[B0ycey]

Sorry, but if this is the type of MPs the UK is both Knighting and putting forward to represent the Tory party, then it should be no surprise to anyone why UK Politics needs sorting out today. Time to flush out the dead wood and stop giving out honours for cash. Also, clearly we have an issue of chauvinists within the Tories. So perhaps the papers could give Labour a break with their so-called anti semitism. But honestly, no shock really. These type of scum that have infested the Tory party for decades now and seem to have no issue with feeling up waitresses during charity events, so naturally they are also practicing upskirting on their Eton Boys out nights.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427

[Hong Wu]

God bless that man

[B0ycey]

God bless that man

Perhaps we should allow women to pull down your pants and take photos of your tiny dick.

[AFAIK]

He sounds less sexist if you read beyond the headline.

Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statute book by a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting.

And after all this is a bill to create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail.

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.

Indeed, a few minutes before he blocked the upskirting bill, he forced a delay to Seni's Law, which also had strong support from the government.

He also opposed plans to give police dogs and horses extra legal protections from attack.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427

[B0ycey]

He sounds less sexist if you read beyond the headline.

For sure. Now he sounds like a far-right activist who votes down rational laws and protections. Is he so posh he can't research the bill beforehand and needs people to tell him what to believe with a discussion?

[Decky]

Laws are meant to be scrutinised by Parliament B0ycey. When the government pushes things through when they know that nobody will be there democracy suffers (of course it mostly the public's fault for continuing to elect people who don't even bother to show up). Banning MPs from having second jobs might help.

[B0ycey]

Laws are meant to be scrutinised by Parliament B0ycey. When the government pushes things through when they know that nobody will be there democracy suffers (of course it mostly the public's fault for continuing to elect people who don't even bother to show up). Banning MPs from having second jobs might help.

I don't really disagree with you here Decky, but an MP does need to return to their constituents so can't remain at Westminster indefinitely. And as such can't debate every single issue for the same reason. To do so would delay debating important issues that have opposing views among parties - hense why this bill was introduced on a Friday night in an empty chamber.

But in regards with this bill, which has cross party support, what is it that people are expecting to be debated anyway? You cannot debate something unless their is an opposing view? So does Chope oppose this bill or not? If he doesn't, he has just wasted parliaments time. His excuse was he didn't know what he was supporting btw. Farcical. So laziness on his part not to research the bill he prevented from progressing is the real issue here - which is not a very good excuse for a barrister btw. Not that it matters of course. As an MP, he should be the voice of his constituents. Does he believe his voice here over the opposition of this bill would be supported by his consitituents? So he is either a renegade to his constituents or a secret upskirter. My vote is both.

[One Degree]

Most democracies don’t suffer because of unfair laws so much as too many laws create unfairness. Politicians are too eager to pass legislation nonstop, so I support anyone who makes them take time to give it serious consideration as to whether the law is actually needed.

All those inconsequential laws that don’t need debate or publicity are the very ones that enslave you to the rich and powerful. I don’t recall the exact figures right now, but it was something like 80% of all new laws favor business only in the US. Less than 10% favor individuals.

[anasawad]

Upskirting ?

[One Degree]

Upskirting ?

Lol. Okay, I picked a very poor example for my ‘righteous’ tirade.

[Zagadka]

What was that line about freedom from versus freedom to... A lot of issues can boil down to that.

[One Degree]

But do they really need a separate law for that? The courts could simply interpret it as assault.

[Ter]

The way those binge-drinking "girls" are dressed when they go out, there is very little upskirting left to do or to see.

[anasawad]

Just looked what upskirting is.
In my view, as long as no touching happens, it should not be an offense.
Everyone is entitled to view what ever you choose to display to the public eyes, whether you are a man or a woman.
Looking at the pictures shown as example, whom ever took them wasn't even close to the girls. That means its public display.
Its only an offense if someone was to literally walk up to girl and lift her skirt up or put a cam down there or whatever, its not easy to pick the right words on these topics.
But if a pic can be taken from a notable distance then everyone can really see it so where is the crime in that ?

[B0ycey]

Currently, as the law stands @One Degree, it is legal to take a photo under a women's skirt in England and Wales without them knowing. So the law needs changing unless you think that is ok. They can't just charge an offender of another offence - like say assault, because of their feelings on the subject.

[One Degree]

Currently, as the law stands @One Degree, it is legal to take a photo under a women's skirt in England and Wales without them knowing. So the law needs changing unless you think that is ok. They can't just charge an offender of another offence - like say assault, because of their feelings on the subject.

Point taken. Based upon the above comments, I don’t know enough about the existing law. I assumed ‘upskirting’ was like getting close with a camera on your shoe. That being legal would be weird. The devil is on the details.

[Sivad]

Just looked what upskirting is.
In my view, as long as no touching happens, it should not be an offense.
Everyone is entitled to view what ever you choose to display to the public eyes, whether you are a man or a woman.
Looking at the pictures shown as example, whom ever took them wasn't even close to the girls. That means its public display.
Its only an offense if someone was to literally walk up to girl and lift her skirt up or put a cam down there or whatever, its not easy to pick the right words on these topics.
But if a pic can be taken from a notable distance then everyone can really see it so where is the crime in that ?

[MistyTiger]

Just looked what upskirting is.
In my view, as long as no touching happens, it should not be an offense.
Everyone is entitled to view what ever you choose to display to the public eyes, whether you are a man or a woman.
Looking at the pictures shown as example, whom ever took them wasn't even close to the girls. That means its public display.
Its only an offense if someone was to literally walk up to girl and lift her skirt up or put a cam down there or whatever, its not easy to pick the right words on these topics.
But if a pic can be taken from a notable distance then everyone can really see it so where is the crime in that ?

I view it as harassment if the act makes the victim feel uncomfortable. In most cases the incident makes the girl feel uncomfortable. If the pictures are posted publicly but the girl didn't consent to it, then that's wrong and should be an offense.

If I don't have to, I avoid wearing skirts.

[Oxymandias]

Why don't you just let people follow whatever laws they want? #PolycentricLaw

[B0ycey]

Why don't you just let people follow whatever laws they want? #PolycentricLaw

Is this a serious question? Because an offender of a law has chosen not to follow it. So with this logic, you cannot break the law and will infact be living under anarchy regardless how many laws your society has. And this is not Poly Centric by the way. Even that system people can't just follow the laws they want.