SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
May 'disappointed' at upskirting law block
Theresa May says she is "disappointed" an attempt to make upskirting a criminal offence in England and Wales did not progress through Parliament after one of her own MPs blocked it. Conservatives have criticised Sir Christopher Chope for objecting to the private member's bill.
If passed, it could see someone who has secretly taken a photo under a victim's skirt face up to two years in prison. The PM said she wanted to see it pass soon "with government support". Minister for Women, Victoria Atkins, said the government will allocate time for the bill in Parliament to ensure it does not get pushed down the list of private members' bills, which would mean it could some time to return to the Commons.
[...] Sir Christopher has yet to speak out about why he blocked the bill but upskirting victim Gina Martin - who started the campaign for the new law - said he had told her he objected to it "on principle" because it "wasn't debated". She also told the BBC that he said he "wasn't really sure" what upskirting was. "I said, 'well, I can help you with that'," Ms Martin added.
The bill was expected to sail through the Commons on Friday, but parliamentary rules mean it only required one MP to shout "object" to block its progress. Sir Christopher's intervention was met with shouts of "shame" from other MPs.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17 2018, @02:11AM (9 children)
Well how long does it take to research what upskirting is? Less time than it takes to sit on your ass and yell "Object!".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheReaperD on Sunday June 17 2018, @02:26AM (8 children)
Researching what upskirting is is simple and he probably understood from just what the woman told him in his office. Now, there's a big difference in knowing what upskirting is and knowing the entire text of the law being proposed and the intended and unintended consequences of the proposed law. Passing a law without any knowledge of what is in it is stupid, regardless of the "intent" of the law.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17 2018, @03:00AM (5 children)
Well there is certainly a degree of incompetence/malice in being unprepared for a vote, then using your unpreparedness as the reason for voting against.
I hope someone will go over this fine, upstanding gentleman's previous voting record and quiz him on the details of each bill he has passed - obviously he's read all of them in detail.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17 2018, @04:38AM (1 child)
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 18 2018, @02:22AM
Exactly. Only an incel wouldn't instantly duckspeak their approval.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 17 2018, @05:45AM (1 child)
You're probably right. In fact, you're almost certainly right. Politicians can't be bothered to actually perform the tasks for which they were elected. But, surely, you can imagine scenarios in which a representative might actually be busy with legitimate business, and not have time to study all the laws coming up for vote. Or, the other side tries to sneak something past you by introducing it at the last moment, or as a rider on another bill.
(Score: 5, Informative) by HiThere on Sunday June 17 2018, @05:42PM
I don't know about in Britain, but in the US there are many cases where a long bill was not made available for study before being brought to the floor. Usually because someone would have properly objected, if they knew what it was about.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17 2018, @06:47PM
"Well there is certainly a degree of incompetence/malice in being unprepared for a vote, then using your unpreparedness as the reason for voting against."
You can be as prepared as possible for deciding on a new law that will potentially affect millions of lives and still not have completely thought out all of the potential consequences of it. That's what debate is suppose to be for - to help people consider angles they didn't think about before so that they can be sure that they've covered everything. Was the body of this actual upskirting law made public? Do WE know what it actually says? Is a law as specific as what this appears to be truly necessary? Is it not already a crime under some other law already on the books? Feels like it probably already is, but I guess the punishment wasn't enough so they decided on a new law to increase it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by black6host on Sunday June 17 2018, @03:08AM (1 child)
Yet we here, in the states, do it all the time...
(Score: 5, Touché) by Immerman on Sunday June 17 2018, @03:16AM
I think that proves the point...