Up-skirting | Vital Football

Up-skirting

valenciagill

valenciagill

Vital Football Hero
This is unacceptable and ( soon to be ) illegal.
It's pretty clear that this is an example of laws not keeping up to date with modern technology , smart phones and cameras.

( a bit like 'no reporting of a court case' , only to turn it viral ! )

One Tory MP seems to have stopped the cogs running.
It's a big story tonight/tomorrow , and people are furious.

Why aren't the furious speaking up about the thousands of girls who have been raped ?

Why won't the media talk about these things ?

Why are we so desperate for a Govt Inquiry over Grenfell , yet told to ' Not look back in anger ' when it's Manchester ?
 
valenciagill said:
Why are we so desperate for a Govt Inquiry over Grenfell , yet told to ' Not look back in anger ' when it's Manchester ?
Click to expand...


The root cause of Grenfell will be a combination of things but things that are within our powers to prevent e.g. tighten building regulations, tighten fire safety regulations for high rise etc. etc. Its all fixable by government policy, fire safety and construction industry practices.

The root cause of terrorist attacks are far more complex and other than trying to prevent them through intelligence gathering and stopping individuals just prior to the act its not really possible to do more.

You can't really fight an ideology and sadly there are plenty of people who have developed such a hatred for the Western world that they are prepared to conduct atrocities in the name of their ideology.

The first step would be peace in the middle east so that we can stop interfering (once we lessen our societies reliance on Oil this might actually happen - the interference part) . Concurrent with that is education from within the Muslim community their leaders (local and national) need to step up and educate their impressionable youth before the radicals do.

Point I am making is that we can prevent another Grenfell. We can't prevent another terrorist attack. All we can do is limit their frequency.
 
Upskirting is already a legal offence but the guilty party would be charged under public decency or voyeurism laws. The tory who objected has history of objecting to any law that isn't debated by parliament first so objected on general principles and not because of approval of Upskirting.

As per people not complaining about rape then #metoo??
 
valenciagill said:
Why aren't the furious speaking up about the thousands of girls who have been raped ?

QUOTE]
Click to expand...
valenciagill said:
Why aren't the furious speaking up about the thousands of girls who have been raped ?
Click to expand...

Because it is working class girls that are abused by the Pakistani gangs. It doesn't affect middle class instagrammers/bloggers, but upskirting might.

Are you doing your own posts or copy/pasting from someone else's?
 
As someone else has already said, upskirting is already illegal - surely you didn’t think that this was to make it illegal? This legislation was to make upskirting its own offence rather than a generalised one, making easier for prosecution.

I was interested to hear the Tory MP’s reasoning for his actions. Thanks Baghdad.
 
I think that if it was already an offence, the government must have put a blanket ban on any reporting of it.
 
Hardy31 said:
I think that if it was already an offence, the government must have put a blanket ban on any reporting of it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be a 'blanket' ban.
That's generalising , surely ?
In these days of diversity , it could be a burka , nijab or anything.
 
The mp (who has a legal background) objected as he has a problem with bill amendments being agreed on the nod without debate as seemingly small changes can sometimes have an unintended impact on the rest of the existing bill. He has done this to over 150 other bills and has nothing against this particular motion, he is supporting it being put forward properly in normal process.

Interesting that the media etc had to make reference to his previous voting habits (against same sex marriage etc) which had nothing to do with this issue of process.
Whether we agree with him or not this is a democracy and unless advocating intentional harm to somebody then this is all about freedom of speech and the parliamentary process.

What will happen if somebody raises the issue of banning the covering of the face. Not because of racism but because we have fought for a long time against the oppression of women. Can you imagine in the seventies that we would have agreed that a religeon or men should be allowed to tell woman that they need to cover their face. Same as the issue of female genital mutilation, thousands of girls being cut and only one arrest so far.
 
Christopher Chope has been made to be the villain - and unfairly so, in my opinion.

It is only right the legislation is properly scrutinised to ensure that sloppy law is not added to the statute book. This is especially true when the offence in question carries a custodial sentence.

Unfortunately for him, he is being used as a means for cheap political points scoring.

Christopher Chope is no villian. Rather, he is a champion of democracy.
 
Trashbat said:
Christopher Chope has been made to be the villain - and unfairly so, in my opinion.

It is only right the legislation is properly scrutinised to ensure that sloppy law is not added to the statute book. This is especially true when the offence in question carries a custodial sentence.

Unfortunately for him, he is being used as a means for cheap political points scoring.

Christopher Chope is no villian. Rather, he is a champion of democracy.
Click to expand...


All takes up parliamentary time though which might be better spent dealing with complex post brexit issues. There are some cases when actually common sense says - lets all agree and fast track that bit of legislation through with minimal time spent on it. I think this and the Turing pardon one are good examples of where minimal parlimentary time was required, especially as it is claimed that he actually supports what is being proposed.
 
markinkent said:
All takes up parliamentary time though which might be better spent dealing with complex post brexit issues. There are some cases when actually common sense says - lets all agree and fast track that bit of legislation through with minimal time spent on it. I think this and the Turing pardon one are good examples of where minimal parlimentary time was required, especially as it is claimed that he actually supports what is being proposed.
Click to expand...

For an offence that carries a custodial sentence, it is outrageous that this can be added to the statute book without proper parliamentary discussion.

Whilst I am sure that no sane, reasonable person would object to the spirit of the upskirting law change, it simply isn’t right that something as serious as this is added to the statute book without being properly discussed and refined.
 
What needs to be discussed ? Should it be a criminal offence to use a camera to attempt to take a photograph or video of someones bits without their permission.

It will be interesting to see what changes following the discussion and debate.

Time that could have been spent on other more complex issues in my view.
 
markinkent said:
What needs to be discussed ? Should it be a criminal offence to use a camera to attempt to take a photograph or video of someones bits without their permission.

It will be interesting to see what changes following the discussion and debate.

Time that could have been spent on other more complex issues in my view.
Click to expand...
Next time they may look at fast-tracking something in which you and the public will think differently.
 
This has also been the case with the act to bring all EU law into english law in one single Bill and then change what our parliament doesn't like at leisure.
Many MPs opposed it and the public were told that the Traitors were trying to hold up or stop BREXIT.
Reality was that one of the clauses (Henry VIII act) gives government ministers the right to change many of these laws without having to go through parliamentry law making processes.
This was a law (obviously from Henrty VIII) where the Monarch could pass any law without the consent of Parliament and that authority had by default been passed to goverment ministers of the day.
 
Apparently this subject hs been an offence in Scotland for a long time. Although, in Scotland it is classified as 'Up-Kilting'.

Sounds like a load of old bollocks!
 
There appears to be a misunderstanding about "Henry VIII" laws

>>one of the clauses (Henry VIII act) gives government ministers the right to change many of these laws without having to go through parliamentry law making processes. <<

Almost every Act of Parliament gives the relevant Minister the right to make Regulations. i.e. details such as time, weight, amount, age, distance, material or whatever.
[ so at the risk of a Brexit detour ....the cut and paste of EU laws into UK law should be little different from most Acts other than quantity ]

Regulations appear via Statutory Instruments.
Few S.I.s get much scrutiny - which is why problems sometimes arise (e.g. cladding on Grenfell Tower)

But many if not most MPs claim that full scrutiny of every S.I. would gum up the works.
(..... or maybe most can't be bothered with the detail, preferring to grandstand.)

Private Members' Bills get less scrutiny than a Govt Bill ....
.... so maybe Chris Chope has a point about getting laws right first time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.