Demand for yet another new Law ...

[-Bezza-]

What's the harm in creating a new law for this? I'm really struggling to see what the objection is if it helps bring about prosecutions of people who do this sort of thing.

Some legal drafts people write some legislation, parliament debates it for a bit, they fix a few bits up, Lizzie signs it off. No skin off my nose so get on with it I say!

 

[terrym]

Whether its a new law or a change to or a clarification of an existing law, it will, in my view, have as much impact on this happening as the recent increased penalties for driving with a mobile phone seem to have made i.e very little, especially since it seems to be the sort of activity that can be carried out with little chance of detection unless you are a complete numpty, and even then the evidence can quickly be destroyed.

 

[simon12]

What's the harm in creating a new law for this? I'm really struggling to see what the objection is if it helps bring about prosecutions of people who do this sort of thing.

Some legal drafts people write some legislation, parliament debates it for a bit, they fix a few bits up, Lizzie signs it off. No skin off my nose so get on with it I say!

I don't care that much but first its a waste of time, its not as simple as that as you have to say when its considered with or without consent does it apply when someone intentionally exposes something, could someone be in trouble if it is in the background of an otherwise normal photo and likely loads more and if it comes under current law why would you invent a new one.

 

[Dutto]

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

What's the harm in creating a new law for this? I'm really struggling to see what the objection is if it helps bring about prosecutions of people who do this sort of thing.

Some legal drafts people write some legislation, parliament debates it for a bit, they fix a few bits up, Lizzie signs it off. No skin off my nose so get on with it I say!

"What's the harm in creating a new law for this?" and "No skin off my nose." combined in the 1930's in Germany; and resulted in the extermination of over nine million people.

Every new law affects someone's rights.

Personally, I do not approve or even condone the activity of sticking a camera up a ladies skirt to take a photograph, but we do have laws in place that cover such activities and they can be amended to cover what may very well be a new approach to an old crime.

As I pointed out in the OP, there is absolutely no reason to produce a brand new Law!

 

[Clint]

I thought this would be covered under what would cover sex pests...they would have to have a down the blouse law,a round the kimono law;as mentioned up the trouser leg law, ankle staring at...then men would have to get equal rights. .Scottish and some middle eastern gentleman come to mind.
Another pile of poop...

 

[Linalmeemow]

"What's the harm in creating a new law for this?" and "No skin off my nose." combined in the 1930's in Germany; and resulted in the extermination of over nine million people.

Never thought I'd see Godwin's law apply to a thread about upskirt photos...

 

[-Bezza-]

"What's the harm in creating a new law for this?" and "No skin off my nose." combined in the 1930's in Germany; and resulted in the extermination of over nine million people.

What utter bollocks you are talking now. How can you think there is any similarity between laws that seeks to protect people from those which seeks to persecute people with no basis other than ethnicity. Suggest you have a word with yourself.

 

[Leon103]

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.

I meant instead of it being a breach of the peace

 

[Dutto]

What utter bollocks you are talking now. How can you think there is any similarity between laws that seeks to protect people from those which seeks to persecute people with no basis other than ethnicity. Suggest you have a word with yourself.

I suggest that you read your history. In Germany no-one voted to exterminate anyone; and it didn't just happen overnight.

In 1920 the fascists issued a 25 point Party Programme and within it they promised to "... segregate Jews from "Aryan" society and to abrogate Jews' political, legal, and civil rights." There was nothing in the Party Programme about murdering the Jews en masse and the fascist government was voted into power in 1933. Possibly by people who didn't even know about the Party Plan; and definitely, the people who knew what the Party Programme contained, had to be thinking at the very least "No skin off my nose." or "What's the harm in creating a new law for this?" when they voted for the Party.

In the first six years after assuming power in 1933 the fascist government made over 400 decrees aimed at persecuting the Jewish population of Germany. They were all new laws and they were all justified on the basis that it was one of the 25 points in the Party Programme published back in 1920.

I consider that it is always relevant in a democratic society that the voters scrutinise and agree with every proposed change in the law; and attempt to foresee the consequences of any such legislative change.

The current laws in the UK have served us well for many years. They have been amended and changed to suit the changing customs, habits and social mores of the UK population ...

... and it if you read the OP again, you will see that the reason I originally posted was that I see no need for a new law.


