You are reading a single comment by @andyp and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
It was recognised that there was a gap in the law which made it almost impossible to successfully prosecute offenders. There was widespread support across the house to use this bill to fill that gap, with even the Government supporting it.
Then misogynistic dinosaurs like Chope get involved and block it for no reason, presumably because he thinks it’s acceptable to photograph a woman’s genitals without her consent.
Take 2 mins to email the bastard and make him understand he is wrong on this issue.
andyp-
Found this on the Beeb which fills in the blanks.
What are the limitations of the current law? by BBC Reality Check:
- Voyeurism only applies to filming actions taking place in private
- Outraging public decency usually requires someone to have witnessed the action but upskirting is often unobserved
- It may be only discovered later because footage ends up on the internet
- It also has to take place in public - some spaces like schools might not count as public
- Unlike other sexual offences, people don't have automatic right to anonymity
- Voyeurism only applies to filming actions taking place in private
hugo7
Right.
I'm just saying that there's an argument against creating new specific laws against offences when there's already a route to prosecute.
I don't have time right now to check what the respective tests are for each offense. But if anyone is knowledgeable on the subject I'd be really interested.
For me the thing that jumped out is being added to the sex offenders register, (guessing) making it a specific sexual offense.