Upskirting - to become a crime punishable by 2 years imprisonment.

[Cyclone 10]

It WAS being debated and he objected to it. There's clearly something wrong with the man.

Check out his voting record though, classic tory.

[apelike 10]

It WAS being debated and he objected to it. There's clearly something wrong with the man.

 

But it WASN'T fully debated as it was a private members bill that any MP can introduce and that's the problem. Parliamentary rules in that situation allow for this to happen so its a known part of their procedure.

 

To quote the BBC:

 

"Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statue book by a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting."

 

We either let Parliament do its job, Have a proper debate then vote and pass laws or we ignore it and let the Government of the day decide through amendments and private members bills. Lets not forget that Gina Miller thought the former, went to court and the courts agreed with her, I think you did too..

[RJRB 688]

It’s relatively easy making new laws.

The tricky bit is policing,proving and prosecuting them.

[redfox 10]

It’s relatively easy making new laws.

The tricky bit is policing,proving and prosecuting them.

 

I think most posters have observed it is not as easy as you claim and one person who knows the rules can scupper new legislation that most sane people think would be a positive step - including his party leader.

 

Proving this sort of thing isn't that difficult if you think about it - man with camera/recording device - takes image up skirt of female - or do you think magistrates and juries would believe it was all a bit of a laugh?

[Stranza 10]

Well it isn't going to happen.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/tory-mp-blocks-move-upskirting-135406176.html

 

Unbelievable.

 

Just, why?

[apelike 10]

Unbelievable.

 

Just, why?

 

Read post 36 as it attempts to explain it.

Edited June 15, 2018 by apelike

[Stranza 10]

Read post 38 as it attempts to explain it.

 

The other excuse is he didn't fully understand the issue.

 

It's rubbish, just resistant to anything he sees as pandering to females.

[hobinfoot 25]

Because this proposed law/legislation was a private members bill supported by the government but never debated in Parliament. If it had been debated then it probably would have passed. Any law that can commit someone to 2 years in prison should be debated in Parliament and then voted on, and that is what this MP is objecting to. He and other MP's do this on purpose and make a habit of it to promote proper scrutiny of these types of bill.

 

I understand that now but it's still stupid.

[apelike 10]

The other excuse is he didn't fully understand the issue.

 

It's rubbish, just resistant to anything he sees as pandering to females.

 

To counter that it could also be said that as the issue was not debated fully then he was not able to understand it. As pointed out, he and other MP's make a habit of challenging what they consider ill thought out legislation which is what we should encourage. On the same day he also forced a delay in something call Seni's law and also on plans to give police dogs and horses extra legal protection. It just because this has a female element to it and with the me-too movement gaining ground it has become big news and gets the tabloids (and SF)salivating.

 

I don't disagree with the law but as it can also can carry a 2 year jail sentence it should be debated fully by Parliament.

 

---------- Post added 15-06-2018 at 22:22 ----------

 

I understand that now but it's still stupid.

 

I agree but that how our antiquated system of Parliament works. Its a bit like the old fashioned way of clearing the public gallery and making Parliament sessions private by stating "I spy strangers."

[RJRB 688]

I think most posters have observed it is not as easy as you claim and one person who knows the rules can scupper new legislation that most sane people think would be a positive step - including his party leader.

 

Proving this sort of thing isn't that difficult if you think about it - man with camera/recording device - takes image up skirt of female - or do you think magistrates and juries would believe it was all a bit of a laugh?

 

The wider point that I was trying to make that is that we have numerous laws and offences that are meaningless unless backed by enforcement.

As for this particular proposal,it may have been blocked as a matter of principle regarding scrutiny of new legislation,but if the government adopts it then it will quite rightly become an offence in its own right.

[cgksheff 44]

I think most posters have observed it is not as easy as you claim and one person who knows the rules can scupper new legislation that most sane people think would be a positive step - including his party leader.

 

Proving this sort of thing isn't that difficult if you think about it - man with camera/recording device - takes image up skirt of female - or do you think magistrates and juries would believe it was all a bit of a laugh?

 

Read the proposed legislation.

[redfox 10]

Read the proposed legislation.

 

 

i did. Have you ever prosecuted anyone for this type of offending or any type of offending ?

 

When you have come back and we can chat on a level playing field.