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: 5, Insightful) by Booga1 on Sunday June 17 2018, @01:32AM (16 children)
Seems like if you don't know what the law is about and it hasn't been debated, that's a pretty good reason to object to passing it. I sure wish our own legislators would do the same...
(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...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by qzm on Sunday June 17 2018, @03:53AM (1 child)
Exactly, while probably accidental, this almost seems sensible and democratic! how did it happen in the UK?
I also wonder why there needs to be a specific law here, and why it needs to be gender specific.
Does existing law really not apply here? I have heard of a number of people being arrested and prosecuted for this, so why a new law?
Would a law that protected everyone equally against such inappropriate sexualised pictures be better if it really is required?
Oh, sorry I see, its a law to address a specific media driven case.. silly me.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by choose another one on Sunday June 17 2018, @10:10AM
Because we still have some old-school democratic politicians who act on principle not knee jerk media pressure or blind party loyalty.
The blocking is actually nothing to do with upskirting or this MPs views or attitudes - the same guy blocked several other bills in the same way on the same day, on the same point of principle, i.e. they should not pass without the opportunity for debate.
Well obviously it needs to be gender-specific because we apply double standards based on gender (e.g. http://www.newsweek.com/sexting-women-flattering-men-harassment-979606 [newsweek.com] ). In the UK looking up mens' kilts to see whether or not they are wearing underwear is perfectly normal amusement for women, while for men to look up womens' skirts to see if they are wearing underwear is obviously harassment.
Apparently the CPS (crown prosecution service) have some guideline that if the victim is wearing underwear (which presumably the perp doesn't know when they commit the offence) then they won't be found guilty therefore no point in prosecuting. This seems rather like saying we won't prosecute someone who attacks you with a knife if you were wearing a stab vest. IMO the CPS needs a royal kick up the backside (on other issues as well) and judges and juries should decide if an offence has been committed (that is what they are for) by photographing underwear. No need to change the law, just the CPS.
Yep, and another good reason for the objection.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday June 17 2018, @01:57PM (3 children)
No, if you don't know what the law is about, that's a pretty good reason to start doing your actual job - or resign from your appointment to the house.
A British MP gets a salary of £77k. That's more than double what I've seen for salaries in the Greater London area.
So sod off and do your homework.
To be clear: in this day and age, "I don't know what upskirting is" means you put in exactly zero effort to find out. It will literally take one Google search - in most modern browser, that means all you have to do is type "upskirting" in the URL bar and hit enter and be greeted with answers.
I don't know where you're from, but MPs not doing their jobs is universal, though not quite ubiquitously rampant.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday June 18 2018, @10:14AM
all you have to do is type "upskirting" in the URL bar and hit enter and be greeted with answers.
I believe this was Damien Green's excuse
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 18 2018, @12:23PM (1 child)
Naive. It's not just about what "upskirting" is, but what specifically is in the law. Politicians sometimes slip in authoritarian drivel where it doesn't belong. Maybe certain parts of the law are written incorrectly. Or maybe the severity of the punishments are in need of debate. Either way, there should be ample debate before passing any law.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:36PM
You'd be right... except that that has absolutely nothing to do with the reason the MP objected.
From the fine article:
As far as I can tell, before you came along, no one claimed anything was slipped into the law - not even the MP who objected.