So how does our democracy work exactly - A bill with all party support and I am certain a large majority of support amongst the general public is blocked because 1 MP objected https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427 I think I found an MP who makes my MP ( Hunt) look like a decent bloke Tory MP Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch Dorset) is the objector He seems a really nasty piece of work Voted against Minimum wage Voted against equal Marriage Objected to MP's debating Hillsboro (obviously he supports Brexit) and now blocks an upskirting Bill But I still dont understand how 1 MP can block a bill with universal support, But the whole of Parliament cant interfere in Brexit
The offence is a blatant violation of a woman's right to privacy. The MP concerned, should be ashamed of himself in my opinion.
He supposedly spoke for 4 hours in order to block this. Not sure what reason anyone could possibly have for wanting to block this.
I've been upskirted twice (to my knowledge). Once I managed to get a bouncer to make the guy delete the picture and kick him out and once I and other women around me gave the guy's head and shoulders a good kicking as he was laid on the floor of the club behind me taking either pictures or a video of the women in the vicinity. The Walkabout in Barnsley used to be a terrible place for it as the toilets are upstairs and men used to line up underneath them with their phone in the gaps taking pictures as women walked up the stairs. I would never use them if I was wearing a skirt or a dress. There's some right idiots on Twitter tweeting about the Bill, either saying that women should take responsibility for their attire or that taking pictures of family and friends at the beach or at a pool should now be illegal as there is no difference in underwear and swimwear. I did make the point to them that I'd be happy for my dad, brother or male friend to take a photo of me on holiday but if they started taking sneaky pictures up my dress or skirt I'd be calling the police, family/friends or not, that's bloody creepy.
I read somewhere, that it’s not the actual making illegal he objects to, but the sex offenders list part of it. There has apparently been some concern that ‘stupid’ kids at school/college could be added to it. Whilst upskirting is clearly wrong. A kid on the sex offenders list because of it is worrying. His/Her job prospects after that are minimal. Tricky one.
Is all you needed to say. If anyone cant tell the difference between taking a photo of friends on the beach to taking one up a skirt they need sectioning
If they are aware that that is the law though then they are making their own choices. I don't know what the specific law and consequences are around being a Peeping Tom but this is basically the same offence.
It was able to be blocked, as it wasn’t a debated proposal. That’s always been the case. If it had been debated, it couldn’t be blocked by an alone person. It’s likely it will still go ahead, but only after it has been scheduled for debate.
Uh oh, better get those pictures deleted quick! The cynic in me says that it's because men can fall victim to it in kilts in Scotland that the law has already been passed there.
Being on the sex offenders list is about as bad as it can get for employment opportunities. It just concerns me that a daft kid, egged on by his mates could do it and be added to it automatically. If it was his 2nd or 3rd time, then fair enough. I think that’s why it needs a bit more discussion. But don’t get me wrong, I totally agree it should be illegal and punishable.
I just don't see any upside(no pun intended!) for anyone, man or woman, to even consider blocking the bill unless he/she is worried that they will incriminate themselves by agreeing to it. As Farnham said, lets get a forensic IT detective round to his place and sweep his hard drives and phones...
He didn’t have to speak other than to say object which automatically defeats the proposal. In all honesty our parliamentary system is archaic and needs to be made for for the 21st century a switch to PR and an elected 2nd chamber would be a start.
I'd hope that the bill would have provisions in place for such events and the police/judges/magistrates allowed to use common sense when dealing with and sentencing.
Same here. I don’t fully know the ins and outs about it. I just read online that some folk are mainly concerned about this part of it. Which does make sense to me. There should be some kind of provisions in it you’d hope. I don’t think anyone particularly objects to the overall thing though. I think it will still go through, but it means it has to be debated in Parliament properly now.