Up skirting and english law

[Tight_N_Juicy]

I do not wear skirts or dresses.

I never will.

Women who want to shouldn't have to worry about piece of shit predator assholes sneaking pics of their genitals.

I support treating it as a sexual assault. Fully. No issues with that whatsoever.

 

[TexanStar]

The U.K. Wanted to Ban Taking Photos Up Women's Skirts. One Lawmaker Shut it Down.

An attempt to make upskirting a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable by up to two years in prison, has been blocked by a lawmaker in the ruling Conservative Party.

The 71-year-old Sir Christopher Chope ended debate on the legislation by formally objecting to it as it was being read in the lower house of parliament. He did not give a reason, and did not immediately respond to a request for comment by TIME.

 

[deleted924715]

This takes me back to my last year in school when the girls had to wear cycling shorts under their skirts. Thank god we didn't have camera phones then - it was just about the humiliation in the moment, not even being captured for posterity.

IMO it should definitely be a sexual offence and should apply to 'upshorting' equally, the principle is the same, nobody has the right to violate another person in that way whether it's a random Joe on the street or a pap. More serious than indecent exposure, less serious than rape in terms of punishment.

Personally, I have no problem with a 2 year max sentence - there is an easy peasy way to avoid it, just don't intentionally photograph someone's genitals without their consent. Most people manage to refrain. Is it the right length sentence? I don't know, it's a maximum, so there is a lot of scope there. I feel more strongly about the fact they should be on the Sex Offenders Register. It should haunt them for years.

 

[englad]

The U.K. Wanted to Ban Taking Photos Up Women's Skirts. One Lawmaker Shut it Down.

An attempt to make upskirting a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable by up to two years in prison, has been blocked by a lawmaker in the ruling Conservative Party.

The 71-year-old Sir Christopher Chope ended debate on the legislation by formally objecting to it as it was being read in the lower house of parliament. He did not give a reason, and did not immediately respond to a request for comment by TIME.

I had never heard of him before, just an unpleasant tory backbencher. But looking at his track record, he seems pretty horrendous. I wouldn't normally touch sky news with a 20 foot barge pole, but here is the link and highlights:

On Friday, as well as blocking a law that would see those who take photos up women's skirts without their consent face up to two years in jail, Mr Chope delayed legislation intended to give police dogs and horses extra legal protections from attack, and talked out attempts to reform mental health units.

He has previously repeatedly blocked attempts to ban the use of wild animals in circuses.

He also acted to block the posthumous pardon for Alan Turing, the man who cracked the Enigma code to help win the Second World War. In 1952, Turing was charged with homosexual offences and was later chemically castrated.

Of the 10 significant gay rights votes in the House of Commons since 1998, Mr Chope has voted against every bill to promote equal gay rights.

He voted twice against making same-sex marriage legal in the UK.

By making a lengthy speech, he managed to 'talk-out' a bill to make it illegal for landlords to evict tenants who complained about housing.

Using the same technique, Mr Chope ensured a bill to exempt carers from hospital car park charges was batted down.

Who is Christopher Chope, the Tory MP who blocked the upskirting law?

Evil bastard basically

 

[englad]

Here's more on him:

Who is the man blocking a law to make upskirting a criminal offence?

Sir Christopher has consistently voted against legislation for human rights, equal pay, and same-sex marriage.

He has also voted against the hunting and smoking bans.

He voted to abolish the national minimum wage in 2009.

In 2013, he stalled a bill to give a statutory pardon to Alan Turing, who was prosecuted for “gross indecency” in 1952 for having a gay relationship. Mr Turing was later given a posthumous royal pardon in December 2013.

Sir Christopher faced criticism when he referred to some staff members in the House of Commons as “servants” and did not correct himself when MPs objected.

In June of the same year, he was among MPs who supported an “Alternative Queen’s Speech”, which listed 42 policies including reintroducing the death penalty and conscription, privatising the BBC, and banning the burqa in public places.

 

[deleted924715]

I had never heard of him before, just an unpleasant tory backbencher. But looking at his track record, he seems pretty horrendous. I wouldn't normally touch sky news with a 20 foot barge pole, but here is the link and highlights:

On Friday, as well as blocking a law that would see those who take photos up women's skirts without their consent face up to two years in jail, Mr Chope delayed legislation intended to give police dogs and horses extra legal protections from attack, and talked out attempts to reform mental health units.

He has previously repeatedly blocked attempts to ban the use of wild animals in circuses.

He also acted to block the posthumous pardon for Alan Turing, the man who cracked the Enigma code to help win the Second World War. In 1952, Turing was charged with homosexual offences and was later chemically castrated.

Of the 10 significant gay rights votes in the House of Commons since 1998, Mr Chope has voted against every bill to promote equal gay rights.

He voted twice against making same-sex marriage legal in the UK.

By making a lengthy speech, he managed to 'talk-out' a bill to make it illegal for landlords to evict tenants who complained about housing.

