[Politics] Sir Christopher Chope

[black & white seagull]

Another bit of Wikipedia entertainment that was quickly amended. Despite its accuracy.

 

[Creaky]

Women's lobby? I trust if somebody took some photographs of your daughter or wife's genitals by sneaking a camera underneath their skirt without your knowledge, you' d be fine with that.

I'm joking of course. As if you have a wife.

The article linked to appears to suggest that such an action is already illegal

She started the campaign to change the law after two men took a picture up her skirt while she was at a concert in London's Hyde Park last July.
Police said they were unable to prosecute as the picture was not graphic enough because she was wearing underwear

Of course Upskirting should be illegal but if the Bill wasn’t debated then for instance, who knows what the definition of “Upskirting” was in the bill - would taking a general photo in a park that accidentally included a lady sitting on the grass be an offence.

Any Bill introducing a new law that carries severe penalties for offenders should be scrutinised in my opinion to make sure that it only restricts the specific actions which are offensive.

 

[The Clamp]

So Brexit should be debated and voted on in every particle,but laws that carry a prison sentence shouldn't?Thought you all admired principled MP's?He stays late every Friday to ensure laws that can have serious consequences have a proper debate.Democracy at it's finest,surely?

Utter fail.

 

[The Clamp]

Most normal people stop reading at 'twitter'!

Don't write on Twitter myself but I do get live news feeds and other stuff of interest. Only an utter fool, a dinosaur, a backward thinking Luddite would dismiss platforms such as Twitter. It's a vast vehicle for news and information with manifold facets and contributors. It's like saying you don't like the internet. Foolish in the extreme.

 

[The Clamp]

Women's lobby? I trust if somebody took some photographs of your daughter or wife's genitals by sneaking a camera underneath their skirt without your knowledge, you' d be fine with that.

I'm joking of course. As if you have a wife.

Delicious. That has made my day. Take a bow.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The article linked to appears to suggest that such an action is already illegal

She started the campaign to change the law after two men took a picture up her skirt while she was at a concert in London's Hyde Park last July.
Police said they were unable to prosecute as the picture was not graphic enough because she was wearing underwear

Of course Upskirting should be illegal but if the Bill wasn’t debated then for instance, who knows what the definition of “Upskirting” was in the bill - would taking a general photo in a park that accidentally included a lady sitting on the grass be an offence.

Any Bill introducing a new law that carries severe penalties for offenders should be scrutinised in my opinion to make sure that it only restricts the specific actions which are offensive.

It's not a specific offence as it stands. The only way it can be prosecuted is under public order offences- which I would suggest are inappropriate, as to my mind, people who do this should be on the sex offenders register- or by using outraging public decency, which isn't always easy to prosecute. It doesn't count as voyeurism because it's not technically watching somebody do a private act.

Prohibiting people from taking photos up skirts without their consent seems quite reasonable to me.

 

[Creaky]

. . . . . . . . . .

Prohibiting people from taking photos up skirts without their consent seems quite reasonable to me.

So the example I gave in my post of taking pictures in a park which might accidentally include an upskirt image should also be punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment, (the proposed penalty in the Bill). That’s the sort of situation that could potentially arise when legislation is passed without scrutiny.

 

[Creaky]

I see it as a government failure that they should have to rely on a Private Member’s Bill to introduce such legislation rather than make ‘time’ for a government Bill that could be properly prepared by Civil Servants and fully debated and scrutinised by Parliament.

 

[Bry Nylon]

I see it as a government failure that they should have to rely on a Private Member’s Bill

When it comes to legislation concerning 'up-skirting,' a Private Member's Bill seems more appropriate if the victim is a man wearing a kilt.

 

[looney]

Women's lobby? I trust if somebody took some photographs of your daughter or wife's genitals by sneaking a camera underneath their skirt without your knowledge, you' d be fine with that.

I'm joking of course. As if you have a wife.

Well I would have to be fine with it, if the perpertrator was a muslim and i complained you would have to arrest me.

I'm joking as well, you would also rrest my wife as an assessor or incitement.

 

[Saunders]

So the example I gave in my post of taking pictures in a park which might accidentally include an upskirt image should also be punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment, (the proposed penalty in the Bill). That’s the sort of situation that could potentially arise when legislation is passed without scrutiny.

How are the paparazzi going to earn a living if they get 2 years for photographing celebrities getting in and out of cars/taxis in the future?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

As long as the bill goes though quickly, with minor amendments if necessary, fine. If it gets binned....

But aparently Theresay May is now saying it needs to be passed.




















It's dead, isn't it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Edit (a bit late, apologies); it seems that Chope blocks all private members bills as a matter 'of principle' as he thinks only government should put forward legislation

edit again Steven Nolan on R5 doesn't understand why the bill is needed (its because it is still legal, you nob).

 

[Weststander]

Edit (a bit late, apologies); it seems that Chope blocks all private members bills as a matter 'of principle' as he thinks only government should put forward legislation

edit again Steven Nolan on R5 doesn't understand why the bill is needed (its because it is still legal, you nob).

I thought Nolan was an intelligent, crusader on 'issues'. Not a TalkSport / TalkRadio style stirrer, to get the calls and texts flooding in.

 

[lawros left foot]

Well I would have to be fine with it, if the perpertrator was a muslim and i complained you would have to arrest me.

I'm joking as well, you would also rrest my wife as an assessor or incitement.

What the flying **** are you on about, you complete and utter toolbox.
Your Islamophobia is becoming all consuming, isn’t it?
Don’t bother answering, I’m really not at all interested.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

I'm joking of course. As if you have a wife.

Some of your very finest work. I salute and honour you.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

He is my local mp and, you won’t be surprised to learn, he is utterly useless.

He also has form for this sort of behaviour, his voting record is embarrassing.

Unfortunately there’s no chance of him being voted out, Christchurch would vote in a cat if it was wearing a blue ribbon.

Wasn't it Lib Dem at one stage?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

So the example I gave in my post of taking pictures in a park which might accidentally include an upskirt image should also be punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment, (the proposed penalty in the Bill). That’s the sort of situation that could potentially arise when legislation is passed without scrutiny.

How do you accidentally take an up skirt photo?

 

[The Clamp]

How do you accidentally take an up skirt photo?

I run a class on this exact subject in Preston Park Rotunda cafe at around 9am most days. Come along.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I run a class on this exact subject in Preston Park Rotunda cafe at around 9am most days. Come along.

Don't be childish.