Upskirting

[SteveH]

I'd never heard of such a thing before but now that I have, I'm horrified, especially after reading this:-

"There have been a number of convictions recently, including that of Andrew Macrae, who was vice-president of ticketing company Live Nation. He was found to have amassed 50,000 images of strangers for his sexual gratification.

He was caught by an off-duty police officer who noticed a pen-shaped camera in a laptop bag that Macrae had placed between a woman’s legs at Clapham Junction station."

Yeuch!

If there have been a number of convictions, it must already be a crime, so why the new bill?

[Harrowby Hall]

If there have been a number of convictions, it must already be a crime, so why the new bill?

Good point, Steve.

Politicians do like "to send a message" to people about things they consider important. However, this action is frequently a waste of time because it ignores the fact communication is a two-way process: there is no point in transmitting a message if the receiver is switched off.

[Sebastian Toe]

If there have been a number of convictions, it must already be a crime, so why the new bill?

He was convicted for the voyeurism bits from his list of crimes.  The upskirt stuff that he did is not covered by that legislation.

[Rhiannon]

The thing about the voyeurism law is that it only applies in places where 'the victim can expect privacy'. It would apply to a bedroom, bathroom, public changing room, or office, but not necessarily a tube train or a concert.

https://www.localsolicitors.com/criminal-guides/voyeurism-laws-and-offences

As Seb says, MacRae's conviction comes from what he did to women in his home and in the workplace.

And there is also no right to privacy over the images taken by up skirting as the law stands, so they can be shared without penalty.

[Owlswing]

The thing about the voyeurism law is that it only applies in places where 'the victim can expect privacy'. It would apply to a bedroom, bathroom, public changing room, or office, but not necessarily a tube train or a concert.

https://www.localsolicitors.com/criminal-guides/voyeurism-laws-and-offences

As Seb says, MacRae's conviction comes from what he did to women in his home and in the workplace.

And there is also no right to privacy over the images taken by up skirting as the law stands, so they can be shared without penalty.

. . . and, regrettably, frequently are!

[Nearly Sane]

good reply to very silly article in The Spectator


https://thesecretbarrister.com

[Rhiannon]

The delay may actually be a fantastic opportunity.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/21/call-for-upskirting-bill-to-include-deepfake-pornography-ban

[SteveH]

I dislike all Tories, and I especially dislike the elderly, male, Bufton-Tufton types like Chope, but on reflection I think he has a valid point. He says he doesn't object to the principle of the bill, but thinks all bills should be subject to proper debate. I think he's right: some thoroughly bad bills have become law (not this one necessarily) on a wave of popular sentiment. The Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme ("Sarah's Law"), which allows parents and guardians to find out if people on the sex offender's register are near them, is, arguably, a case in point: it encourages vigilante actions, and drives paedophiles underground, at least arguably: I don't know whether that has happened in practice. I distrust any law popularly known as "[Name]'s Law".

[Nearly Sane]

Except his argument and indeed his behaviour on such things doesn't make much sense here. First of all in conjunction with the odious Philip Davies, Chope filibusters in the second reading debates which is surely reducing the debate that he actually wants. Second the bills are not passed at this stage, they have to go through committee when amendments can be made, and then come back to the House at which time the govt can give more time to adequately debate the bill, and then onto the HoL. In the end the question is not so much about debate but about scrutiny.

It may well be that there isn't time to debate some bills, but that's true across the board, and Sarah's Law, iirc, wasn't a Private Members Bill. Further Chope doesn't oppose all PMB's, which if it was a principle, you would expect him to.