Upskirting conviction

trigg_27

trigg_27

trigg_27

Associate
Joined
9 Jan 2018
Posts
857
Location
Newport
I first heard of upskirting in 1999 when I got online for the first time. I remember because search engines used to regularly throw porn and other vulgar results at me when I was searching for other stuff. Damn annoying. Thankfully most engines now have safe search that you can op in which is fairly effective in recent years.

I'm just surprised that it took 20 years of me being online before a first conviction was made.
 
trigg_27 said:
Doesn't this prove the point made by Sir Christopher Chope MP (for which he was soundly castigated) that separate legislation covering this offence was unnecessary?
Click to expand...

Eh? How does a conviction under this legislation prove that point? Clearly the legislation is being used ergo has proven to be useful.
 
dowie said:
Eh? How does a conviction under this legislation prove that point? Clearly the legislation is being used ergo has proven to be useful.
Click to expand...

Because the new legislation won't even receive royal ascent for a few more months, hence why the MP had a valid point. It is already covered under existing law, just not as its own entity.
 
I can sleep safer in my bed knowing that men [ or lesbians, we live in 2019 ] who have upskirt snaps on their computer
will be subject to the full weight of the law, maybe they can be put into an iron cage with spikes on the inside and lowered into
acid ?
 
trigg_27 said:
According to this article, a man has been convicted of an offence after being caught taking voyeuristic photographs on the London Undergound: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/01/man-who-upskirted-woman-at-tube-station-fined

Doesn't this prove the point made by Sir Christopher Chope MP (for which he was soundly castigated) that separate legislation covering this offence was unnecessary?
Click to expand...

Current laws require a third party witness or nakedness I believe. So I’d assume this is a case where a member of the public is around to make the upskirting illegal. The new law would cover all circumstances.

Anyway, didn’t Chopes object on the grounds it wasn’t being debated, not that it wasn’t needed?

Edit: sorry, voyuerism required the upskirting to have happened in private, not that nakedness is involved.
 
trigg_27 said:
According to this article, a man has been convicted of an offence after being caught taking voyeuristic photographs on the London Undergound: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/01/man-who-upskirted-woman-at-tube-station-fined

Doesn't this prove the point made by Sir Christopher Chope MP (for which he was soundly castigated) that separate legislation covering this offence was unnecessary?
Click to expand...

Not really. I read the legislation he opposed (it's less than a side of A4 and you should be able to find it) and which the MP Wera Hobhouse had brought to the House. It's not separate legislation and never was, it's an amendment to existing voyeurism laws to explicitly mention upskirting and what it was. Because back when those laws were written people didn't have camera phones. I saw nothing wrong with it. Chope was just being a blinkered arse who is fixated on not allowing amendments to be introduced in that way.
 
Ahleckz said:
What exactly is your point?
Click to expand...
My point is that the castigation of this MP was ridiculous. As this conviction proves, upskirting is already covered as an offence under existing legislation so a new law is not required - as he argued at the time.
 
trigg_27 said:
My point is that the castigation of this MP was ridiculous. As this conviction proves, upskirting is already covered as an offence under existing legislation so a new law is not required - as he argued at the time.
Click to expand...
IIRC the issue is it's quite a hard one to convict at the moment as the law was written in an age when a camera was obvious and it was a rare thing.

The law that was proposed was to make it into a specific offence in it's own right, much the same way many other laws have been broken away into their own offences in order to make them easier to enforce consistently as technology or number of offences increased*.

I mean you could probably roll half the motoring offences into either careless or dangerous driving, but they are separate offences because it makes it easier and more consistent to enforce.


*Separate offences are far easier to prosecute and prove and it removes grey areas/simplifies proving the offence.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom