Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surely it’s a gross invasion of privacy?" Totaly agree, she had the guys phone off him and showed the Police. The simply asked the guy to just delete the image  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not been in that position thankfully ! But why the helm is it not an offence !!!! The making of a potential sex offender !!! Rapist even ...... get their kicks and when they little fantasy lessens they’ll want more !!! Dirty bastards x "I thought to myself the pervs that did'nt know it was a offence will now be all out doing it. Knowing there will be nothing done about it. Fair play to that girl who took the phone off the guy. Good on her. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Going to resurrect this thread as it is very much in the news again today. I am going to take a contrary view and ask the following questions.... Is a picture of a man in tight jeans offensive if his cock and balls are clearly bulging? What about a woman in Lycra, tight leggings that displays what is commonly (and crudely) known as a camel toe? Why is an upskirt photo wrong if the above are acceptable? " Because both of your examples are clearly "on show", so there is no invasion of privacy. Anything concealed by another article of clothing, such as a skirt, is clearly not intended to be viewed and by default, private. If women wanted their knickers to be on show all the time they would wear skirts would they? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Going to resurrect this thread as it is very much in the news again today. I am going to take a contrary view and ask the following questions.... Is a picture of a man in tight jeans offensive if his cock and balls are clearly bulging? What about a woman in Lycra, tight leggings that displays what is commonly (and crudely) known as a camel toe? Why is an upskirt photo wrong if the above are acceptable? Because both of your examples are clearly "on show", so there is no invasion of privacy. Anything concealed by another article of clothing, such as a skirt, is clearly not intended to be viewed and by default, private. If women wanted their knickers to be on show all the time they would wear skirts would they? " *wouldn't | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Going to resurrect this thread as it is very much in the news again today. I am going to take a contrary view and ask the following questions.... Is a picture of a man in tight jeans offensive if his cock and balls are clearly bulging? What about a woman in Lycra, tight leggings that displays what is commonly (and crudely) known as a camel toe? Why is an upskirt photo wrong if the above are acceptable? " Because it's quite clearly all about consent. If I decide to wear tight clothing that emphasizes certain parts of my body, it's my choice to do so. It's extremely unlikely that a woman will consent to a random bloke taking a pic up her skirt. Obviously, if the bloke politely asked to take a photo and the woman agreed there would be no problem. Good luck with that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm disgusted that it isn't an offence. I'm guilty of not wearing underwear (not so much a kinky thing as that I just don't like the feel of it!) And so they would be capturing a full of porn image. Then they would be catching my fist in their face followed my Adams I imagine. Absolutely vile. Eve. X" Ok but just to be devils advocate. Do you think it acceptable to walk around with no underwear and wearing clothes that would accidentally or otherwise expose your genitals? If people could take a picture then that means they can also see. Are you not acting recklessly? If a pervy guy can see your genitals, so could a child. That is also pretty vile isn’t it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Going to resurrect this thread as it is very much in the news again today. I am going to take a contrary view and ask the following questions.... Is a picture of a man in tight jeans offensive if his cock and balls are clearly bulging? What about a woman in Lycra, tight leggings that displays what is commonly (and crudely) known as a camel toe? Why is an upskirt photo wrong if the above are acceptable? Because it's quite clearly all about consent. If I decide to wear tight clothing that emphasizes certain parts of my body, it's my choice to do so. It's extremely unlikely that a woman will consent to a random bloke taking a pic up her skirt. Obviously, if the bloke politely asked to take a photo and the woman agreed there would be no problem. Good luck with that. " Who in their right mind is going to consent to a stranger taking a picture of a bulging penis in tight jeans or a camel toe in tight leggings? That is entirely the point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm disgusted that it isn't an offence. I'm guilty of not wearing underwear (not so much a kinky thing as that I just don't like the feel of it!) And so they would be capturing a full of porn image. Then they would be catching my fist in their face followed my Adams I imagine. Absolutely vile. Eve. X Ok but just to be devils advocate. Do you think it acceptable to walk around with no underwear and wearing clothes that would accidentally or otherwise expose your genitals? If people could take a picture then that means they can also see. Are you not acting recklessly? If a pervy guy can see your genitals, so could a child. That is also pretty vile isn’t it?" Sorry, and know you were playing devils advocate, but I really can't get past reading that as a "she asked for it dressing like that" argument being put forward in a sexual assault case!! Someone choosing not to wear underwear who does not deliberately or otherwise expose themselves, and takes all reasonable precautions to prevent accidental exposure is not acting recklessly or vile or doing anything other than their God given right not to wear underwear!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Going to resurrect this thread as it is very much in the news again today. I am going to take a contrary view and ask the following questions.... Is a picture of a man in tight jeans offensive if his cock and balls are clearly bulging? What about a woman in Lycra, tight leggings that displays what is commonly (and crudely) known as a camel toe? Why is an upskirt photo wrong if the above are acceptable? Because it's quite clearly all about consent. If I decide to wear tight clothing that emphasizes certain parts of my body, it's my choice to do so. It's extremely unlikely that a woman will consent to a random bloke taking a pic up her skirt. Obviously, if the bloke politely asked to take a photo and the woman agreed there would be no problem. Good luck with that. Who in their right mind is going to consent to a stranger taking a picture of a bulging penis in tight jeans or a camel toe in tight leggings? That is entirely the point." That's my point, the person taking the photo knows the woman wouldn't consent to it and that she would be upset by it. That's why he does it secretly and why it should be illegal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people could take a picture then that means they can also see." Bollocks. Even wearing no underwear with a fairly short skirt, you have to be in a specific position to see anything; a position that really only a camera can get. Do you often have other people’s children running between your legs or looking up your skirt? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people could take a picture then that means they can also see. Bollocks. Even wearing no underwear with a fairly short skirt, you have to be in a specific position to see anything; a position that really only a camera can get. Do you often have other people’s children running between your legs or looking up your skirt?" Never underestimate the ability of some people to argue the unarguable | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm disgusted that it isn't an offence. I'm guilty of not wearing underwear (not so much a kinky thing as that I just don't like the feel of it!) And so they would be capturing a full of porn image. Then they would be catching my fist in their face followed my Adams I imagine. Absolutely vile. Eve. X Ok but just to be devils advocate. Do you think it acceptable to walk around with no underwear and wearing clothes that would accidentally or otherwise expose your genitals? If people could take a picture then that means they can also see. Are you not acting recklessly? If a pervy guy can see your genitals, so could a child. That is also pretty vile isn’t it?" Are you serious?! I have children and I can assure you that they have never seen any part of that couldn't be seen in a bathing suit. I don't flash my genitals around! Unless somebody deliberately stuck their head between my legs before I could move, nobody is seeing anything! Unbelievable. Eve. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm disgusted that it isn't an offence. I'm guilty of not wearing underwear (not so much a kinky thing as that I just don't like the feel of it!) And so they would be capturing a full of porn image. Then they would be catching my fist in their face followed my Adams I imagine. Absolutely vile. Eve. X Ok but just to be devils advocate. Do you think it acceptable to walk around with no underwear and wearing clothes that would accidentally or otherwise expose your genitals? If people could take a picture then that means they can also see. Are you not acting recklessly? If a pervy guy can see your genitals, so could a child. That is also pretty vile isn’t it? Sorry, and know you were playing devils advocate, but I really can't get past reading that as a "she asked for it dressing like that" argument being put forward in a sexual assault case!! Someone choosing not to wear underwear who does not deliberately or otherwise expose themselves, and takes all reasonable precautions to prevent accidental exposure is not acting recklessly or vile or doing anything other than their God given right not to wear underwear!!" Thank you!! 
Eve. X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people could take a picture then that means they can also see. Bollocks. Even wearing no underwear with a fairly short skirt, you have to be in a specific position to see anything; a position that really only a camera can get. Do you often have other people’s children running between your legs or looking up your skirt?" I have never had a child run between my legs. My own or otherwise. Silly argument really. Eve. X | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm disgusted that it isn't an offence. I'm guilty of not wearing underwear (not so much a kinky thing as that I just don't like the feel of it!) And so they would be capturing a full of porn image. Then they would be catching my fist in their face followed my Adams I imagine. Absolutely vile. Eve. X Ok but just to be devils advocate. Do you think it acceptable to walk around with no underwear and wearing clothes that would accidentally or otherwise expose your genitals? If people could take a picture then that means they can also see. Are you not acting recklessly? If a pervy guy can see your genitals, so could a child. That is also pretty vile isn’t it?" Do you actually know what up skirting is? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How can it not be an offence? The police have this laws but don't know the what they actually are for " Actually there is no law governing it when it's in a public place and that was the problem the Police had in the case that has seen the push for the law change that is going through that I posted a link to earlier. Because it is in public it's not currently considered an invasion of privacy - if it were to happen in your home it would - which is crazy I know but these laws were made long before the age of mobile phones with cameras. Either way the law change is being pushed through and will likely come into effect in the not too distant future | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How can it not be an offence? The police have this laws but don't know the what they actually are for " Here we go. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’d like to see this applied to Scottish men wearing kilts too. Apparently its funny, especially for groups of d*unken women, to lift up kilts saying “Ooh are you a true Scotsman”. I don’t see why this is seen as funny when it’s done to a man it’s wrong when it’s done to a woman. " Normal people don’t see it as funny, it’s a gross invasion of privacy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’d like to see this applied to Scottish men wearing kilts too. Apparently its funny, especially for groups of d*unken women, to lift up kilts saying “Ooh are you a true Scotsman”. I don’t see why this is seen as funny when it’s done to a man it’s wrong when it’s done to a woman. " WHATABOUTERY!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bill to change the law to make upskirting an offence is currently working it's way through parliament and there's a further hearing in mid-June More info about the case here: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/upskirting-victim-working-with-ministry-of-justice-on-law-reform-after-securing-theresa-mays-backing-a3836866.html" A law for this a law for that  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’d like to see this applied to Scottish men wearing kilts too. Apparently its funny, especially for groups of d*unken women, to lift up kilts saying “Ooh are you a true Scotsman”. I don’t see why this is seen as funny when it’s done to a man it’s wrong when it’s done to a woman. WHATABOUTERY!!!" And also based on a false premise. . The loads of upskirting. Where men are the victims, which I am sure goes on, will be equally illegal. Lifting up a man's kilt without his consent is also illegal in the same way as lifting a women's skirt is. If said men don't consent to this they should complain to the police. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Going to resurrect this thread as it is very much in the news again today. I am going to take a contrary view and ask the following questions.... Is a picture of a man in tight jeans offensive if his cock and balls are clearly bulging? What about a woman in Lycra, tight leggings that displays what is commonly (and crudely) known as a camel toe? Why is an upskirt photo wrong if the above are acceptable? " Because you are not going out of your way to see them, were as a man climbing under the desk or holding a camera phone as to get a shot | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm disgusted that it isn't an offence. I'm guilty of not wearing underwear (not so much a kinky thing as that I just don't like the feel of it!) And so they would be capturing a full of porn image. Then they would be catching my fist in their face followed my Adams I imagine. Absolutely vile. Eve. X Ok but just to be devils advocate. Do you think it acceptable to walk around with no underwear and wearing clothes that would accidentally or otherwise expose your genitals? If people could take a picture then that means they can also see. Are you not acting recklessly? If a pervy guy can see your genitals, so could a child. That is also pretty vile isn’t it? Do you actually know what up skirting is? " The woman in Hyde Park was lying on her back with her knees raised (at least that is what I read at the time). The guy snapped a pic of her knickers - they could be seen. If she had not been wearing knickers, her genitals would have been visible. I get it that some people contort to get up skirts, but in this case he didn’t and there would be no difference in law contorting or just taking a pic of what is on display. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Going to resurrect this thread as it is very much in the news again today. I am going to take a contrary view and ask the following questions.... Is a picture of a man in tight jeans offensive if his cock and balls are clearly bulging? What about a woman in Lycra, tight leggings that displays what is commonly (and crudely) known as a camel toe? Why is an upskirt photo wrong if the above are acceptable? Because you are not going out of your way to see them, were as a man climbing under the desk or holding a camera phone as to get a shot " That was not the case in this incident. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm disgusted that it isn't an offence. I'm guilty of not wearing underwear (not so much a kinky thing as that I just don't like the feel of it!) And so they would be capturing a full of porn image. Then they would be catching my fist in their face followed my Adams I imagine. Absolutely vile. Eve. X Ok but just to be devils advocate. Do you think it acceptable to walk around with no underwear and wearing clothes that would accidentally or otherwise expose your genitals? If people could take a picture then that means they can also see. Are you not acting recklessly? If a pervy guy can see your genitals, so could a child. That is also pretty vile isn’t it? Do you actually know what up skirting is? The woman in Hyde Park was lying on her back with her knees raised (at least that is what I read at the time). The guy snapped a pic of her knickers - they could be seen. If she had not been wearing knickers, her genitals would have been visible. I get it that some people contort to get up skirts, but in this case he didn’t and there would be no difference in law contorting or just taking a pic of what is on display." Are you seriously suggesting there is nothing wrong with someone secretly taking pics of a woman's genitals /underwear without her consent? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm disgusted that it isn't an offence. I'm guilty of not wearing underwear (not so much a kinky thing as that I just don't like the feel of it!) And so they would be capturing a full of porn image. Then they would be catching my fist in their face followed my Adams I imagine. Absolutely vile. Eve. X Ok but just to be devils advocate. Do you think it acceptable to walk around with no underwear and wearing clothes that would accidentally or otherwise expose your genitals? If people could take a picture then that means they can also see. Are you not acting recklessly? If a pervy guy can see your genitals, so could a child. That is also pretty vile isn’t it? Do you actually know what up skirting is? The woman in Hyde Park was lying on her back with her knees raised (at least that is what I read at the time). The guy snapped a pic of her knickers - they could be seen. If she had not been wearing knickers, her genitals would have been visible. I get it that some people contort to get up skirts, but in this case he didn’t and there would be no difference in law contorting or just taking a pic of what is on display. Are you seriously suggesting there is nothing wrong with someone secretly taking pics of a woman's genitals /underwear without her consent? " I am simply stating that I am wondering where the line is going to be drawn. I get it completely that aggressive voyeurism should be illegal and that involves contortionist actions to get an upskirt shot of a pair of knickers. Where will this lead though? Women in swimsuits and bikini’s, men in tight trousers/jeans, women displaying a so called camel toe? No one would consent to a stranger walking up and taking an intimate picture of someone in those circumstances. I am only wondering out loud as to what the unintended consequences might be of something that was meant in good faith but then gets corrupted to the point of being ridiculous by others. