Upskirting bill blocked

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?

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.

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

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

Interesting and informative posts, me.

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

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

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.

?

Ah - now I see.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

I think people are equating making something illegal with stopping it happening
It will not stop it happening, but making it illegal with penalties in line with other sexual offences should act as a deterrent.

Is the importance attached to this PMB in proportion to the number of MPs in the House that day?
There appeared to be very few.

He's a barrister alreadytaken - of course he knew what it was about. I would also accept his right to object to 'flabby' PMB but he should ascertain the importance of any subject before objecting.

How we exercise our ‘rights’ is often the measure of us. Just because we can doesn’t make it acceptable that we automatically should . His constituency association have told LBC they have no comment btw

I would accept Chope's right to object to "flabby" legislation if he had put forward - in Parliament at the time - a rational argument for doing so. He didnt. He has subsequently claimed that he doesnt even know what the bill was about, You have to wonder if he had even read it.

I think people are equating making something illegal with stopping it happening. If that were true then people would definitely be protected from upskirting if it is made illegal (already is in Scotland) and police dogs would definitely be protected from attack.

Also, murder would not happen. Neither would rape or robbery. You get the idea?

Real life evidence shows that making something illegal does not stop it happening. That is the point I am making over the use of the "protection from" idea, regardless of the parliamentary antics of right- or left-leaning or centre-ground MPs.

My argument is not that upskirting and attacking police dogs should not be made illegal and I don't think Chope's is either even though, like most people, I think his method of blocking changes in the law on upskirting is, to put it mildly, annoying and frustrating to the people who want to change the law.

Actually I think attacking police dogs is already illegal. The problem, as I understand it, is that it comes under damage to property legislation rather than Actual Bodily Harm legislation which carries heavier penalties.

It is heavier penalties that the proposed law change is about. If people want to believe that that is equal to greater protection for potential victims, then so be it. I just don't agree that it is or will be. As I've already said, that is a separate issue from the morality of the behaviours in question. Of course sexual harassment and attacking police dogs should have adequate legal consequences. The question is how to go about it. Chope seems to think that PMBs are not the right way. One doesn't have to agree with him or to like his approach to politics to accept that it is, and quite rightly, a 'legal' point of view that he has a right to express.

Good post Iam - that’s it in a nutshell.
I wonder how long we’ll have to wait for that Maryeliza.

I haven’t yet seen a statement from his constituency association.