Up skirting and english law

[Tight_N_Juicy]

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.

No one ever said upshorting wasn't just as much of an issue. This specific thread is about upskirt photos.

People spending time behind bars for taking upskirt/upshort photos? Fuckin right I'm ok with that.

 

[deleted924715]

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.

Who thinks it's fine? You're posting in Women's Issues - is that a thread frequented by the active female posters here? Do you think they were even aware of it? There have been many non-consensual threads/posts involving women too in my time here and the site did nothing about them either. I don't go in the sub-forums where that kind of stuff is posted now because it boils my blood.

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

Why are you discussing a maximum sentence as if it is a minimum sentence? I read your link and it appears to be an offence triable either way - the same as many other crimes and the treatment of which depends on its seriousness. Why would this one get special treatment? I was on the fence before, but having read s67 Sexual Offences Act I think it is a pretty effective proposal for closing an obvious loophole. It is supposed to deal with the perpetrator/act. I agree with treating distribution as a separate matter *shrug*

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.

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree. I think it's that women are more frequently the subject. I have literally never heard a man be blamed for 'showing too much'. The proposed amendment to the Act however, is gender neutral - as it should be.

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 don't know where you are getting that premise from - the amendment to the Act would apply to everyone equally. Do I think women are more likely to be the victim? Yes. This doesn't imply that women are weaker than men, just that men are more likely to commit this offence and more often against women. Huge unsubstantiated leap you're taking there. I thought it may have needed more discussion before - having read it in the context of the existing act, I don't.

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.

1) Where are you getting this from? In the link you posted the language was neutral - if equipment is operated beneath a person's clothing. If a man's balls are hanging out of his shorts then it's not covered by voyeurism and equally if a woman gets out of a car, inelegantly shall we say, then it's not covered by voyeurism. Despicable to photograph it, but not an offence under this proposal. Stick a camera up her skirt or up his basketball shorts, or lie on the ground to get the shot and it is.

Tiny daisy dukes leaving nothing to the imagination and a picture is snapped? Not covered by the Act. "Would not otherwise be visible" is specifically stated. You can't get the shot unless the camera is beneath clothing. If your complaint is that recording equipment can be covertly inserted more easily under women's clothing than men's, or that women are more likely to be a victim since men are more usually the perpetrator, I don't know what to tell ya. Maybe men can wear skirts too and then they don't need to feel left out.

2) So why would this be tried as an indictable offence in this instance? Yes, technically he might be physically beneath her clothing by virtue of her being on a balcony BUT how would underwear visible to everyone in the vicinity qualify as "not otherwise visible" causing him to be charged, much less sentenced? Was the balcony at street level and he commando crawled underneath to get the shot? I disagree that the sentences are absurd as it is a 2 year maximum. I can well imagine circumstances where 2 years is deserved, but lets fact it - they'll all just get fined.

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).

Accepted by who? The community as a whole? No. However, there is a prevailing belief in some quarters that if it gets some people off it's ok, it's harmless. It's not. It's a violation, end of story. The site owner accommodates it, end of story. Go back and read La Femme's post if you want to 'get real'.

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.

What? What? No thanks, I don't think I will prioritise the wellbeing of the perpetrator, they made their choice to violate someone else. My empathy rests with the victim.

The woman who decides to use it as entrapment? Ah, because we are such devious beings and these 'traps' are obviously the more prevalent issue, gotcha.

The last point? Stop, just stop.

Non-consensual violations against a person that others derive sexual gratification from are still violations against a person, there is no mitigation that it's someone's kink. I don't think you appreciate the impact it can have on the victim - at least that's how you come across here. Having read the proposed amendment and the rest of s67 I don't think it did need to be debated. You changed my mind.

 

[Jason]

I think this thread has demonstrated that the Bill needs to be discussed by the UK parliament. We've discovered that there are areas that can be discussed. It may be that the Bill would be better with some modifications. Most Bills are improved by discussion.