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm disgusted that it isn't an offence. I'm guilty of not wearing underwear (not so much a kinky thing as that I just don't like the feel of it!) And so they would be capturing a full of porn image. Then they would be catching my fist in their face followed my Adams I imagine. Absolutely vile. Eve. X Ok but just to be devils advocate. Do you think it acceptable to walk around with no underwear and wearing clothes that would accidentally or otherwise expose your genitals? If people could take a picture then that means they can also see. Are you not acting recklessly? If a pervy guy can see your genitals, so could a child. That is also pretty vile isn’t it? Do you actually know what up skirting is? The woman in Hyde Park was lying on her back with her knees raised (at least that is what I read at the time). The guy snapped a pic of her knickers - they could be seen. If she had not been wearing knickers, her genitals would have been visible. I get it that some people contort to get up skirts, but in this case he didn’t and there would be no difference in law contorting or just taking a pic of what is on display." This is very rarely the case though is it! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm disgusted that it isn't an offence. I'm guilty of not wearing underwear (not so much a kinky thing as that I just don't like the feel of it!) And so they would be capturing a full of porn image. Then they would be catching my fist in their face followed my Adams I imagine. Absolutely vile. Eve. X Ok but just to be devils advocate. Do you think it acceptable to walk around with no underwear and wearing clothes that would accidentally or otherwise expose your genitals? If people could take a picture then that means they can also see. Are you not acting recklessly? If a pervy guy can see your genitals, so could a child. That is also pretty vile isn’t it? Do you actually know what up skirting is? The woman in Hyde Park was lying on her back with her knees raised (at least that is what I read at the time). The guy snapped a pic of her knickers - they could be seen. If she had not been wearing knickers, her genitals would have been visible. I get it that some people contort to get up skirts, but in this case he didn’t and there would be no difference in law contorting or just taking a pic of what is on display." Even if she were sat like that (all the reports I have read were that she was stood in the crowd with people pressed against her when it happened) it doesn't matter how the woman was posed though - am sure she wasn't deliberately displaying her underwear otherwise why bring this case? The fact is these guys took pictures of her without her consent as some kind of pathetic cheap thrill either for personal use or even worse to later post on a site that caters to this kind of voyeurism and that is wrong no question - just as it would be to deliberately take a picture in any of the other circumstances you describe. There's a world of difference between snapping a pic on the beach that happens to capture someone in a swimsuit in the background and deliberately taking a picture of that person for cheap titillation. One of the reason the bill to change the law has been delayed is to ensure absolute clarity around what constitutes and offence and what is an inadvertent capturing of an image while taking a picture of something else so I am sure once it comes into force there will no room for doubt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm disgusted that it isn't an offence. I'm guilty of not wearing underwear (not so much a kinky thing as that I just don't like the feel of it!) And so they would be capturing a full of porn image. Then they would be catching my fist in their face followed my Adams I imagine. Absolutely vile. Eve. X Ok but just to be devils advocate. Do you think it acceptable to walk around with no underwear and wearing clothes that would accidentally or otherwise expose your genitals? If people could take a picture then that means they can also see. Are you not acting recklessly? If a pervy guy can see your genitals, so could a child. That is also pretty vile isn’t it? Do you actually know what up skirting is? The woman in Hyde Park was lying on her back with her knees raised (at least that is what I read at the time). The guy snapped a pic of her knickers - they could be seen. If she had not been wearing knickers, her genitals would have been visible. I get it that some people contort to get up skirts, but in this case he didn’t and there would be no difference in law contorting or just taking a pic of what is on display. Even if she were sat like that (all the reports I have read were that she was stood in the crowd with people pressed against her when it happened) it doesn't matter how the woman was posed though - am sure she wasn't deliberately displaying her underwear otherwise why bring this case? The fact is these guys took pictures of her without her consent as some kind of pathetic cheap thrill either for personal use or even worse to later post on a site that caters to this kind of voyeurism and that is wrong no question - just as it would be to deliberately take a picture in any of the other circumstances you describe. There's a world of difference between snapping a pic on the beach that happens to capture someone in a swimsuit in the background and deliberately taking a picture of that person for cheap titillation. One of the reason the bill to change the law has been delayed is to ensure absolute clarity around what constitutes and offence and what is an inadvertent capturing of an image while taking a picture of something else so I am sure once it comes into force there will no room for doubt." There's quite a few laws where the courts have to make a decision as to whether something is "sexual" and where it's the sexual aspect that makes it an offence. It seems to me the offence will be phrased something like "deliberately photographing, without consent, and for the purpose of sexual gratification, a part of a persons anatomy or clothing which a reasonable person would consider to be private". Thus, getting someone in a bikini in the background on the beach wouldn't be caught as it wouldn't be deliberate and wouldn't be for sexual gratification. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"My favourite hobby "We wont be hearing from you for 2 years then, get a grip | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My favourite hobby
We wont be hearing from you for 2 years then, get a grip "Sense of humour. Get a grip yourself | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My favourite hobby
We wont be hearing from you for 2 years then, get a grip
Sense of humour. Get a grip yourself "It will still get you 2 years and a criminal record. Stop acting like a dick. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"You didn’t notice then?" & please stop pm’ing, being a stalker & a dick is even more unbecoming. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
have a great day xxx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Upskirting is already a specific offence in Scotland. The UK Government today announced plans to make it a specific offence in England and Wales, too, punishable by up to two years in jail. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-acts-to-make-upskirting-a-specific-offence" Maybe, but everybody wears skirts up there...  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Instead of saying ‘it is just a bit of fun or a laugh’, how about supporting the fact that this is now an offence. Making fun of it belittles the impact it has on people outside of swinging. Just because we swing does not mean we don’t have strong morals and ethics. " Yes, it is terrible. Don’t forget to take your heart medicine  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Instead of saying ‘it is just a bit of fun or a laugh’, how about supporting the fact that this is now an offence. Making fun of it belittles the impact it has on people outside of swinging. Just because we swing does not mean we don’t have strong morals and ethics. " I’ll have to buy a new covert camera | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"& guys wonder why they get ignored. " Wouldn’t look at you twice love. Well except up your skirt | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’d like to see this applied to Scottish men wearing kilts too. Apparently its funny, especially for groups of d*unken women, to lift up kilts saying “Ooh are you a true Scotsman”. I don’t see why this is seen as funny when it’s done to a man it’s wrong when it’s done to a woman. " It should be equally applied to both genders. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’d like to see this applied to Scottish men wearing kilts too. Apparently its funny, especially for groups of d*unken women, to lift up kilts saying “Ooh are you a true Scotsman”. I don’t see why this is seen as funny when it’s done to a man it’s wrong when it’s done to a woman. It should be equally applied to both genders. " I’m Wearing a kilt tonight | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’d like to see this applied to Scottish men wearing kilts too. Apparently its funny, especially for groups of d*unken women, to lift up kilts saying “Ooh are you a true Scotsman”. I don’t see why this is seen as funny when it’s done to a man it’s wrong when it’s done to a woman. It should be equally applied to both genders. " Are you running for your local council seat? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"& guys wonder why they get ignored. Wouldn’t look at you twice love. Well except up your skirt "I wouldn’t want you to, if you did look up my skirt i’d rip your balls off anyway - just saying | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"& guys wonder why they get ignored. Wouldn’t look at you twice love. Well except up your skirt
