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: 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.