Upskirting bill blocked

I gather he told one campaigner he was "unsure what upskirting" was - I don't think that shows he knew what it was about

Is it likely that Chope doesn't understand the importance of subjecting an action to a custodial sentence?

In other words, is upskirting dangerous and damaging enough to send someone to prison for doing it rather than, say, confiscating the equipment they used, fining them, and making them do some useful community service? All that certainly needs debating in parliament before a law change.

Have MPs from other parties used the PMB blocking device? I'd be surprised if not.

Baggs I sure I’m not only one who finds your musings meandering and your conclusion dubious, though doubtless you enjoy the intellectual exercise.

But then I’m a ‘if it looks a duck an it quacks’ sort of person who dislikes overthinking simple issues. And this is a simple issue.

If he had not shouted object it would have gone for committee scrutiny. After that would be the report stage before the whole House where full debate would take place and amendments made if necessary then there would be the 3rd reading. The the whole process would be repeated in the Lords. How is that not a full and proper procedure to debate, scrutinise nd amend the bill? Just how? Of course MPs from other parties have called object and often with good reason but nobody else has made a parliamentary career out of it in all the circumstances if this particular pmb he was wrong

I don't think this is the end of the matter as I believe it can be presented again next month. Let's hope those around him can manage to gag him next time.

inews.co.uk/news/politics/upskirting-law-blocked-christopher-chope-what-happens-next/

It’s very unlikely it will be reached on 6 July as it is low down the order in pmbs to be presented. The best hope at the moment is for the government to ‘piggyback’ it onto an existing bill as an amendment. This strategy has been used before as time for an existing bill is already in the parliamentary calendar whereas fitting in a completely new bill would be next to impossible. If CC hadn’t objected, because the Government had given support, it would have made time for it to go through. I don’t think that the order for 6 July can be changed - I don’t know if any of the other MPs with bills on that day would give theirs up - it would be a big ask as only 13 Fridays a year are available and even getting a slot is incredibly difficult as it is based on a ballot. TM must be spitting blood at the time her people will now have to spend trying to find a way out but 6 July doesn’t look likely to be the answer - we shall see.

Then, of course, they have the long recess until September.

Silly bloody man!

I am at a loss to know how the offence is achieved. Is there an upskirting stick like a selfie stick? The whole thing is beyond belief. It's rather depressing really.

Easily done in a secondary school with girls in short skirts going up stairs in front of boys with mobile phones!

Ah - now I see.

The difference between us, oldmeg, is, I suggest, that I'm more interested in the subject at issue than a politician's career. While other people say how terrible a person he is, I'm trying to get my head round the actual issue of whether upskirting needs the kind of legislation that is being proposed for it. I'm not yet convinced that it does, nor that it doesn't so, yes, I'm just thinking round it out loud. Any objections?

I think it's important to do this when everyone else seems to be flying off the handle and, in Twitter terms, causing a social media storm.

?

"flying of the handle" and "Twitter storm" are, of course, figures of speech and should not be taken literally.

Interesting and informative posts, me.

Would it be existing legislation about sexual harassment that it might be tagged onto as an (or several?) amendments?

It would have to have amendments added - perhaps under 'Voyeurism' but even that legislation does not quite fit the would-be crime.

Thanks for your informative posts baggs yes, they really were!
I now see what Chopes objects to.

As the conduct is not covered by the existing criminal law adequately, there’s no way to get perpetrators onto the sex offenders register, or have it come up in criminal records checks.

I suppose you could say there are a lot of laws - in fact probably most laws - that don't "protect" people before the crime has taken place. How do you "protect" an individual from being mugged for instance? How can a law prevent rape before it occurs? Using the same logic, the only way to prevent yourself being mugged is to not go out or to prevent rape is never to be alone with a man.

The prosecution of an act makes it quite clear that such behaviour will not be accepted and, if it is detected and reported, there will be consequences. "Moral" outrage may not have any effect on the perpetrator but the prospect of being given a criminal record would hopefully concentrate the mind a little more. Someone found guilty of upskirting would be unlikely to be imprisoned, unless he was a repeat offender.

