Demand for yet another new Law ...

[Dutto]

... when we already have a law that covers the offence!

Just had to watch (SWMBO was interested) the BBC News "Victoria Derbyshire" show where a variety of ladies and talking-heads were demanding an "Upskirt Law",

SWMBO explained that an "Upskirt Law" was to punish people who take photographs up a ladies skirt and I have never heard such twaddle as followed in the programme where they all demanded "a new law"!

There was one bit of sanity when someone described a situation where a man on a tube caught another man taking a photograph up a ladies skirt and an "argument" ensued.

"Argument"? I can think of nothing more likely to cause a major Breach of the Peace than me catching a bloke taking a photograph up the skirts of any of my relatives and friends; or even strangers!

So, we already have a Common Law in the UK that will cover this practice of taking photographs up a ladies skirt. It is called a Breach of the Peace which is defined as:

"The behaviour of the person involved caused the police officer (or private citizen) to believe that:

1. A breach of the peace had or would occur; and that
2. It related to harm which was actually done or likely to be done to a person or, in his/her presence, their property."

The truth is, that (apart from being stupid to even do it) whoever takes these photographs is a sick puppy who is more in need of help than punishment so the punishments for BoP are spot-on for the crime as follows:

"Since breach of the peace is not a criminal offence, it is not punishable either by a fine or imprisonment and proceedings for breach of the peace do not give rise to a conviction.

Magistrates, however, can bind someone over to keep the peace. This means the offender has to agree to keep the peace for a set amount of time. Any breach of the bind-over can result in a financial penalty or even jail.

A failure to agree to keep the peace may of itself lead to a person being committed to custody under the Magistrates Court Act 1980."

"Do it again and we will fine you, keep doing it and you may go to prison." sounds reasonable to me.

Surely it would be easier and cheaper for the police and other authorities in this country to tell people what the current law is, explain the punishment and then apply it; rather than keep introducing all these new laws that are then not enforced.

PS

This was a "hot topic" in Scotland last year, probably because the men have been known to wear skirts and no-one knows what they wear underneath!

 

[Thumper]

I dont think there's anything wrong with wanting to make this a specific criminal offence. I find it mind boggling that it isn't already.

 

[Bigcol49]

This was a "hot topic" in Scotland last year, probably because the men have been known to wear skirts and no-one knows what they wear underneath!

Hi!
Reminds me of the Spike Milligan (I think) joke:
Today a family living under a Scotsman's kilt were evicted for rent arrears. The father said, "Thank goodness, I couldn't have gone on much longer with that hanging above us."

 

[BarnBrian]

Dutto
Was there any mention of taking photos up men's trouser legs. I bet Gunge has his followers trying to catch him unawares.

• :laugh2:

 

[Bigcol49]

Was there any mention of taking photos up men's trouser legs. I bet Gunge has his followers trying to catch him unawares.

Telephoto lens?

 

[Dutto]

There are some things that are worth classing as "criminal" and some stupid prick attempting to take a photograph up someones skirt isn't "criminal" it's just "stupid"!

Making every anti-social act "criminal" is a step nearer to the "Police State" that we are so proud of not having in the UK.

When looking at the difference I take a look back at my Mum and Granny and think "What would they have done it they'd caught me?"

I have no doubt whatsoever that had I committed a "criminal" act I would have been marched down to see the local Policeman and handed over for punishment.

Whenever they caught me doing something stupid the punishment was administered there and then within the home and with dire warnings of what would happen if they ever caught me doing the same thing again.

A good example of "stupid" was when I persuaded a cousin to jump off the toilet roof on the basis that maybe he could fly like one of "Rory's Eagles". John wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and he broke both his ankles when he landed.

Nowadays, John would probably be on TV demanding a new law that prevented cousins from persuading other cousins to do dangerous things! As it was, I got hammered for my involvement and it was explained to John how attempting to fly was "stupid".

I won't go into the details of how it turned out when I persuaded John to place his hand on a dartboard so that I could throw the six darts "either side of his hand and between his fingers"! Suffice to say that it only took one dart to persuade John that his actions were "stupid" and after the hammering, mine were described as being not only "stupid" but "ambitious to say the least"!

Happy Days (for me)!

 

[Dutto]

Here's a link to Scotland's Sunday Herald.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...y_campaigns_to_change_sexual_harassment_laws/

In this case a Policeman didn't apply an existing law so the lady concerned is demanding that it be made a criminal offence under the Sexual Offences Act of 2003.

Why would anyone think that the Police will enact a new law when they already don't enact existing laws?

 

[BarnBrian]

Telephoto lens?

From what I've heard, it would have to be a macro lens!!!

 

[Saisonator]

Surely it's a type of sexual assault, there are laws covering that already!

 

[Thumper]

There are some things that are worth classing as "criminal" and some stupid prick attempting to take a photograph up someones skirt isn't "criminal" it's just "stupid"!