Using the same technique, Mr Chope ensured a bill to exempt carers from hospital car park charges was batted down.

Who is Christopher Chope, the Tory MP who blocked the upskirting law?

Evil bastard basically

Well. He sounds pleasant.

 

[TexanStar]

I had never heard of him before, just an unpleasant tory backbencher. But looking at his track record, he seems pretty horrendous. I wouldn't normally touch sky news with a 20 foot barge pole, but here is the link and highlights:

On Friday, as well as blocking a law that would see those who take photos up women's skirts without their consent face up to two years in jail, Mr Chope delayed legislation intended to give police dogs and horses extra legal protections from attack, and talked out attempts to reform mental health units.

He has previously repeatedly blocked attempts to ban the use of wild animals in circuses.

He also acted to block the posthumous pardon for Alan Turing, the man who cracked the Enigma code to help win the Second World War. In 1952, Turing was charged with homosexual offences and was later chemically castrated.

Of the 10 significant gay rights votes in the House of Commons since 1998, Mr Chope has voted against every bill to promote equal gay rights.

He voted twice against making same-sex marriage legal in the UK.

By making a lengthy speech, he managed to 'talk-out' a bill to make it illegal for landlords to evict tenants who complained about housing.

Using the same technique, Mr Chope ensured a bill to exempt carers from hospital car park charges was batted down.

Who is Christopher Chope, the Tory MP who blocked the upskirting law?

Evil bastard basically

UK law is pretty derp sometimes. I dunno how you can have a system where 1 person is capable of shutting down a law like that.

The US does have the option to filibuster, but one person alone can't do that (60% vote is enough to end a filibuster, and it might've dropped to 50 percent in all the antics over gorsuch's nomination).

 

[Jason]

Chope doesn't seem like a nice man. His argument is against the practice of just letting new laws go through on the nod. His view is that all new laws need to be debated.

The UK has a system where some laws can pass without debate. We've already had more debate on this thread than the zero debate given to the upskirting bill. For example we're beginning to debate whether upskirting of women should be extended to upshorting of men. Maybe parliament should debate this.

Chope hasn't stopped the laws he's objected to. He has forced a parliamentary debate and a vote on them. Maybe he has a point.

 

[Jason]

UK law is pretty derp sometimes. I dunno how you can have a system where 1 person is capable of shutting down a law like that.

He hasn't. He's said that not all 650 MPs are in favour of the proposed law as it stands and there should be discussion on it. Maybe some details need to be changed. Maybe some issues need to be considered.

The idea of presenting this bill as not needing discussion was agreed by all the parties. It's a technique for saving parliamentary time. It makes sense with things that are purely technical, basically tidying up points of law, but it doesn't make sense for something like this. I suppose I'm saying it shouldn't have been presented to parliament in this way.

 

[TexanStar]

He hasn't. He's said that not all 650 MPs are in favour of the proposed law as it stands and there should be discussion on it. Maybe some details need to be changed. Maybe some issues need to be considered.

The idea of presenting this bill as not needing discussion was agreed by all the parties. It's a technique for saving parliamentary time. It makes sense with things that are purely technical, basically tidying up points of law, but it doesn't make sense for something like this. I suppose I'm saying it shouldn't have been presented to parliament in this way.

Okay, that's more reasonable then.

 

[Jason]

The text of the Bill is here. It's quite a short one - but should it become law without any discussion? As it stands it is written by civil servants who probably have zero contact with victims or perpetrators. It needs lawmakers to pull it to pieces and put it back again to make it fit for purpose.

Probably the issue is around application (it does seem to refer to skirts, not shorts) and the length of sentences. I don't know what the answers are but I think these are issues which should be discussed.

I'm pretty much convinced this bill is wrong as it stands. The implicit differential treatment of women and men is problematic. It suggests that women need a level of protection which men do not and are not therefore equal. The sentences seem severe. Think of the young man with a mental health problem who commits this offence (because of the mental health problem) and faces prison, an environment he really won't survive.

 

[englad]

Chope doesn't seem like a nice man. His argument is against the practice of just letting new laws go through on the nod. His view is that all new laws need to be debated.

The UK has a system where some laws can pass without debate. We've already had more debate on this thread than the zero debate given to the upskirting bill. For example we're beginning to debate whether upskirting of women should be extended to upshorting of men. Maybe parliament should debate this.

Chope hasn't stopped the laws he's objected to. He has forced a parliamentary debate and a vote on them. Maybe he has a point.

Well in that case, he is quite the hypocrite.

Christopher Chope - Wikipedia

Chope is a member of a group of backbench Conservative MPs who regularly object to private members bills which, in their view, have not received sufficient scrutiny. These have included a number which were previously believed to have widespread public and parliamentary support.[21] As of 2017, Chope has sponsored forty-seven private members bills himself.[22]

 

[Jason]

The point is that he has ONLY sponsored 47 private members' bills. Very many such bills are considered, and many MPs initially sponsor them. Most get nowhere.