Reference:
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005681

 

[Dutto]

Never thought I'd see Godwin's law apply to a thread about upskirt photos...

Like it.

When discussing proposals for new legislation Godwin's Law become relevant almost immediately.

The legislation introduced during the first six years of the fascist government in Germany is a prime example of instigating a law on the basis that it must be okay because "we told you we were going to do it"!

 

[Thumper]

Agree with you re. The dangerous dogs act, but it is in no way equivalent to what's being suggested here. The fact you could argue that an existing law could possibly maybe be used to cover this isn't the same as having a law which explicitly makes it a criminal offence. And it ahould be a specific criminal offence.

 

[Ajhutch]

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/new-criminal-laws-rarely-required-law-upskirting/

Good explainer from a criminal barrister as to why the new law is being created.

Dutto, I really hope you read the link. It puts into plain English, with clear examples, why the current laws are insufficient. Sorry to say it to you but I agree with the article and think you’ve got this one wrong.

 

[Ajhutch]

Double post, sorry

 

[Sadfield]

What utter bollocks you are talking now. How can you think there is any similarity between laws that seeks to protect people from those which seeks to persecute people with no basis other than ethnicity. Suggest you have a word with yourself.

I suggest that you read your history. In Germany no-one voted to exterminate anyone; and it didn't just happen overnight.

In 1920 the fascists issued a 25 point Party Programme and within it they promised to "... segregate Jews from "Aryan" society and to abrogate Jews' political, legal, and civil rights."

abrogate
ˈabrəɡeɪt/
verb
formal

1. 1.
   repeal or do away with (a law, right, or formal agreement).
   "a proposal to abrogate temporarily the right to strike"
   synonyms: repudiate, revoke, repeal, rescind, overturn, overrule, override, do away with, annul, cancel, break off, invalidate, nullify, void, negate, dissolve, countermand, veto, declare null and void, discontinue; More

persecute
ˈpəːsɪkjuːt/
verb

1. subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs.
   "his followers were persecuted by the authorities"
   synonyms: oppress, abuse, victimize, ill-treat, mistreat, maltreat, discriminate against, punish, inflict pain/suffering on, tyrannize, afflict, torment, torture, martyr
   "no one should be persecuted for their religious beliefs"

So a removal of legal and civil rights because of religion isn't persecution?

 

[Dutto]

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/new-criminal-laws-rarely-required-law-upskirting/

Good explainer from a criminal barrister as to why the new law is being created.

...........

I read the article which states:

"This confusion appears to have contributed to Gina Martin’s distressing encounter with the criminal justice system, when her immediate report to the police of a man ‘upskirting’ her at a festival was met with a shrug that, “There’s not much we can do”.

This analysis is incorrect – based on Ms Martin’s account there would have been ways to prosecute this conduct. Typically, offences of upskirting are prosecuted under the common law offence of “outraging public decency”. This is an old and wide-ranging offence which has been held to cover, amongst other things, masturbating in public, disinterring a corpse for dissection, urinating on a war memorial and exhibiting a sculpture consisting of a human head with freeze-dried human foetuses as earrings."

and

"....... the definition of “voyeurism” was extended in Scotland in 2010 to explicitly cover the non-consensual recording of images, beneath clothing, of a person’s genitals, buttocks or underwear, for sexual gratification or causing humiliation, alarm or distress. There is no good reason why a similarly-drafted provision could not be enacted in England and Wales."

I've highlighted the parts that uphold my original Post (i.e. that no new law is required) and all of my arguments to support my original Post.

Incidentally, the article headline ("Why a new law is needed to stop mobile phones being shoved up women’s skirts.") is not supported in the article itself so I again refer the reader to my original Post which states:

"Demand for yet another new law ....

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

So according to the link you gave, the law is already there, the subject is already there and all that is necessary is to redefine the term "voyeurism"; just like they have done in Scotland. This will not be a "new law" it will be an amendment to the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 an existing law!

Many thanks! :thumb:

 

[Thumper]

Every new law affects someone's rights.

Yes, by definition. And laws ought to be scrutinised for that reason, but that's not the same thing as a new law necessarily being bad. Unless you're suggesting that people have some sort of right to take candid photos of lady's nether regions without their knowledge or consent, I'm afraid I can't quite see what your point is.

 

[Dutto]

.......... but that's not the same thing as a new law necessarily being bad. ...........

