Upskirting



Sam Handwich said:
That's my mirrored toecaps getting put back in the shoe cupboard
Click to expand...
Is the law specifically about taking the photo or just having a peek? You might be OK....

GingerNick said:
On 10 February 2009, he called for the minimum wage to be abolished. His Employment Opportunities Bill, which would, according to Chope, introduce more freedom to the job market and decrease unemployment, was backed by ten other Conservative MPs at the first reading, among them Edward Leigh, David Wilshire, Nigel Evans, Bill Cash and Peter Bone.

Later that year, in the expenses scandal, it emerged that Chope claimed £136,992 in parliamentary expenses in 2007/08. This included claiming £881 to repair a sofa.[6]

On 12 March 2010, he was responsible for the blocking of a bill to protect poor countries from "vulture funds", despite his party's support for the bill.[7]

In October 2010, Chope helped host a meeting of climate-science sceptics at Westminster.[8]

On 11 October 2011, Chope raised an eleventh-hour objection to the Hillsborough debate taking place because he believed a debate about MPs' pensions was more important. Cries of "shame" echoed around the chamber and Labour MP Jamie Reed said that the perpetrator should be "named and shamed" for raising the objection.[9]

Chope helped to lead backbench support for the motion calling for a European Referendum. He has also been heavily involved in the use of private member's bills to achieve this aim.[10]

Chope came under fire in January 2013 for referring to some staff in the House of Commons as "servants". Parallels were drawn between this opinion and his views on the minimum wage.[11]

Chope voted against the legislation for same-sex marriage in 2013.[12]

In June 2013 Chope was one of four MPs who camped outside Parliament in a move to facilitate parliamentary debate on what they called an "Alternative Queen’s Speech" – an attempt to show what a future Conservative government might deliver.[13] 42 policies were listed including reintroduction of the death penalty and conscription, privatizing the BBC, banning the burka in public places and preparation to leave the European Union.[13] The Daily Telegraph believed the whips sent Edward Leigh to try and persuade the group not to table the amendments.[13]

In December 2013 Chope objected[14][15] to the second reading of the Alan Turing (Statutory Pardon) Bill in the House of Commons. Because of this, the Government decided to act under the royal prerogative of mercy. On 24 December 2013 Queen Elizabeth II granted Turing a free pardon.[16][17]

On 28 November 2014 Chope, a private landlord, filibustered a Liberal Democrat bill with cross party support intended to make revenge evictions an offence.[18]

In 2014 Chope along with six other Conservative Party MPs voted against the Equal Pay (Transparency) Bill which would require all companies with more than 250 employees to declare the gap in pay between the average male and average female salaries.[19]

He came under criticism in late 2014 for repeatedly blocking a bill that would ban the use of wild animals in circus performances, justifying his actions by saying "The EU Membership Costs and Benefits bill should have been called by the clerk before the circuses bill, so I raised a point of order".[20]

In October 2015, Chope joined fellow Conservative members Philip Davies and David Nuttall in extended speeches, known as a filibuster, against a private member's bill that would have placed restrictions on hospital parking charges for carers. Their actions caused the bill to run out of time.[21]

he sounds like an giant whopper to be honest...and yet he was still awarded a knighthood this year

torys summed up in a few sentences...hate poor people and homosexuals , actively block anything to do with them,and still get rewarded for it
Click to expand...

Yet they continue to get voted in. Speaks wonders about sections of our society.
 
Last edited:
What amazes me is how it isn't a criminal offence under the present laws. Surely it can't be any different from being a Peeping Tom. It is after all a deliberate and calculated act of voyeurism and it strikes me that those who are guilty of it if not stopped certainly have the potential to move on to far worse things.
 
I just wrote this on the political forum, my thoughts on it and couldn't be arsed to write it again....

  1. While the intentional taking of pictures is obviously creepy and weird what about unintentional shots and how to prove it? I once had my picture taken by my mates lass at the SoL and the lass two rows above me, when the picture was developed (aye it was a while ago!) had a lovely shot upskirter of her white knickers, we had a giggle as you do, if that lass thought we were being opportunistic and reported it how could you PROVE otherwise? Same as paparazzi when they shoot celebs getting in and out of cars, they rattle of a dozen strobe like shots and if an upskirter is captured is he off to the clink? I think there is more to this tbh, again just playing devil's advocate because it could also be manipulated by someone behind someone being photographed, we are taking pictures constantly now and if you are out with your mates and a lass on say a bar stool is behind you sees an opportunity to flash her pants then starts screaming accusations to possibly chase some easy damages payment? Was any of this debated and if not why not?

    Kid Galahad, 19 minutes agoReport
    #83Reply

 
Kid Galahad said:
I just wrote this on the political forum, my thoughts on it and couldn't be arsed to write it again....

  1. While the intentional taking of pictures is obviously creepy and weird what about unintentional shots and how to prove it? I once had my picture taken by my mates lass at the SoL and the lass two rows above me, when the picture was developed (aye it was a while ago!) had a lovely shot upskirter of her white knickers, we had a giggle as you do, if that lass thought we were being opportunistic and reported it how could you PROVE otherwise? Same as paparazzi when they shoot celebs getting in and out of cars, they rattle of a dozen strobe like shots and if an upskirter is captured is he off to the clink? I think there is more to this tbh, again just playing devil's advocate because it could also be manipulated by someone behind someone being photographed, we are taking pictures constantly now and if you are out with your mates and a lass on say a bar stool is behind you sees an opportunity to flash her pants then starts screaming accusations to possibly chase some easy damages payment? Was any of this debated and if not why not?

