Jump to content

Upskirting bill


ditchman
 Share

Recommended Posts

It looks like that this will be made a crime..attracting a possible 2 year sentence..!

how will the Scots handle Upkilting..........?......the perpitraitors will be given 2 years councilling ...ugh.:oops:

but seriously will it be considered the same crime ?.or will the English law have to be modified by the Scottish parliament, to suit the Scottish form of dress...or will it be only a crime against women...in that case it would be sexist

David Beckham wore a skirt for fashion week many years ago..............making this law opens up a can of worms..in this day and age sooo many things need to be taken into consideration....sexism...human rights.....the ammount of clothing worn under a skirt (if any) will it all attract different sentences ?

who the hell would want to write this law up...................what started off as a common decent idea...law..........now turns everything into a complicated farce

oh for the good old days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m always of the opinion that once we introduce legislation we’ve lost, but if people can’t understand that it’s wrong to hold your phone below a woman’s skirt line to try and snap a picture of her knickers and then post it online, then perhaps we’ve got no choice, and we sink a little further into depravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Surely a way of wording the bill could be found to outlaw any use of a photographic machine to gain private shots of either male or female without their knowledge.

now thats more "level" thinking.....................................and everyone continues to castigate the MP who shouted "object".....he was right to do so...laws like this or any other cant be left to MP's to make..........they have to be thought thro'

1 minute ago, walshie said:

Would anyone want to look up a scotsman's kilt? 

not unless you wanted councilling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devil as always in the detail,  before you can produce a bill that's actually workable the act has to define what constitutes upskirting, when it constitutes a offence etc in meticulous detail, chapter and verse.

The trouble will be they will just ban upskirting with no definition of what it means. We in the shooting world know all about the perils of poorly worded legislation

42 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Surely a way of wording the bill could be found to outlaw any use of a photographic machine to gain private shots of either male or female without their knowledge.

If you did that nobody would be able to take holiday shots with anybody else in the background, that's virtually impossible. You couldn't use security cameras etc 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scully said:

I’m always of the opinion that once we introduce legislation we’ve lost, but if people can’t understand that it’s wrong to hold your phone below a woman’s skirt line to try and snap a picture of her knickers and then post it online, then perhaps we’ve got no choice, and we sink a little further into depravity.

Totally agree ?

Only some kind of perv would sink so low as to do this kind of thing. Its a sad world we live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zapp said:

The key word is "offence", and whether it is covered by civil law or criminal law.  That's how we have civil offences and criminal offences. 

 

so should the bill/law be a civil offence or a criminal offence.......................is it going to be "someones" perception....or is there a strict guideline as to classification...............

dont get me wrong ..i think this is a truly pathetic act to carry out.....im just interested in how they are going to acheive a law that fits the act...:hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, walshie said:

Would anyone want to look up a scotsman's kilt? 

erm yes

7 hours ago, Scully said:

I’m always of the opinion that once we introduce legislation we’ve lost, but if people can’t understand that it’s wrong to hold your phone below a woman’s skirt line to try and snap a picture of her knickers and then post it online, then perhaps we’ve got no choice, and we sink a little further into depravity.

Ditchman, are you reading this? i know your hobby is gonna be quashed but come on man, stick to fat Sarah, you wont see her ****** for the thighs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scully said:

I’m always of the opinion that once we introduce legislation we’ve lost, but if people can’t understand that it’s wrong to hold your phone below a woman’s skirt line to try and snap a picture of her knickers and then post it online, then perhaps we’ve got no choice, and we sink a little further into depravity.

absolutely 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Winston72 said:

erm yes

Ditchman, are you reading this? i know your hobby is gonna be quashed but come on man, stick to fat Sarah, you wont see her ****** for the thighs

my boy ...............its been a long while since the "promised land" was glimpsed in that neck of the woods.....and not by me either.....i dont believe the individual who glinpsed it is still alive today.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scully said:

I’m always of the opinion that once we introduce legislation we’ve lost, but if people can’t understand that it’s wrong to hold your phone below a woman’s skirt line to try and snap a picture of her knickers and then post it online, then perhaps we’ve got no choice, and we sink a little further into depravity.

This pretty much sums it up for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Surely a way of wording the bill could be found to outlaw any use of a photographic machine to gain private shots of either male or female without their knowledge.

  Do we not have laws on voyeurism already?  Do we need a law for every single act?  

take using mobile phones while driving:  Why have a new new law?  Is it not "driving without due care and attention"?

  Maybe they need to keep making new laws to justify their jobs.

 

 Gun laws should be: "Do not shoot any one or any thing that you do not have a legal right to shoot.  Do not shoot in an area where is could harm others or their property."  Penalty - Min. 5 years, no upper limit.

Done,

RS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RockySpears said:

  Do we not have laws on voyeurism already?  Do we need a law for every single act?  

We do have a law which covers voyeurism, the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The problem is that upskirting is not currently captured in the definition of voyeurism for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the same way as in Scotland.  The purpose of the bill is to include it in the act, so it's not a new law, it's an existing law being amended to take a new offence into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Zapp said:

it's an existing law being amended to take a new offence into account.

  By whose definition is looking up a ladies skirt with a camera not "Voyeurism"?  How different is it from peeking in a bedroom window and I'm sure that is covered.

The law is too complicated if these two things are not treated the same,

 

RS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, RockySpears said:

  By whose definition is looking up a ladies skirt with a camera not "Voyeurism"?  How different is it from peeking in a bedroom window and I'm sure that is covered.

The law is too complicated if these two things are not treated the same,

 

RS

Whoever drafted the Sexual Offences Act 2003, hence the need for an amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

christ this is complicated......................i think it wasnt well thought out when the labour benches shouted "shame" at the conservertive bench because the MP ...and i well believe rightly so.blocked this commons bill................he well knew it was beyond the caperbilites of 90% of MP's in the house...to understand the process and to have the intelligence to bring a law forth..............in a non knee jerk manner...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ditchman said:

christ this is complicated......................i think it wasnt well thought out when the labour benches shouted "shame" at the conservertive bench because the MP ...and i well believe rightly so.blocked this commons bill................he well knew it was beyond the caperbilites of 90% of MP's in the house...to understand the process and to have the intelligence to bring a law forth..............in a non knee jerk manner...

This ⬆️  + 100

 

RS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...