How many times do I have to point out that there is no need for a "new law", as supported by this article posted above ...

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/new-criminal-laws-rarely-required-law-upskirting/

... which (despite the headline) states that 1) A prosecution can be made right now using existing Common Law. and B) An amendment to an existing law (The Sexual Offence Act of 2003) would make it easier to prosecute the offence.

I repeat - there is no requirement for a new law! :wave:

BTW, nowhere have I ever suggested that "... people have some sort of right to take candid photos of lady's nether regions without their knowledge or consent."

The act is abhorrent to me and I think that anyone who does it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law: and the law by which they can be prosecuted already exists!


PS

Incidentally, as I'm typing this response there is an advert on the righthand side of my screen that is advertising "Date Arab Women!" and I can assure you that the rather busty maiden in the photograph isn't wearing a black abaya!

On behalf of the Arab ladies I have met I find the ad slightly offensive because none of them would ever expose themselves like that to anyone but their husbands.

I must try and block these ads.

PPS

Done and ads blocked! Shame really because the Brewing Ads are a great source of information.

 

[Ajhutch]

I read the article which states:

"This confusion appears to have contributed to Gina Martin’s distressing encounter with the criminal justice system, when her immediate report to the police of a man ‘upskirting’ her at a festival was met with a shrug that, “There’s not much we can do”.

This analysis is incorrect – based on Ms Martin’s account there would have been ways to prosecute this conduct. Typically, offences of upskirting are prosecuted under the common law offence of “outraging public decency”. This is an old and wide-ranging offence which has been held to cover, amongst other things, masturbating in public, disinterring a corpse for dissection, urinating on a war memorial and exhibiting a sculpture consisting of a human head with freeze-dried human foetuses as earrings."

and

"....... the definition of “voyeurism” was extended in Scotland in 2010 to explicitly cover the non-consensual recording of images, beneath clothing, of a person’s genitals, buttocks or underwear, for sexual gratification or causing humiliation, alarm or distress. There is no good reason why a similarly-drafted provision could not be enacted in England and Wales."

I've highlighted the parts that uphold my original Post (i.e. that no new law is required) and all of my arguments to support my original Post.

Incidentally, the article headline ("Why a new law is needed to stop mobile phones being shoved up women’s skirts.") is not supported in the article itself so I again refer the reader to my original Post which states:

"Demand for yet another new law ....

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

So according to the link you gave, the law is already there, the subject is already there and all that is necessary is to redefine the term "voyeurism"; just like they have done in Scotland. This will not be a "new law" it will be an amendment to the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 an existing law!

Many thanks! :thumb:

The first section you highlighted details a situation where the writer believes the police are wrong. But they then go on to explicitly state another (hypothetical) example where prosecution wouldn’t be positive (namely where two people were not in sight, the 8am in a department store example). Since this goes against your point it’s a shame you chose not to address it.

He or she also makes the point that the existing law under which upskirting can (normally) be prosecuted is an offence against the public, not against an individual victim. The idea that there is a victim in upskirting and that therefore it should be a crime against them is a powerful one.

The second section you highlighted details how Scotland created a separate offence for this, and you seem to have highlighted the bit where the writer advocates England and Wales to do the same as evidence a new law isn’t needed. You seem to be ok with amending an existing law but not adding a new one. It’s not obvious to me how one is qualitatively different from the other in the sense of your wider point of civil liberties, but for the sake of harmony I’d be happy to agree with you that an amendment to the Sexual Offences Act would seem to suffice rather than a new Act as it were.

 

[Dutto]

From today's BBC Text service ...

"The Ministry of Justice says that upskirting is currently covered by alternative avenues of prosecution.

There have been just 11 charges related to the practice since 2015, a Freedom of Information request found."

So, there is absolutely no reason to enact yet another new law and despite the handwringing storm being generated by the media, the Ministry of Justice (the UK authority responsible for UK law) agrees! :wave:

I rest my case! :thumb:

 

[Sadfield]

"Just 15 of 44 police forces in England and Wales recorded allegations of upskirting in the past two years, according to a freedom of information request by the Press Association.

A further 14 said there were no such records on their system, and 15 forces either refused or failed to respond.

Of the 78 incidents reported, only 11 resulted in suspects being charged using existing laws on voyeurism, indecency and public order."

Perhaps a new law would help/encourage the Police to do their job properly.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk