Demand for yet another new Law ...
- Thread starter Dutto
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
Ajhutch
Landlord.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 2,329
- Reaction score
- 1,256
A bit unusual to hear you support a government department with a Tory minister in charge.
Saisonator
Landlord.
Why are you offended on behalf of the Arab ladies, I don't see that it is any of your business?
I would imagine there are millions of muslim women in the world that are free and happy to dress any way they like. The last thing they need is some old English bloke cheering on regressive and repressive theocratic dogma.
Very illiberal.
This discussion is just bonkers to me. I do not see why there would be such objection to creating appropriate law around this. To me, nothing compelling has been said as to why this wouldn't be a sensible move - saying what the law ought to achieve or going with a "things were different back in my day..." argument doesn't cut it with me. There's a problem, however it's manifested itself, and we should move to solve the problem now.
The lack of prosecutions, the fact that the MoJ talks about "alternative avenues of prosecution" suggesting the lack of direct avenue, all lead me to think that adding clarity to the law is required. My overriding argument is that prosecution is more likely to be successful where the law is clear - the CPS will typically not pursue a case they are not likely to win. It seems at the moment we're having to shoe-horn a modern crime into old legislation and that is not working effectively. But even if the law is currently in place, why would we need seek to make it more adequate?
I just fail to see the arguments against this. There shouldn't be any real unintended consequences in enacting appropriate laws - as a criminal act, it must be proven that there was criminal intent, so accidentally catching a view of someones undercrackers in the background of a photo would not be prosecuted.
Ultimately, this is about protecting the victims and those victims appear to be saying they do not feel protected by the law. Therefore as a society, we should feel compelled to act.
The lack of prosecutions, the fact that the MoJ talks about "alternative avenues of prosecution" suggesting the lack of direct avenue, all lead me to think that adding clarity to the law is required. My overriding argument is that prosecution is more likely to be successful where the law is clear - the CPS will typically not pursue a case they are not likely to win. It seems at the moment we're having to shoe-horn a modern crime into old legislation and that is not working effectively. But even if the law is currently in place, why would we need seek to make it more adequate?
I just fail to see the arguments against this. There shouldn't be any real unintended consequences in enacting appropriate laws - as a criminal act, it must be proven that there was criminal intent, so accidentally catching a view of someones undercrackers in the background of a photo would not be prosecuted.
Ultimately, this is about protecting the victims and those victims appear to be saying they do not feel protected by the law. Therefore as a society, we should feel compelled to act.
In that case let's do that, but that would "affect people's rights" in precisely the same fashion. The outcome is the same, and as long as the outcome is achieved I don't much care what the method is.
The simple fact if the matter is that if you have to creatively interpret laws in order to prosecute a crime, then the law doesn't adequately cover that crime. So let's fix that.
I wasn't suggesting you had, merely point out that unless that was your argument (which it isn't) then that particular point didn't make any sense.
It's an interesting argument!
I get Duttos point. Surely laws (basing this on rugby/football debates...) are open to interpretation and that is one reason for us having a jury for them to view whether the person on trial is guilty if what they have been accused of.
Surely this means that someone taking a picture up someones skirt... (note, someone... not women...
) could be guilty of sexual harassment if that picture is not wanted under an interpretation of that law.
You can't just have a law that says you aren't allowed to take pictures up peoples skirts... some people might like having their photo taken from the point of view of an ant!
By the time you have gone through all the if's and buts, wouldn't it just be easier if the laws that are in place can be used to prosecute for what people in general all agree is a case of sexual harassment.
I get Duttos point. Surely laws (basing this on rugby/football debates...) are open to interpretation and that is one reason for us having a jury for them to view whether the person on trial is guilty if what they have been accused of.
Surely this means that someone taking a picture up someones skirt... (note, someone... not women...
) could be guilty of sexual harassment if that picture is not wanted under an interpretation of that law. You can't just have a law that says you aren't allowed to take pictures up peoples skirts... some people might like having their photo taken from the point of view of an ant!
By the time you have gone through all the if's and buts, wouldn't it just be easier if the laws that are in place can be used to prosecute for what people in general all agree is a case of sexual harassment.
If the powers that be disagree as much as the posters on this particular thread, then I can see a lot of time and taxpayers money being wasted when there is already a law that covers this, even if it's not specific.
But of course the law wouldn't just say you can't take pictures up a girl's skirt - it would need to work to define what the actual mischief was so that a) innocent people didn't fall foul of a crime and b) guilty people couldn't argue the law didn't apply to them.
I've not studied the existing laws but understand they have too many ifs and buts. Someone has already said they understand "sexual harassment" to require some form of physical contact; the various indecency laws are there to stop someone exposing themselves - I'm sure the list goes on. Too many cracks to exploit (sic).
Saisonator
Landlord.
Yes quite literally.
Ajhutch
Landlord.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 2,329
- Reaction score
- 1,256
It’s precisely the job of legislators to tweak laws when the judiciary exposes gaps in them. It’s not about legislating for every possible situation but if an effect is not what the legislature desired then they can and should amend an existing law or write a new one.
The process is subtly different from this.
Unlike the US which has a prescriptive legal system, i.e. only what is explicitly legislated can apply, the legal system of England and Wales follows a principles-based approach. Where the legislation itself is inadequate, the courts can look to the official record of Parliamentary debate (Hansard - https://hansard.parliament.uk/) to understand what the legislation was intended to achieve , i.e. what the legislature desired, and apply accordingly. Where laws are older, the so-called "mischief" may have evolved such that it is no longer recognised vis-a-vis what parliament discussed and that's when we have to fall back on the literal, prescriptive meaning of the legislation.
In the case at hand, indecency laws would have been debated well before it could have been contemplated that people would be routinely carrying discreet camera equipment in their pockets! So whilst we're all agreed on what the purpose of the law should be, if it can't be shown that the law expressly prohibits the offence and it can't be shown that parliament wasn't considering a particular scenario when debating the law, and there is a gap in the literal wording of the law, then things get very difficult to prosecute.
Ajhutch
Landlord.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 2,329
- Reaction score
- 1,256
Nice post. It’s what I wanted to say but much better written!
I scraped a third (by 2%) in my "Principles of law" module an university. That's about the only bit I can remember (although for any legal purists who may be reading, I've paraphrased in a couple of areas for the sake of brevity)!
simon12
Landlord.
This has gone beyond my understanding so off to do some photography before the law changes.
Mind where you stick that telephoto lens. :shock:
I think we should have an anti knob head law...general acting the arse,fooling about and tomfoolery being accepted. Nasty drunks,people shouting in the supermarket or driving like cocks should be flogged.
**** = @rse
BeerCat
Landlord.
- Joined
- May 6, 2015
- Messages
- 5,292
- Reaction score
- 1,694
Oh the irony of advertising to a bunch of pissheads! :beer6:
Sadfield
Landlord.
Are there still internet users that don't realise these adverts target users, based on search history and personal data? Open the page in Incognito mode and you'll probably see an add for something brewing related as the homebrew forum site you are on is the only info fed back.
Last edited:
MrRook
Landlord.
What provisions would there be to enforce this new law?
Very few things piss me off more than a new law being enacted and not enforced.
Very few things piss me off more than a new law being enacted and not enforced.
