Upskirting

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...
From the amendment ".....in circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would not otherwise be visible." They were visible due to her seating position. So it wouldn't be an offence.
 


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...
Dont even need a phone matey.
 
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...
Eee! Am a right divvy!
 
I dislike the proposed law change because it implies the victim of the crime are the by-standers who are outraged due to public indecency. The real victim is the lass who has had a sad fat bastard take a photo up her skirt for his own pleasure.
 
Kent_Mackem said:
I dislike the proposed law change because it implies the victim of the crime are the by-standers who are outraged due to public indecency. The real victim is the lass who has had a sad fat bastard take a photo up her skirt for his own pleasure.
Click to expand...

It is the current offence of outraging public decency that requires bystanders. The proposed offences do not.
 
Kevj said:
I'm quite sure the new law will apply to blokes in kilts taking images of lasses too.
Click to expand...

Not what I meant but thanks for the info.

Kent_Mackem said:
I dislike the proposed law change because it implies the victim of the crime are the by-standers who are outraged due to public indecency. The real victim is the lass who has had a sad fat bastard take a photo up her skirt for his own pleasure.
Click to expand...

What if the lass wants you to?
 
Kent_Mackem said:
I dislike the proposed law change because it implies the victim of the crime are the by-standers who are outraged due to public indecency. The real victim is the lass who has had a sad fat bastard take a photo up her skirt for his own pleasure.
Click to expand...
How do you know i`m er they are fat? :lol:
 

Back
Top