I wouldn’t want you to, if you did look up my skirt i’d rip your balls off anyway - just saying "That’s a criminal offence too | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"& guys wonder why they get ignored. Wouldn’t look at you twice love. Well except up your skirt
I wouldn’t want you to, if you did look up my skirt i’d rip your balls off anyway - just saying "That’s the spirit. Anyway due to all the roids my balls have gone now. like I said it’s hard not to look with your ass in the air. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"& guys wonder why they get ignored. Wouldn’t look at you twice love. Well except up your skirt
I wouldn’t want you to, if you did look up my skirt i’d rip your balls off anyway - just saying
That’s the spirit. Anyway due to all the roids my balls have gone now. like I said it’s hard not to look with your ass in the air. "Why don’t you two get a room? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"& guys wonder why they get ignored. Wouldn’t look at you twice love. Well except up your skirt
I wouldn’t want you to, if you did look up my skirt i’d rip your balls off anyway - just saying
That’s the spirit. Anyway due to all the roids my balls have gone now. like I said it’s hard not to look with your ass in the air.
Why don’t you two get a room? "Only if you upskirt welsh knickers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"& guys wonder why they get ignored. Wouldn’t look at you twice love. Well except up your skirt
I wouldn’t want you to, if you did look up my skirt i’d rip your balls off anyway - just saying
That’s the spirit. Anyway due to all the roids my balls have gone now. like I said it’s hard not to look with your ass in the air.
Why don’t you two get a room? "Lack of interest on our part | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"& guys wonder why they get ignored. Wouldn’t look at you twice love. Well except up your skirt
I wouldn’t want you to, if you did look up my skirt i’d rip your balls off anyway - just saying
That’s the spirit. Anyway due to all the roids my balls have gone now. like I said it’s hard not to look with your ass in the air.
Why don’t you two get a room?
Lack of interest on our part "You are a 4 and he’s a 7 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"& guys wonder why they get ignored. Wouldn’t look at you twice love. Well except up your skirt
I wouldn’t want you to, if you did look up my skirt i’d rip your balls off anyway - just saying
That’s the spirit. Anyway due to all the roids my balls have gone now. like I said it’s hard not to look with your ass in the air.
Why don’t you two get a room?
Lack of interest on our part
You are a 4 and he’s a 7 "Makes you an 8 then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surely it’s a gross invasion of privacy? Totaly agree, she had the guys phone off him and showed the Police. The simply asked the guy to just delete the image "This is something similar that happened to my son he was only 3 at the time and a group of people were standing taking pics of him I caught them and ovs kicked off a police officer was walking past and asked the problem and all they done was told them to delete them absolutely disgusting | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Upskirting law blocked. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427" I'd be interested in hearing on what grounds he objected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Upskirting law blocked. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427 I'd be interested in hearing on what grounds he objected. " I just read that he objects to anything that hasn't been debated, so it doesn't get hurried through; especially as it could mean a prison sentence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Upskirting law blocked. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427 I'd be interested in hearing on what grounds he objected. " Me too. I can't think of any myself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Upskirting law blocked. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427 I'd be interested in hearing on what grounds he objected. Me too. I can't think of any myself. " See above | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Upskirting law blocked. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427 I'd be interested in hearing on what grounds he objected. I just read that he objects to anything that hasn't been debated, so it doesn't get hurried through; especially as it could mean a prison sentence. " Oh right. That's interesting. I'm kind of in agreement | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Upskirting law blocked. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427 I'd be interested in hearing on what grounds he objected. I just read that he objects to anything that hasn't been debated, so it doesn't get hurried through; especially as it could mean a prison sentence. Oh right. That's interesting. I'm kind of in agreement " So am I. If it's worth doing, do it right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wouldn't give a shit if someone did this to me (when wearing a kilt, for example)." Good for you don't report it if it happens to you yhen | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An excerpt from the BBC story said: So, however worthy the cause, he insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that." also voted against equal marriage, minimum wage, equal pay transparency, Turing's pardon. Proposed Animal Welfare Law to stop people who attack police dogs and horses from claiming self-defence, A private landlord, he opposed a bill to halt revenge evictions. And in 2007/08 he claimed £136,992 expenses including £881 to fix a sofa. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"An excerpt from the BBC story said: So, however worthy the cause, he insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that. also voted against equal marriage, minimum wage, equal pay transparency, Turing's pardon. Proposed Animal Welfare Law to stop people who attack police dogs and horses from claiming self-defence, A private landlord, he opposed a bill to halt revenge evictions. And in 2007/08 he claimed £136,992 expenses including £881 to fix a sofa. " Yes the more I read about him the more I wonder about his actual motive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Upskirting law blocked. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427 I'd be interested in hearing on what grounds he objected. I just read that he objects to anything that hasn't been debated, so it doesn't get hurried through; especially as it could mean a prison sentence. Oh right. That's interesting. I'm kind of in agreement So am I. If it's worth doing, do it right." Agreed, a new specific law is not the solution, it can actually become an obstacle to justice. What needs doing is the police need to be told it's a sexual assault and deal with it as such. Half arse bills should not be smuggled through as laws. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Upskirting law blocked. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427 I'd be interested in hearing on what grounds he objected. I just read that he objects to anything that hasn't been debated, so it doesn't get hurried through; especially as it could mean a prison sentence. Oh right. That's interesting. I'm kind of in agreement So am I. If it's worth doing, do it right. Agreed, a new specific law is not the solution, it can actually become an obstacle to justice. What needs doing is the police need to be told it's a sexual assault and deal with it as such. Half arse bills should not be smuggled through as laws." The problem is its not sexual assault. Sexual assault involves touching that is sexual. It doesn't cover taking a photograph. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Upskirting law blocked. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427 I'd be interested in hearing on what grounds he objected. I just read that he objects to anything that hasn't been debated, so it doesn't get hurried through; especially as it could mean a prison sentence. Oh right. That's interesting. I'm kind of in agreement So am I. If it's worth doing, do it right. " but that is the case with all private members bills so thats not an excuse and he specifically picked out this one.... "Agreed, a new specific law is not the solution, it can actually become an obstacle to justice. What needs doing is the police need to be told it's a sexual assault and deal with it as such. Half arse bills should not be smuggled through as laws." the reason it would need to be specific is that it can't come under sexual assault as that definition at the moment involves "touching" of some sort.... there is nothing contenious in the bill itself which is why the govt supported it... and it was just the arse and philip davies who opposed it.