There is some new law which is appropriately treated by such bills and nodded through, but the up skirting issue isn't simple in terms of gender application and sentence and surely does need debate.

 

[LaFemme]

I don’t think it’s fair to measure the damage done by up skirting photos against the damage done by other sexual assaults. I’ve known women who have had home invasions and just had underwear stolen. Just underwear. You can’t imagine the violation, where their imagination went, the lack of safety, the inability to sleep. They weren’t even able to sleep at home. One woman had to move. It was a small community and this man (eventually caught) was stalking women, breaking in, stealing underwear, photographing himself in the underwear, etc. These women were so traumatized.

What about camera set up in change rooms? Or bathrooms? How violating is that? To be photographed without consent, at one’s most vulnerable is such a violation of safety. No woman who has been assaulted would ever deny another woman the ability to cry, to feel hurt or traumatized by those events. It’s all in the eyes of the victim, not necessarily in the event itself and certainly not in the eyes of the outsider.

The justice system is so far behind technology and the psychology of sexual assault anyway that it’s ridiculous. I have zero faith in the current system as it is. That this bill didn’t pass doesn’t surprise me. It’s males debating it and through male eyes viewing the damage. It isn’t that urgent. A picture can’t be that harmful. Voyeurs can’t be that harmful. Well, they can. Extremely harmful. While not every voyeur will develop into a rapist, nearly every violent rapist started as a voyeur.

 

[g0nz0]

You know, to me it seems that anything with willing consent between adults is Kool and the Gang. Whatever goes between consenting adults.

Anything that involves skipping the adult part, skipping the consent, or coercing consent isn’t... its a personal violation, its disgusting, and it should be treated harshly by society and the law.

 

[MickeyLee]

Ms. @LaFemme 's post restored my faith in humanity. And greatly improved my mood.

what she said times a million.

 

[LaFemme]

Ms. @LaFemme 's post restored my faith in humanity. And greatly improved my mood.

what she said times a million.

Anything for you, my little love.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

Another thing that's super fucked up about up-skirt photos, the victim often doesn't even know that they've been victimized, and it encourages the predator committing the fucked up bullshit to keep doing it and potentially take it further. It's an emboldening action.

Throw the fucking book at them.

 

[Jason]

Why are we all horrified by upskirting, but seem to think it fine that this board has a 3000+ post thread on upshorting? There must be something like 200 non-consensual upshorting photos in that thread.

Should everyone who took an upshorting picture face two years in prison? Everyone who posted them? What about everyone who viewed them?

We seem to have an enormous difference in society's views on how women and men should be treated. I note that one or two posters in this thread have said that upshorting should be wrong as well (and that is a coherent viewpoint). However this isn't the view of society. Society may not feel that it is quite right, but it does seem to be tolerated, and the implication is that it is the fault of the man for showing too much.

I think we have to be very careful about a law which appears to have as its premise that women should be treated differently from men. The implication is that women are weaker than men. I don't like Chope, but maybe in this case he is right. This law needs more discussion. I suggest there are two, key aspects that are wrong:
1) it tackles upskirting but not upshorting, and implicitly treats women as weak and needing addition protection.
2) the sentences are absurd. A woman in a skirt stands on a balcony. A man below with a mobile phone takes a picture on his phone without really thinking about what he is doing. The picture does not show the woman's face and she cannot be identified. He goes to prison for two years. I'm not condoning what the man does, but it does not merit the cost to society of his term in prison (and subsequently) nor does it justify absolutely wrecking his life.

And back to the LPSG community - an upshorting thread has been accepted for ten years and continues to be accepted. Maybe we should see this as wrong, but we need to get real. Maybe it is adequate to have a policy where a picture is taken down if someone objects, perhaps the subject. Maybe we should distinguish pictures which identify faces and those which do not (the proposed upskirting law does not).

The proposed law is very badly thought out and will inevitably cause problems. Think of the man who is convicted, goes to prison and kills himself. Think of the woman who decides to use it as an entrapment by egging on a man. Think of the foreman of a building site who decides his workforce will remain all male because women are clearly too weak to work on a building site, and sets out as justification that the law treats women as weak.

 

[TexanStar]

Why are we all horrified by upskirting, but seem to think it fine that this board has a 3000+ post thread on upshorting?

This is an assumption on your part. I've personally reported several threads in celebrities forum and such for content like this. The reports generally never go anywhere. The only threads I've ever managed to get deleted via reports like that were the Fappening ones. The difference is female victims of voyeurs -vs- male so I guess it's alright from moderation perspective to illegally photograph men's genitals.

That doesn't mean the behavior is okay with all of the forum membership, just that motivating the moderators to do something about it for male victims is difficult.

(and if any moderator takes issue with these accusations of bias you can go back through my report history and look for those types of threads reported and I think you'll generally still find them active. The reports were like a year ago or so though).