Making every anti-social act "criminal" is a step nearer to the "Police State" that we are so proud of not having in the UK.

Anti social acts are criminal and someone perving on women ought to be punishable.

 

[Thumper]

Surely it's a type of sexual assault, there are laws covering that already!

I'd argue that you're correct, but the law defines sexual assault is any form of sexual contact without consent.

 

[Sadfield]

A crime that would have required a camera and a dark room, has become easier to commit and potentially more common due to everyone carrying more discrete cameras built into their phones. The added ability to disseminate images globally at the touch of a button, gives the crime potentially far wider consequences for the victim. It appears sensible that the law reflects that.

Similarly, fraud has long been illegal, yet the law has changed to specify certain aspects of cyber-crime.


Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

 

[Leon103]

won' it be a public decency offence

 

[-Bezza-]

won' it be a public decency offence

There's something of a difference in that public decency offences tend to exist to stop indecent exposure / flashers. It's therefore not a law the protects the victim in quite the same way, i.e. the victims exposure isn't adequately addressed. It's a bit lacking and comes (sic) at it from the wrong angle.

I've always thought it strange that flashing is a crime, both that people do it and that it's illegal. Assuming the flashing is a standalone thing - show your willy and run away - that someone is a victim seems routed only in social convention.

 

[Dutto]

............. Assuming the flashing is a standalone thing - ..........

That's exactly what it used to be! Way back, it had to be standing for a complaint to be taken seriously. This was so that innocent men who just needed a pee didn't get carted off to court for a much more serious crime than urinating in a public place.

A mate of mine told a lovely story about a lady who arrived in Mabletherpe police station to report a case of indecent exposure where a man had called her over to his car, but instead of asking the way to somewhere had apparently exposed himself to her from the seat of his car.

She answered "No." or "Don't know." to "Could you describe the man?" - "Did you get the number of the car?" - "What type of car was it?" and even "Can you tell me the colour of the car?"

Eric was shook his head and explained that without such information it would be impossible for the police to find the man concerned. The woman then said "He was circumcised, I did notice that!" as if it justified her lack of evidence.

BTW the reason why we don't need a new law is that ample laws are already in place that can be activated to deal with the situation.

What is really needed is that the Police, CPS and other entities within the legal profession, are made to prosecute people using these laws. If such an approach fails then (and only then) should there be a call for a new law.

 

[Thumper]

I'm slightly confused as to why you have such a problem with a new law being created.

 

[BeerCat]

Funny how i do not ever remember consenting to their law Dutto.

 

[-Bezza-]

I'm slightly confused as to why you have such a problem with a new law being created.

Quite - take a photo up a girls skirt and it's a crime. No ability to argue whether another law can be adapted to apply. End of.

@Dutto - The point is that there aren't ample laws to deal with this.

 

[Dutto]

Easy! They keep making up new laws instead of applying the old laws.

In each case almost every new law has been passed as a knee-jerk reaction to what is, in many cases, a media hype started by someone who had been ignored.

The classic for me was the legislation introduced to cover "Dangerous Dogs" in 1989.

Dogs have been biting people since mankind domesticated them sometime in the dim and distant past and in the UK there were dozens of Acts that covered a situation where a dog did something that it shouldn't; be it from worrying sheep to attacking the postman. However, since 1989 we have had:

• Three Dangerous Dogs Acts or Amendments, and,
• Nine Statutory Instruments.

All of these were part of the "new legislation" that I am complaining about.

It will come as no surprise to anyone who has owned a dog that the breed that is up there at the top of the list for biting people is not classed as a "Dangerous Dog"; it's your friendly family pet the Labrador Retriever!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ely-to-attack-bite-you-revealed-a7166296.html

Another favourite biter is the Jack Russell. They really are vicious little sods but again they aren't classed as "Dangerous". I suggest that whoever decides these things tries to get into my mate's house when he isn't there to tell the little swine not to bite!

In other words, the Dangerous Dogs Act:

• Was unnecessary because existing laws could have been used to control dogs that were proved to be dangerous.
• Set a dangerous precedent by deciding which dog was or was not "dangerous" to the public purely on the breed of dog.

Here's a good read if you want to catch up on the 340 odd Parliamentary Acts that have been passed into Law in the UK over the last eight years!

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010?page=1

and

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/all?title=Dangerous Dogs

I also hope that everyone is fully aware of this legislation because one legal aspect that has never been changed is that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." for breaking any law. (Every Policeman just loves someone to answer "That's the first time I've heard that." as an immediate response to being charged with an offence.)

 

[simon12]

From what I can tell in England its not a specific offence (it is in Scotland), it could likely be a form of sexual harassment but this got in the media due to a case where the police would not prosecute the offender under the current law. My opinion is its not a major crime and I hope its not widespread enough to warrant a new law or any major crime and if it was and someone was prosecuted under current law that works as well as a new law as our system relies on case law. In Japan all camera phones make a shutter noise that can't be turned off due to this issue.