    Kid Galahad, 19 minutes agoReport
    #83Reply

Click to expand...

Great post. Stupid bill which hopefully gets knocked on the head.
 
dangermows said:
Great post. Stupid bill which hopefully gets knocked on the head.
Click to expand...
While I think the bloke who stopped it is a arsehole it would have been wrong to rush something like this through without the proper debate considering the consequences for being accused or even falsley accused of this 'crime', it's wide open to abuse (pun intended ;))
 
Kid Galahad said:
I just wrote this on the political forum, my thoughts on it and couldn't be arsed to write it again....

  1. While the intentional taking of pictures is obviously creepy and weird what about unintentional shots and how to prove it?
Click to expand...
I would have thought that 'intentional' would be part of the proof needed to make the case.
 
JonMc said:
I would have thought that 'intentional' would be part of the proof needed to make the case.
Click to expand...

Very difficult these days though.

Even a few years ago a perv would probably have had to focus in and take a deliberate photo very provable.

The power of phone cameras these days and high def in theory someone could take a panoramic of a field and still be able to zoom in in detail if that's how they get their kicks.

Can see it being very hard to prove in an era of ultra powerful smart phone cameras
 
MonkeyLove said:
Very difficult these days though.

Even a few years ago a perv would probably have had to focus in and take a deliberate photo very provable.

The power of phone cameras these days and high def in theory someone could take a panoramic of a field and still be able to zoom in in detail if that's how they get their kicks.

Can see it being very hard to prove in an era of ultra powerful smart phone cameras
Click to expand...
Well yeah, there will be grey areas but that's for a court to prove. At least it might cut down on the wandering selfie stick though. At the end of the day it's a problem that does need addressing.
 
JonMc said:
Well yeah, there will be grey areas but that's for a court to prove. At least it might cut down on the wandering selfie stick though. At the end of the day it's a problem that does need addressing.
Click to expand...

I agree. I just think technology is so good that someone who wanted to take an intimate photo in a beach or park could do so without making it obvious
 
Dogbark said:
It's a private members bill and as such it gets debated on a Friday. As a consequence, there are not many MPs around discuss it. I could understand if it was a completely new law, with a ton of elements attached to it, but it's an amendment to an existing law. There shouldn't be a need for a full chamber to discuss every alteration to every single law. He can just keep objecting to the bill anarl.
Click to expand...

Whilst the Bill purposes to amend an Act ( Sexual Offences Act 2003) it does not purpose to amend an existing law. The proposed new offences are completely new. The purpose of amending in this way is simply to put the new offences next to existing voyeurism offences on the statute book.

I've read the Bill and I think it is really badly drafted - difficult to understand and ambiguous. I'm a lawyer. Criminal offences need to be understandable by ordinary people.

I wonder how many people crying for this guy's blood have read the Bill.
 
stapler said:
Whilst the Bill purposes to amend an Act ( Sexual Offences Act 2003) it does not purpose to amend an existing law. The proposed new offences are completely new. The purpose of amending in this way is simply to put the new offences next to existing voyeurism offences on the statute book.

I've read the Bill and I think it is really badly drafted - difficult to understand and ambiguous. I'm a lawyer. Criminal offences need to be understandable by ordinary people.

I wonder how many people crying for this guy's blood have read the Bill.
Click to expand...
As a lawyer how easy would it be to prove one way or another if an upskirt shot was intentional or unintentional? Dragging people through the courts on a whim or by some insistent 'damaged' woman after a payday or to damage someone's life would be ridiculous, if someone spread it on social media there maybe grounds but it is just such a grey area it needs clarification.

JonMc said:
Well yeah, there will be grey areas but that's for a court to prove. At least it might cut down on the wandering selfie stick though. At the end of the day it's a problem that does need addressing.
Click to expand...
Would you like to be accused of taking such a shot if you didn't know anything about what was say behind your intended subject? It could easily happen and like most cases against men where there is a sexual angle people would raise their eyebrows and say there's no smoke without fire etc it's a minefield and if it was law it would be abused, probably have an Injury Lawyers For You type no win no fee campaign to drum up trade when there is none!
 
Last edited:
Hank Scorpio said:
His actions seem to have gone down badly with a lot of Tory MPs. Apparently, the bloke is a joke within the Party and they are now fuming with him for creating yet more negative publicity.
Click to expand...
And on that post it highlights what’s wrong with politics....party members fuming ovecsise of negative publicity. This is exactly why he should have objected. Just because there’s a popularise pro feminist agenda at the minute (many skid points within that movement, an awful lot of bigoted shite as well mind) doesn’t mean those who shout loudest get what they want and the ow makers should certainly not bow down to public demand and cast aside proper methods of passing laws.
 
What they should do is make it a criminal offence to publish a photo taken with a super zoom lens of some minor celebrity on their hols. I’d rather be upskirted and have someone get their jollies from the photo than have my bingo wings plastered across The Sun.
 

Back
Top