The absurdity seems to be that we have asked someone in the Civil Service to draft a Bill, and we were planning to pass it with zero discussion. A Bill as short as this will probably have been mostly the work of a single person. In effect we have a single MP who decided that legislation was needed, and who (quite rightly) got the process underway by getting the Bill drafted by the Civil Service and presented to parliament. All this is good - but it needs discussion by parliament.

 

[TexanStar]

I think this thread has demonstrated that the Bill needs to be discussed by the UK parliament. We've discovered that there are areas that can be discussed. It may be that the Bill would be better with some modifications. Most Bills are improved by discussion.

The absurdity seems to be that we have asked someone in the Civil Service to draft a Bill, and we were planning to pass it with zero discussion. A Bill as short as this will probably have been mostly the work of a single person. In effect we have a single MP who decided that legislation was needed, and who (quite rightly) got the process underway by getting the Bill drafted by the Civil Service and presented to parliament. All this is good - but it needs discussion by parliament.

And that's fine, though @BacknForth calling into question your motives in light of all the other crap you appended to this reasoning is justified as well.

 

[Jason]

We now have a decision - it's giving to be debated in parliament in the next couple of weeks. It seems likely that we will end up with a better law as a result. Presumably everyone is happy. This issue has been around procedure, and the procedure is now resolved.

 

[950483]

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.

Without really thinking?! How ridiculous.
Time for everyone to start thinking I would say. Or do men need to be treated differently due to their lack of cognitive abilities? Should men really be treated as if they are not proper adults or have excuses made for them? Aren't you just infantilizing men and perpetuating the myth that they are all stupid, unable to empathize, and are incapable of self-control?

 

[950483]

I think this thread has demonstrated that the Bill needs to be discussed by the UK parliament. We've discovered that there are areas that can be discussed. It may be that the Bill would be better with some modifications. Most Bills are improved by discussion.

The absurdity seems to be that we have asked someone in the Civil Service to draft a Bill, and we were planning to pass it with zero discussion. A Bill as short as this will probably have been mostly the work of a single person. In effect we have a single MP who decided that legislation was needed, and who (quite rightly) got the process underway by getting the Bill drafted by the Civil Service and presented to parliament. All this is good - but it needs discussion by parliament.

When the Conservatives got in they immediately started passing laws on the sly to undermine our basic human rights. Why focus on the upskirting? News coverage or controversy about it is basically just smokescreen, subterfuge, and part of the circus as far as I can tell. I'm in support of the bill, but taking with one hand and giving something tokenistic with the other doesn't fool me.

 

[950483]

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.

Access to appropriate mental health services within the prison system is a separate issue, and one I think really needs to be addressed. It's common knowledge that the privatization of prisons under the Cons has had a catastrophic affect. We all know Theresa's husband is a very busy man.

 

[ronin001]

( Not a woman )

In America, camera's; and video of people is legal; but not if the person being filmed has an expectation of privacy. so in the street, you can snap someones photo; but not via a hidden camera in their home. Changing areas are no brain-ers.

In New York and New Jersey it is Illegal and a Felony to shoot upskirt photos / videos . Sadly in many states in the US, the laws are still lagging behind and it is still legal, with no punishment for those caught in the act

 

[950483]

( Not a woman )

In America, camera's; and video of people is legal; but not if the person being filmed has an expectation of privacy. so in the street, you can snap someones photo; but not via a hidden camera in their home. Changing areas are no brain-ers.

In New York and New Jersey it is Illegal and a Felony to shoot upskirt photos / videos . Sadly in many states in the US, the laws are still lagging behind and it is still legal, with no punishment for those caught in the act

I saw this the other day:
Q717: I want to take some photos / video footage in public, is it now illegal?

tldr: The police don't want anyone taking photos at an anit-war protest, (no other examples given) because there may be a number of counter terrorism and intelligence officers working in the area. Now why would the terrorists bomb an anti-war protest? Are anti-war protests, consisting you'd think of fairly peaceful people, and those sympathetic to victims of war, really such a threat? It just goes to show who the police are working for, and what their priorities are.

 

[950483]

Well that's my bedtime rant over. Goodnight everyone .

 

[ronin001]

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?
.

YES, including the Pervs who take photos in Male public Bathrooms , locker rooms and department store changing rooms. Once universally illegal the multiple threads on LPSG, would have to be deleted. Causing a great demographic of our membership to have mini mental breakdowns, from the loss of this wank fodder stimuli

Sorry, ladies, I read enough postings, till I got pissed off and posted myself

 

[1209489]

I have an upskirt post on my profile..however, it was my choice to post. When these secret pics are taken of women, there is no choice given. The choice to share our bodies willingly is taken away. I love knowing I turn someone on. I’ve even flashed someone in public. It was my choice to do that. Don’t invade someone else’s privacy without permission to get off. I know some women that would be mortified.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

I have an upskirt post on my profile..however, it was my choice to post. When these secret pics are taken of women, there is no choice given. The choice to share our bodies willingly is taken away. I love knowing I turn someone on. I’ve even flashed someone in public. It was my choice to do that. Don’t invade someone else’s privacy without permission to get off. I know some women that would be mortified.

Exactly. Consent is a *Huge* part of the equation. The only part that actually matters, really.

Well said lady.

 

[1209489]

Exactly. Consent is a *Huge* part of the equation. The only part that actually matters, really.

Well said lady.

Thank You! Just truth

 

[Jason]

Time for everyone to start thinking I would say.

Human beings aren't very good at thinking. They make wrong decisions. Think drug abuse, obesity, gambling, debt - the list is endless. A compassionate society has to work with people who have made bad decisions.

There will be men (and women) who, in a moment, make a bad decision with respect to upskirting. We need a proportionate response. This Bill needs some discussion. It is now going to get that.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

Human beings aren't very good at thinking. They make wrong decisions. Think drug abuse, obesity, gambling, debt - the list is endless. A compassionate society has to work with people who have made bad decisions.

There will be men (and women) who, in a moment, make a bad decision with respect to upskirting. We need a proportionate response. This Bill needs some discussion. It is now going to get that.

Did you miss my post earlier about how upskirting is an Emboldening action? A whole lot of the time, people who do that get away with it. The victim never knows they're even photographed.

It gives the predator insensitive to continue, and potentially escalate their crimes. Fuck that. Throw the goddamn book at them... The few who get caught in the first fucking place, that is. Smh.

 

[MisterB]

Human beings aren't very good at thinking. They make wrong decisions. Think drug abuse, obesity, gambling, debt - the list is endless. A compassionate society has to work with people who have made bad decisions.

Hey POT, meet KETTLE! You are presenting yourself here as the poster child for poor cognitive skills, critical thinking, thinking at all...and you just double down when called out for being so wrong. You ever been to Greece? You know soren?

And just fucking stop with your whataboutism regarding upshorting. That's bullshit. And I'm trying to be compassionate here with my words. Imagine what I'd be typing if I wasn't feeling so compassionate...toward a person whose made a bad decision to continue digging his hole deeper and deeper. But hey, maybe at least you'll get to upskirt a few from that deep hole you're in...

This thread is about upskirting. Women, who are the predominate skirt wearers, have weighed in. They have told you in plain English how this issue affects them. Women. So do us all a favor and STFU about this issue.

You just don't get it. This whole upskirting issue isn't about anything other than one thing: it's an invasion of privacy. An invasion of someone's personal space. And it's wrong. Hugely wrong. inexcusable. Period. You can debate this til the cows come home, but baby, all you seem to be doing is making excuses...for perverts to be perverts. It does beg the question here: WHY IS THAT?

 

[Jason]

The UK parliament is going to debate this Bill in the next few weeks. Maybe the Bill as it stands will be seen as the best possible Bill. Maybe it will be improved. Surely either outcome is good. Are people objecting to a process which leads to the best possible law?

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

Are people objecting to a process which leads to the best possible law?

No. I'm stating my position on the topic.