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would suggest the problem is not as simple as first imagined. Obviously where someone uses a phone etc between a woman’s legs (as shown on the TV news when mentioning upskirting that is a flagrant breach but what about a distant picture where a woman is sitting down and the photo includes between the woman’s legs due to her having her legs apart. On often sees such types of shots in studio shots of interviews etc., would that be included in any upskirting law. The law would have to be drawn up in such a way that intentional acts were stopped whilst the true accidental glimpses were excluded. " As with virtually all crimes, it would only be committed if intent was there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Upskirting law blocked. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427 I'd be interested in hearing on what grounds he objected. I just read that he objects to anything that hasn't been debated, so it doesn't get hurried through; especially as it could mean a prison sentence. Oh right. That's interesting. I'm kind of in agreement So am I. If it's worth doing, do it right. Agreed, a new specific law is not the solution, it can actually become an obstacle to justice. What needs doing is the police need to be told it's a sexual assault and deal with it as such. Half arse bills should not be smuggled through as laws. The problem is its not sexual assault. Sexual assault involves touching that is sexual. It doesn't cover taking a photograph. " Looking through a window deliberately "peeping tom" to catch a woman naked or having sex, is sexual assault, so touching is not required. It is far better to expand an existing and tested law than rush in a new and specific one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looking through a window deliberately "peeping tom" to catch a woman naked or having sex, is sexual assault, so touching is not required. It is far better to expand an existing and tested law than rush in a new and specific one." I’m sorry, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. That is not a sexual assault. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Upskirting law blocked. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427 I'd be interested in hearing on what grounds he objected. I just read that he objects to anything that hasn't been debated, so it doesn't get hurried through; especially as it could mean a prison sentence. Oh right. That's interesting. I'm kind of in agreement So am I. If it's worth doing, do it right. Agreed, a new specific law is not the solution, it can actually become an obstacle to justice. What needs doing is the police need to be told it's a sexual assault and deal with it as such. Half arse bills should not be smuggled through as laws. The problem is its not sexual assault. Sexual assault involves touching that is sexual. It doesn't cover taking a photograph. Looking through a window deliberately "peeping tom" to catch a woman naked or having sex, is sexual assault, so touching is not required. It is far better to expand an existing and tested law than rush in a new and specific one." No, it's not. It's voyeurism. You clearly have no idea how the law works. You cannot just "expand" the law. If the law doesn't cover something the only way you can solve that is via an Act of Parliament. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The law would have to be drawn up in such a way that intentional acts were stopped whilst the true accidental glimpses were excluded. " All crimes (as in the incident, not the statute) require an actus reus (an external act) and a mens rea (guilty intent). Regardless of how a law is written, without a mens rea, you don’t have a crime. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The law would have to be drawn up in such a way that intentional acts were stopped whilst the true accidental glimpses were excluded. All crimes (as in the incident, not the statute) require an actus reus (an external act) and a mens rea (guilty intent). Regardless of how a law is written, without a mens rea, you don’t have a crime." The pedant in me has to say that, whilst that's true of most crimes, some are strict liability and no mens rea is required. The classic example is run ape of a girl under 13. If you have sex with someone under 13 it's automatically r ape as there is a legal presumption that she is incapable of consenting. . The fact that she may have said she was over thirteen and that the perpetrator believed her is irrelevant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looking through a window deliberately "peeping tom" to catch a woman naked or having sex, is sexual assault, so touching is not required. It is far better to expand an existing and tested law than rush in a new and specific one. I’m sorry, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. That is not a sexual assault." My apologies, that was Californian law, however the UK voyeurism law would cover using devices to obtain sexual images. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Looking through a window deliberately "peeping tom" to catch a woman naked or having sex, is sexual assault, so touching is not required. It is far better to expand an existing and tested law than rush in a new and specific one. I’m sorry, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. That is not a sexual assault. My apologies, that was Californian law, however the UK voyeurism law would cover using devices to obtain sexual images. " It doesn't. It requires the observation or recording of a private act. The problem with upskirting is that the victim is not carrying out a private act. She is usually going about her business in public. Sexual offences act 2003. S67 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The pedant in me has to say that, whilst that's true of most crimes, some are strict liability and no mens rea is required. The classic example is run ape of a girl under 13. If you have sex with someone under 13 it's automatically r ape as there is a legal presumption that she is incapable of consenting. . The fact that she may have said she was over thirteen and that the perpetrator believed her is irrelevant. " I’ll concede the strict liability point, although the pedant in ME would point out that this person would be charged with a discrete offence (S5 SOA 03 in England, S18 SO(S)A 09 in Scotland) and note ‘rape’ (S1 of both acts). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Certainly should be an offence. The MP that objected in the House of Commons today must be deluded." He doesn’t necessarily think it shouldn’t be an offence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The pedant in me has to say that, whilst that's true of most crimes, some are strict liability and no mens rea is required. The classic example is run ape of a girl under 13. If you have sex with someone under 13 it's automatically r ape as there is a legal presumption that she is incapable of consenting. . The fact that she may have said she was over thirteen and that the perpetrator believed her is irrelevant. I’ll concede the strict liability point, although the pedant in ME would point out that this person would be charged with a discrete offence (S5 SOA 03 in England, S18 SO(S)A 09 in Scotland) and note ‘rape’ (S1 of both acts)." Yes. The offence would be s5, but the offence is complete once sex takes place with someone under thirteen. The mental state of the perpetrator as to the age of the victim is irrelevant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The pedant in me has to say that, whilst that's true of most crimes, some are strict liability and no mens rea is required. The classic example is run ape of a girl under 13. If you have sex with someone under 13 it's automatically r ape as there is a legal presumption that she is incapable of consenting. . The fact that she may have said she was over thirteen and that the perpetrator believed her is irrelevant. I’ll concede the strict liability point, although the pedant in ME would point out that this person would be charged with a discrete offence (S5 SOA 03 in England, S18 SO(S)A 09 in Scotland) and note ‘rape’ (S1 of both acts)." the point is that "upskirting" is a specific criminal offence in scotland..... but it is not in england and wales..... this bill would have rectified that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes. The offence would be s5, but the offence is complete once sex takes place with someone under thirteen. The mental state of the perpetrator as to the age of the victim is irrelevant. " You saw the bit where I said, “I’ll concede the strict liability point,” yeah? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the point is that "upskirting" is a specific criminal offence in scotland..... but it is not in england and wales..... this bill would have rectified that" We both know that. We’re having a tangential sub-discussion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some obscure Tory MP used some obscure tactic to block this becoming law. Why?" I think there is an easy answer to this. Can you guess what his favourite hobby is? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Some obscure Tory MP used some obscure tactic to block this becoming law. Why? I think there is an easy answer to this. Can you guess what his favourite hobby is?" It’s still beggars belief that he would choose that setting to be seen in such a light by people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A friend was recently showing me some pictures taken at his wedding. I noticed a woman sat next to his wife sat in an unfortunate position, you could clearly see her stocking tops and knickers. When I comented on this my mate said she was a right slapper and about half the pictures of this women at any event were pretty much the same. " What's her username? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The law would have to be drawn up in such a way that intentional acts were stopped whilst the true accidental glimpses were excluded. " the law has been drawn up, that is what was being put through. I’m not a lawyer so couldn’t say if it’s well drawn up. I do have some sympathy with the view anything which could lead to two years jail time and being put on the register is worthy of debate and due process. I’m glad to see May is going to bring it to debate. I hope we get to the right answer in the right way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A friend was recently showing me some pictures taken at his wedding. I noticed a woman sat next to his wife sat in an unfortunate position, you could clearly see her stocking tops and knickers. When I comented on this my mate said she was a right slapper and about half the pictures of this women at any event were pretty much the same. " Why does he think this makes her a "right slapper"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"i did wonder - it does make him look like he is sympathetic to perverts." That was my first thought, then read some more about him. He has 40 odd private bills of his own to put through the house, along with his fellow MP Peter Bone. When they do come up, I'm sure there will be a few MPs who will object to them. If I was his constituent he'd have lost my vote on this issue alone. Regardless if he is a good constituency MP. Other MPs from his own party is not best pleased with him either. Does he not have daughters, neices out granddaughters? I'm so enraged by this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yeah, apparently he "wanted it debating properly". What is there to debate? Just let it go through with a near empty parliament and be done with it" the nuances of the wording I would imagine. What body parts should be included ? Is it okay for me to snap someone getting out a cab Sunday sport style, as long as I get the angle right so I’m not “beneath” Is it possible do this for a joke without the joke being humiliation of the other person ? What counts as underwear ? Can I upskirt a saring on the beach if it’s a bikini underneath ? Maybe debate is the wrong word for many. Discussed. Agreed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yeah, apparently he "wanted it debating properly". What is there to debate? Just let it go through with a near empty parliament and be done with it" I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination but I want a robust and effective law put in place. If debate is required to achieve this I'm all for it. If the mp concerned is just doing it to be obstructive then I'm not all for it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination but I want a robust and effective law put in place. If debate is required to achieve this I'm all for it." In this case I think there it is required .... "If the mp concerned is just doing it to be obstructive then I'm not all for it." ... even if the way it has got here may be for the *wrong* reasons. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yeah, apparently he "wanted it debating properly". What is there to debate? Just let it go through with a near empty parliament and be done with itthe nuances of the wording I would imagine. What body parts should be included ? Is it okay for me to snap someone getting out a cab Sunday sport style, as long as I get the angle right so I’m not “beneath” Is it possible do this for a joke without the joke being humiliation of the other person ? What counts as underwear ? Can I upskirt a saring on the beach if it’s a bikini underneath ? Maybe debate is the wrong word for many. Discussed. Agreed. " I suspect the law will be worded to make it an offence to deliberately take photographs or videos of a person's underwear, buttocks or genitals when the person does not consent and where a reasonable person would know they were not consenting. It won't matter the angle at which you take the photograph. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yeah, apparently he "wanted it debating properly". What is there to debate? Just let it go through with a near empty parliament and be done with itthe nuances of the wording I would imagine. What body parts should be included ? Is it okay for me to snap someone getting out a cab Sunday sport style, as long as I get the angle right so I’m not “beneath” Is it possible do this for a joke without the joke being humiliation of the other person ? What counts as underwear ? Can I upskirt a saring on the beach if it’s a bikini underneath ? Maybe debate is the wrong word for many. Discussed. Agreed. I suspect the law will be worded to make it an offence to deliberately take photographs or videos of a person's underwear, buttocks or genitals when the person does not consent and where a reasonable person would know they were not consenting. It won't matter the angle at which you take the photograph. " The law is written (it’s what’s being voted on) It says beneath. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A friend was recently showing me some pictures taken at his wedding. I noticed a woman sat next to his wife sat in an unfortunate position, you could clearly see her stocking tops and knickers. When I comented on this my mate said she was a right slapper and about half the pictures of this women at any event were pretty much the same. Why does he think this makes her a "right slapper"?" well could be a lack of modesty on her behalf. she knows it happens as my mates wife and her other friends have mentioned it to her plenty of times and she still does it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yeah, apparently he "wanted it debating properly". What is there to debate? Just let it go through with a near empty parliament and be done with it I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination but I want a robust and effective law put in place. If debate is required to achieve this I'm all for it. If the mp concerned is just doing it to be obstructive then I'm not all for it." I don't think much of a debate is required. If there is a law against upskirting in Scotland and there hasn't been any high court (or the equivalent) cases against the wording of that law, then why can't England and Wales use it as a template? The MP concerned maybe concerned about future legislation being discussed, and that's fair enough. However, I think he should've let this one go through. Sometimes the process of technology works faster than the process of legislation. I think this is the perfect example. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Certainly should be an offence. The MP that objected in the House of Commons today must be deluded." Or making sure there are no loopholes or grey areas. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yeah, apparently he "wanted it debating properly". What is there to debate? Just let it go through with a near empty parliament and be done with it I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination but I want a robust and effective law put in place. If debate is required to achieve this I'm all for it. If the mp concerned is just doing it to be obstructive then I'm not all for it. I don't think much of a debate is required. If there is a law against upskirting in Scotland and there hasn't been any high court (or the equivalent) cases against the wording of that law, then why can't England and Wales use it as a template? The MP concerned maybe concerned about future legislation being discussed, and that's fair enough. However, I think he should've let this one go through. Sometimes the process of technology works faster than the process of legislation. I think this is the perfect example. " I do think law should be subject to review. We have no idea on the wording and how it would be applicable. Let's say your at a wedding and snap a shot of people sat at tables, put that on Facebook without realising in the background a lady has been caught unawares. You share it on your social media, are you now liable? Are news camera men and women going to be liable for live broadcasts of crowds sat at Wimbledon or people sat on news sofas. To me it's for this purpose that the house of Lords should exist. The commons should be able to quickly approve a bill with provision for scrutiny in the Lords or some form of committee. Then when it has been properly scrutinised it can be sent back for a rubber stamp approval. I think we can all agree the spirit of the law is fine, but it's the wording that makes how far it can be used in future important for anyone brought to court. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A friend was recently showing me some pictures taken at his wedding. I noticed a woman sat next to his wife sat in an unfortunate position, you could clearly see her stocking tops and knickers. When I comented on this my mate said she was a right slapper and about half the pictures of this women at any event were pretty much the same. Why does he think this makes her a "right slapper"? well could be a lack of modesty on her behalf. she knows it happens as my mates wife and her other friends have mentioned it to her plenty of times and she still does it" I've seen plenty of posts in praise of such lack of modesty. Your friend would have a heart attack if he joined fab and saw how lacking in modesty some of us are  .