If it is suggested that women should not wear "skimpy skirts" - and I'm not sure what the definition of skimpy is - then that sounds like putting the onus on the girl or woman being photographed rather than the man doing the photographing. This seems to me like the same sort of logic that some groups of people use to say that women should be covered up - in order to "protect" them from men.

Some people don't like the idea of laws being introduced specifically to protect women, saying that it is yet another example of treating women as victims. In fact anyone who has been subjected to behaviour which harms them is a victim. That's what the word means and it does not only refer to females. How else is someone who has been the subject of an act which has harmed them to be described?

Rescuing a worthwhile pbm in circumstances like this is unusual but I’m pretty sure that the piggybacking on a current bill to only way to do it relatively quickly. An amendment to existing legislation would take longer as would bringing in a new public bill. Baggs I do think that informed opinion is saying that existing legislation just doesn’t work for upskirting as it seems to fall between the gaps - are there any links to Scottish articles which are critical of the Scottish legislation and which suggests it was unnecessary ? Genuine question - I‘ve no idea

I’ve been looking more into why current legislation isn’t adequate. At the moment upskirting can be prosecuted under ‘outraging public decency’ legislation. For this to be successful the public has to be outraged and therefore the act of upskirting has to be witnessed. Further even when this happens, it is not a sexual offence, the victim cannot have anonymity and the perpetrator will not be placed on the sex offenders register. Using OPD legislation is not to do with harm to the victim but about the public being offended. In addition, it is not illegal to distribute such images. The other way to prosection is through voyeurism legislation but that only covers filming in private. The Scottish legislation makes it a soevific sexual offence so anonymity,SOR comes in . It also makes the distribution of such images illegal.

I saw this today about a young Australian woman who was killed when she was on her way home - nearly there, nearly safe:

E*****e died because of her attacker's decisions – not because of her own.
They're right. And we need to accept that fact, too.
We'll never change a thing until we do.
We'll never change this culture of violence against women. All women.
We'll never change the fact that one woman in this country dies every week at the hands of a partner or former partner – someone they loved, in the safety of their own home.
We'll keep asking "Why didn't she leave him?" instead of asking "Why did he hurt her?"
We'll keep asking "Why was she alone in the dark?" instead of asking "Why was he?"
We'll keep ignoring the real problem, instead of actually fixing it.
So our message to Victorian women is this:
Stay home. Or don't.
Go out with friends at night. Or don't.
Go about your day exactly as you intend, on your terms.
Because women don't need to change their behaviour.
Men do.

That was in response to Eloethan's post btw: then that sounds like putting the onus on the girl or woman being photographed rather than the man doing the photographing.

Great post Jalima1108 and of course, thanks to Eloethan for pointing out that once again, the focus is being turned to children and women who are victimised in this way. Why is it seen as acceptable for boys at school to use their mobile phones to 'upstart' the girls ?

Baggs - I understand the points you're making but, the reality is that we need to change the law so that people can be prosecuted for offences like filming women up their skirts. Particularly offensive is the way some of these men then put their movies on you tube, especially if the woman/girl is menstruating. I haven't read the latest research but it seems highly likely to me that men who behave in this way may well go on to, or are already involved in, other sexually exploitative behaviour towards women. It was once believed that "flashers" were harmless, pathetic men who got their rocks off by flashing and wouldn't escalate to more dangerous forms of sexual behaviour. Why would we believe that men who 'upstart' aren't a threat? Why would we believe that community service is the obvious place to start, rather than some form of challenging work on their behaviour. Oh yes, that'd be because we're demolishing alternatives to custody wouldn't it

inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/dont-wear-skirts-and-nine-other-ways-people-can-protect-themselves-from-crime/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

This is good

This is scary stuff for those of us with lovely daughters and grand-daughters. Thinking back to when we were young, bad things certainly did happen, but perhaps we are now so much more aware of the dangers.