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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17 2018, @01:05AM (1 child)
Lens up. Panties down. Back to the ground. Snap snap all around. And do it again.
(Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday June 17 2018, @01:40AM
I'm not as brash as you might think. And I don't need to be. Because the ladies love me on Snapchat, they send me more snaps, frankly, than I have time to look at. But I told Theresa she has to promise me a WARM WELCOME. Or I'm not coming. Snap to it, Theresa!!!!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17 2018, @01:14AM (6 children)
"...he's got mirrors on the toes of his shoes" ...
( apologies to Paul Simon whose lyrics I have "paraphrased", above )
Seriously, it doesn't get much more pathetic than looking up some woman's skirt. I mean, if that's the best you can do, you ought to follow the example of the willing cuckold Anthony Bourdain and put yourself out of your misery.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Sunday June 17 2018, @01:43AM (2 children)
Be careful, they going after the cuckolding porn next (they won't).
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17 2018, @01:47AM (1 child)
The child whimpered, "I want my mommy!"
The man replied, "Don't worry. She's right in that room. Go see her."
The little boy walked up to the door the man pointed at and entered the room slowly. What the boy saw when he entered the room was his mother. Yes, it was his mother, but something was wrong; she was naked and lying on the ground, and she didn't seem to be moving or breathing. Upon closer inspection, one could see hundreds of small stab wounds on her back and massive amounts of blood everywhere. The child was so traumatized by this that he didn't even notice the hideous man walking up to him. The man grabbed the boy and began his feast.
"It's way too good! Much better than your mommy's!" the man screeched, as he violently thrust his penis in and out of the boy's anus from behind. As the man pumped his hips, he stabbed the boy's back with a screwdriver. "Take this, and this!" the generous man bellowed. The child screamed and cried harder than he ever had before, but this only served as sustenance to the man. Eventually, the man reached his limit and shot all he had into the boy's nubile rectum. Within minutes, the child slumped down onto the ground and showed no signs of moving ever again.
Satisfaction. Now, time to retrieve the next child's mother...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17 2018, @04:44AM
After the above comment, I assure you that your life will be scrutinized very closely from now on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17 2018, @02:01AM (2 children)
Besides mirrors and phone cameras, men can also stand around open staircases...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17 2018, @04:47AM (1 child)
"Besides mirrors and phone cameras, men can also stand around open staircases..."
-
-
FTFY ^
Twisted pathetic pretenses of men can also stand around staircases. Why ? Because no real man would engage in such behavior, since a real man can get all the pussy he wants when he wants it.
Feel free to kill yourself if you are not a real man. The world will be just fine without your pathetic inferior loser self.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17 2018, @05:23PM
Death to all incels!
(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.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 17 2018, @01:43AM (7 children)
Every victim wants a new law, don't they? It's hard to believe that there is no law in existence already with which to charge these cretins. Things like public indecency, or sexual assault, or peeping tom, or simple sexual assault. Defamation of character could even work. But, there ought to be a law, right?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday June 17 2018, @01:53AM (4 children)
The libel laws in the UK are tremendous. And if we open up our USA libel laws to be like theirs, we'll have a much better Country. My friends Hulk Hogan & Peter Thiel were having big problems with Gawker, they did the civil suit and won big. But they couldn't press charges.
But this law they were trying to do, they wanted it to be a crime just to take pictures. Even if the Fake News Media doesn't print them. Very very strong law. And I know a lot of guys that would get in trouble with that one!!!
(Score: 3, Touché) by stretch611 on Sunday June 17 2018, @02:41AM
Lets include making defamation claims easier, as we open up libel laws, too
https://nypost.com/2018/06/14/trump-loses-appeal-to-delay-apprentice-contestants-defamation-lawsuit/amp/ [nypost.com]
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 17 2018, @05:38AM (2 children)
Bullshit. It has often been observed that libel suits are filed in England, despite the supposed "offenses" taking place almost anywhere OUTSIDE of England. There's a reason for that. No rational court would even hear the damned worthless cases anywhere else. No, we don't want libel laws like the UK has. Here, in the US, it is accepted that truth is a defense against libel. I call you a thief, and in fact, you have been convicted of various classifications of theft multiple times, you can't file libel suit for being called a thief. In the UK, you might have a case. Utter bullshit. If you want to sue someone for calling you a cocksucker, you better not be going down on half of the NFL.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday June 17 2018, @03:23PM (1 child)
you can't file libel suit for being called a thief.
Actually, I'm quite sure this is incorrect. You can indeed be sued, regardless of the truth. However, you'll lose that suit easily, and be countersued for attorney's fees.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 18 2018, @03:22AM
You are correct.
And technically, truth is NOT an absolute defense against all defamatory torts. If the information is true but grossly misleading, taken out of context, and particularly invades the privacy of a citizen by bringing inordinate and undeserved attention, there is a tort of "false light" that could apply.
But false light suits are only recognized in a minority of states these days, and they've become very rare. (And they would be unlikely to apply to a thief who had been convicted multiple times. But in another situation that publicly shamed someone with info taken out of context, there could at least in theory be a successful suit.)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17 2018, @02:16AM (1 child)
It's hard to believe you can comment on this and yet not know about it. And yet here we are. Again.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 17 2018, @05:48AM
And, yet, you follow GP around like a puppy begging for attention.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 17 2018, @02:32AM
teresa may ... up skirting. GAH!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Aiwendil on Sunday June 17 2018, @07:37AM (4 children)
This might be a quagmire.
I havn't read the text or even TFA - but unless the law is phrased very carefully it might have some weird sideeffects.
Hides rant, long story short, are lots of times when people are accidently upskirted, and sometimes in a picture that is secretly taken.
And I really hope they specify "upskirting" in the legal text, to me that word sounds more like the act of usury or jacking up the price of something.
(No, I don't support the unconsenting intentional act as intended to regulate, I just say they have to be _darn_ careful with the phrasing.
With that being said - I can hardly wait for the first case of combined "military espionage and upskirting" case to come to court (scots) :)
)
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Sunday June 17 2018, @05:43PM (1 child)
https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2017-19/voyeurismoffences.html [parliament.uk]
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0174/cbill_2017-20190174_en_1.htm [parliament.uk]
Here it is.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Sunday June 17 2018, @06:57PM
Thanks, that was a short and nice little addition.
With the exception of the word "beneath" (should be replaced with something better) it seems fairly decent as it specifies what intents are needed.
Oh, and also, they really should also cover the case if it is being done for the purpose of distressing or humaliating person other than B as well.
But overall pretty sane as long as they assume the victim is the intended target and the victim is standard upright,
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday June 17 2018, @08:49PM
What about upkilting?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday June 18 2018, @10:11AM
The law was closing a loophole in the existing Voyeurism law to ensure it covered people who operate equipment beneath the wronged party's clothing with the intention of enabling someone to either obtain sexual gratification or humiliate, distress or alarm the wronged party when they observe B’s genitals or buttocks or underwear which would not otherwise be visible
The fact there needed to be intent covers all your use cases
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Sunday June 17 2018, @03:33PM (1 child)
Is the full text of the proposed law available anywhere?
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Sunday June 17 2018, @05:41PM
Looks like this:
https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2017-19/voyeurismoffences.html [parliament.uk]
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0174/18174.pdf [parliament.uk]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by isostatic on Monday June 18 2018, @10:22AM
This MP calls for a debate, which people may think is reasonable. However his colleagues then fillbuster debates [inews.co.uk]. They aren't interested in debate, they don't like private members bills.
Ironically the inability for MEPs to issue the equivalent of private member bills is the reason these people claim the EU is "undemocratic".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @02:49PM
Wear a kilt for a day like a true Scott.
see how he likes it