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yeah, apparently he "wanted it debating properly". What is there to debate? Just let it go through with a near empty parliament and be done with it I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination but I want a robust and effective law put in place. If debate is required to achieve this I'm all for it. If the mp concerned is just doing it to be obstructive then I'm not all for it. I don't think much of a debate is required. If there is a law against upskirting in Scotland and there hasn't been any high court (or the equivalent) cases against the wording of that law, then why can't England and Wales use it as a template? The MP concerned maybe concerned about future legislation being discussed, and that's fair enough. However, I think he should've let this one go through. Sometimes the process of technology works faster than the process of legislation. I think this is the perfect example. I do think law should be subject to review. We have no idea on the wording and how it would be applicable. Let's say your at a wedding and snap a shot of people sat at tables, put that on Facebook without realising in the background a lady has been caught unawares. You share it on your social media, are you now liable? Are news camera men and women going to be liable for live broadcasts of crowds sat at Wimbledon or people sat on news sofas. To me it's for this purpose that the house of Lords should exist. The commons should be able to quickly approve a bill with provision for scrutiny in the Lords or some form of committee. Then when it has been properly scrutinised it can be sent back for a rubber stamp approval. I think we can all agree the spirit of the law is fine, but it's the wording that makes how far it can be used in future important for anyone brought to court. " The government is clear that it will only be a crime if the photo is taken for the purpose of sexual gratification or to cause humiliation, harassment or distress. Hence if someone accidentally takes an "upskirting" picture, it won't be an offence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A friend was recently showing me some pictures taken at his wedding. I noticed a woman sat next to his wife sat in an unfortunate position, you could clearly see her stocking tops and knickers. When I comented on this my mate said she was a right slapper and about half the pictures of this women at any event were pretty much the same. Why does he think this makes her a "right slapper"?" Because the person describin her is a misogynistic idiot perhaps? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I initially thought Chope was principled in this and that the ensuring the legislation was well drafted was an admirable stance. But then I saw his voting history. And then I read that the MP who supposedly opposes private members bills on principle has himself sponsored many. The more I read, the more he seems a nasty fucker ad the less I believe the stance being peddled as to why he did this " One of his own party colleagues called him a "knuckle dragging backbencher" in a tweet | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I initially thought Chope was principled in this and that the ensuring the legislation was well drafted was an admirable stance. But then I saw his voting history. And then I read that the MP who supposedly opposes private members bills on principle has himself sponsored many. The more I read, the more he seems a nasty fucker ad the less I believe the stance being peddled as to why he did this " It’s not that he objects to private members bills, it’s just that he objects to them being passed without scrutiny. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I initially thought Chope was principled in this and that the ensuring the legislation was well drafted was an admirable stance. But then I saw his voting history. And then I read that the MP who supposedly opposes private members bills on principle has himself sponsored many. The more I read, the more he seems a nasty fucker ad the less I believe the stance being peddled as to why he did this It’s not that he objects to private members bills, it’s just that he objects to them being passed without scrutiny." So why has he sponsored so many himself? Why dies he think his can go through without scrutiny? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So why has he sponsored so many himself? Why dies he think his can go through without scrutiny?" My understanding is that he doesn’t. It’s just part of the process that all private members’ bills go through. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I initially thought Chope was principled in this and that the ensuring the legislation was well drafted was an admirable stance. But then I saw his voting history. And then I read that the MP who supposedly opposes private members bills on principle has himself sponsored many. The more I read, the more he seems a nasty fucker ad the less I believe the stance being peddled as to why he did this It’s not that he objects to private members bills, it’s just that he objects to them being passed without scrutiny." Nah, he's a prick. He's voted against gay marriage twice, and against every single equal gay rights bill. He also fillerbustered the bill putting an end to landlord revenge evictions, the bill to give more legal protections from attacks, the use of wild animals in circuses, and also (and worst in my eyes) he tried to talk out the posthumous pardon of Alan Turing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I initially thought Chope was principled in this and that the ensuring the legislation was well drafted was an admirable stance. But then I saw his voting history. And then I read that the MP who supposedly opposes private members bills on principle has himself sponsored many. The more I read, the more he seems a nasty fucker ad the less I believe the stance being peddled as to why he did this It’s not that he objects to private members bills, it’s just that he objects to them being passed without scrutiny. Nah, he's a prick. He's voted against gay marriage twice, and against every single equal gay rights bill. He also fillerbustered the bill putting an end to landlord revenge evictions, the bill to give more legal protections from attacks, the use of wild animals in circuses, and also (and worst in my eyes) he tried to talk out the posthumous pardon of Alan Turing" It's not the subject of the bills he objects to its the parliamentary process. How many of the bills he objected to at first have since been passed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I initially thought Chope was principled in this and that the ensuring the legislation was well drafted was an admirable stance. But then I saw his voting history. And then I read that the MP who supposedly opposes private members bills on principle has himself sponsored many. The more I read, the more he seems a nasty fucker ad the less I believe the stance being peddled as to why he did this " Yes. I believe he also objected to Finns law the same day | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A friend was recently showing me some pictures taken at his wedding. I noticed a woman sat next to his wife sat in an unfortunate position, you could clearly see her stocking tops and knickers. When I comented on this my mate said she was a right slapper and about half the pictures of this women at any event were pretty much the same. Why does he think this makes her a "right slapper"? well could be a lack of modesty on her behalf. she knows it happens as my mates wife and her other friends have mentioned it to her plenty of times and she still does it" Perhaps she's on here. If it was a man constantly flashing his y-fronts it would be different. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From what I have read, if the incident of the objection didn't happen, there was going to be a second hearing of the bill and also it was going to be scrutinized to make sure it is in working order when it goes into practice. Also, accidental shots would not count, but I presume you might have to prove it was accidental, depending on the image. So, the objection wouldn't have mattered that much anyway, because if there was no objection, the bill would not be passed and stamped there and then, it would just go to the next stage" Thanks for the info, I'm not 100% on parliamentary process. If further scrutiny would have occurred anyway then I agree there was no need to object at this stage if it could be stopped at a later stage if it was deemed to be a badly drafted piece of legislation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We all know someone like Chope. Bugger the content it’s the “principal”. He’s objected to a mix of things over the years and gives 0 fucks. He’s the parliamentary equivalent of the health and safety bore. " I think he feels like it's his job . