising an issue, testing to see how much support might be given, getting some experience in speaking in Parliament or trying to slide stuff through that wouldn't stand up to debate (though that's usually done in other ways). In some cases, the bill itself isn't even stated let alone discussed - just the title is stated as a formality.

All the government needs to do is propose the bill itself and allocate it some time in Parliament. If May thought it mattered, why didn't she do that in the first place?
 
ltron said:
A simple Google search of 5 seconds will tell you what upskirting is. He knew that a vote on upskirting was going to commence so the very least he can do is look up what it means before objecting. I'm sorry, but I don't buy his excuse for a second.
Click to expand...

I buy the excuse that there are a group of MPs who make it their role to stop parliment passing things which haven’t been fully debated by slipping it through on a friday afternoon.

I think this should draw light to wtf are they doing having an extra day off.
If they truely need it for constituency work, then grand.
Make it the rule, make them all have it off, so no parlimentary business is done.

Then take awY the twelve week summer break, or a good chunk of it, to make up for the fridays the ******* are not working anyway.
 
As mentioned, it's merely a delaying tactic for a few weeks, it's time such archaic parliamentary nonsense was ditched, the bill will be heard, debated
and voted on in due course.
 
Tefal said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...

Dafaq
 
Would tabloid photographers catching celebrities getting into their cars after 10 pints have fallen foul of this legislation? what about women sitting on walls in an un-lady-like manner whilst a photo is taken? tbh those moaning about the MP blocking this bill are the ones who relentlessly complain that there aren't enough police to deal with real crime and yet they're happy to burden them with stuff that a good slap would solve. It's okay I guess, we can release a few extra rapists from prison early to make room for these highly dangerous camera wielding pests.
 
mmj_uk said:
Would tabloid photographers catching celebrities getting into their cars after 10 pints have fallen foul of this legislation? what about women sitting on walls in an un-lady-like manner whilst a photo is taken?
Click to expand...

Already discussed, and no they would not "have fallen foul of this legislation"

The change is literally "taking a photo under a person's clothes without consent"

If someone is getting out of a car you aren't taking a photo under their clothes.

The guy who blocked it didn't even know what upskirting was, he blocked it on principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom