Upskirting conviction

If you can't understand the difference between trying to sneak upskirt pictures of women's undies when they're behaving normally and walking around, and getting shots when of people who are exposing themselves in public there really isn't much help for you.
 
Werewolf said:
If you can't understand the difference between trying to sneak upskirt pictures of women's undies when they're behaving normally and walking around, and getting shots when of people who are exposing themselves in public there really isn't much help for you.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is failing to understand any difference there, unless I missed the post being referred to?

Some people seem to believe that existing legislation is sufficient.

ah edit - perhaps this post, though he's not claiming to not understand the difference but rather is giving another example he feels is worse

Orionaut said:
Now my heart says that "Up-skirting" represents a monstrous invasion of somebodies privacy. But as we are frequently told. We have extremely limited legal expectations of privacy when in public, and certainly no right not to be photographed against our will. Indeed, our legal expectation of privacy in private is fairly limited too in fact.

In many ways, using a telephoto lens to snap somebody sunbathing next to their private swimming pool in their back garden is actually a rather more serious invasion of privacy than snapping a womans knickers while she is traveling on the underground. (Unless the law has been changed, I understand that this is also quite legal and that Paps do it all the time)
Click to expand...

I personally don't think that taking snaps of people on private property via a telephoto lens is really on either. I think there are different shades of grey there with a guy with a zoom lens in the bushes etc.. at one end of the scale vs someone clearly visible and exposed to the public without the need for a zoom lens etc... at the other end of the scale.

Someone walking around in public has no expectation of privacy from the perspective of say everyone walking around or indeed from the perspective of people sitting down on the tube etc... but they certainly had no intent to expose themselves to someone from some low down angle a perv might use to take a photo from.
 
Last edited:
this is obviously the women's faultt in the first place. if they didn't dress like ***** in clothes than made it possible to take a photo up a skirt, this wouldn't be a problem. if they'd just wear burkas there'd be no need for this stupidity.
 
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...

The guy got a slap-on-the-wrist fine, I'd say it proves the exact opposite.
 
I am not condoning up skirting. But if a picture is taken of a woman's nickers then how will the image reveal the woman's identity.
Unless if the snapper takes a picture of the face and then the underwear and places them side by side. This would be disturbing, though this may provide information about the type of woman who wears specific type of underwear.
 
Orionaut said:
. . .
In many ways, using a telephoto lens to snap somebody sunbathing next to their private swimming pool in their back garden is actually a rather more serious invasion of privacy than snapping a woman's knickers while she is travelling on the underground.
. . .
Click to expand...
A perfect definition of "Whataboutery".
 
lunar said:
I am not condoning up skirting. But if a picture is taken of a woman's nickers then how will the image reveal the woman's identity.
Unless if the snapper takes a picture of the face and then the underwear and places them side by side. This would be disturbing, though this may provide information about the type of woman who wears specific type of underwear.
Click to expand...

Name tag sew'ed to the them?

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