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"From what I have read, if the incident of the objection didn't happen, there was going to be a second hearing of the bill and also it was going to be scrutinized to make sure it is in working order when it goes into practice. Also, accidental shots would not count, but I presume you might have to prove it was accidental, depending on the image. So, the objection wouldn't have mattered that much anyway, because if there was no objection, the bill would not be passed and stamped there and then, it would just go to the next stage Thanks for the info, I'm not 100% on parliamentary process. If further scrutiny would have occurred anyway then I agree there was no need to object at this stage if it could be stopped at a later stage if it was deemed to be a badly drafted piece of legislation. " Without knowing what happens at the next stage I don't know if he did the right thing or not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At first I thought he was a knob. Then I thought maybe he was making sure it got debated and introduced properly so people don't get sent to jail for an innocent mistake. Then I thought maybe he really is a knob. Then I thought I don't care about him anymore as it's got people talking about it and that can only be a good thing. " As long as it gets approved in the end and there are no get outs or grey areas. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At first I thought he was a knob. Then I thought maybe he was making sure it got debated and introduced properly so people don't get sent to jail for an innocent mistake. Then I thought maybe he really is a knob. Then I thought I don't care about him anymore as it's got people talking about it and that can only be a good thing. As long as it gets approved in the end and there are no get outs or grey areas. " Agree.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At first I thought he was a knob. Then I thought maybe he was making sure it got debated and introduced properly so people don't get sent to jail for an innocent mistake. Then I thought maybe he really is a knob. Then I thought I don't care about him anymore as it's got people talking about it and that can only be a good thing. " I assure you, he is a knob, and a homophobic one at that. Who the hell votes no to overturning the horrible homosexuality conviction on one of our nation's greatest heroes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Watched this too... Im horrified that its not an offence. She spoke of children being victim to this at school too. The law in Scotland was changed 10 years ago, why have we not followed suit? What a gross invasion of privacy, and so bloody easy for anyone to do with mobiles having cameras." Is that because in Scotland men wear skirts too? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"At first I thought he was a knob. Then I thought maybe he was making sure it got debated and introduced properly so people don't get sent to jail for an innocent mistake. Then I thought maybe he really is a knob. Then I thought I don't care about him anymore as it's got people talking about it and that can only be a good thing. I assure you, he is a knob, and a homophobic one at that. Who the hell votes no to overturning the horrible homosexuality conviction on one of our nation's greatest heroes?" Hmm now I'm not sure of the particular issue you are talking about. But I do have issues with retrospective law or changing laws years after. Whose to say in years to come that all these parents posting on Facebook are not flouting future laws around children's rights that have not been written. Judging past people based on hindsight and current understanding of ethics and morality, seems a bit like madness. If the person is dead then justice and convictions are irrelevant. History will be the key judge of people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see the point on it being covered by existing laws." It isn’t. Not in England. So I’m not sure what ‘point’ you see. . "I thought it has just been made an offence? Sure I saw on news the other morning. It’s been an offence in Scotland, and now being phased out across rest of uk" It’s all detailed in the thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see the point on it being covered by existing laws. It isn’t. Not in England. So I’m not sure what ‘point’ you see. . I thought it has just been made an offence? Sure I saw on news the other morning. It’s been an offence in Scotland, and now being phased out across rest of uk It’s all detailed in the thread." Previous existing laws can be used for upskirting. I believe outraging public decency it the one that was often used by police to cover it. So previously you could be arrested and charged because the act of upskirting could be seen as breaking current laws. But a more focused law innthis I believe is the right direction. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Previous existing laws can be used for upskirting. I believe outraging public decency it the one that was often used by police to cover it. So previously you could be arrested and charged because the act of upskirting could be seen as breaking current laws. But a more focused law innthis I believe is the right direction." Interesting. Somebody ought to tell the Police, who pointed out in several cases that no charges could be brought. Somebody also ought to tell the people who researched it, found that it wasn’t covered by existing laws, and campaigned for its introduction. Somebody also needs to tell the courts that they can use a law which has a definition which does not match the act in question. We’ll cite some guy on a forum as the source. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Previous existing laws can be used for upskirting. I believe outraging public decency it the one that was often used by police to cover it. So previously you could be arrested and charged because the act of upskirting could be seen as breaking current laws. But a more focused law innthis I believe is the right direction. Interesting. Somebody ought to tell the Police, who pointed out in several cases that no charges could be brought. Somebody also ought to tell the people who researched it, found that it wasn’t covered by existing laws, and campaigned for its introduction. Somebody also needs to tell the courts that they can use a law which has a definition which does not match the act in question. We’ll cite some guy on a forum as the source." Well that is why a specific offence is a good move. In the past a lot was relient on the legal understanding of the police, how they interpreted/utililise the those laws and other criteria being met in relation to the act of upskirting to secure a conviction. So previous laws weren't nessaserally very effective. But still the act had the possibility under previous laws to potentially get people prosecuted. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well that is why a specific offence is a good move. In the past a lot was relient on the legal understanding of the police, how they interpreted/utililise the those laws and other criteria being met in relation to the act of upskirting to secure a conviction. So previous laws weren't nessaserally very effective. But still the act had the possibility under previous laws to potentially get people prosecuted." I’ll tell our lawmakers that they have your approval to write a law which isn’t covered by current legislation. Yes, if someone also outrages public decency, they will be charged with outraging public decency. The act of taking an upskirt photograph does not outrage public decency. Please, just stop. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They recently had a vote in parliment about it and a politician blocked it. So in the eyes of the law, it is not a sexual offense" It should be | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They recently had a vote in parliment about it and a politician blocked it. So in the eyes of the law, it is not a sexual offense It should be" It should be. But sadly it isnt | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They recently had a vote in parliment about it and a politician blocked it. So in the eyes of the law, it is not a sexual offense It should be It should be. But sadly it isnt" Hopefully it will be soon. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
