Jump to content

Britain's May 'disappointed' after colleague blocks 'upskirting' law


rooster59

Recommended Posts

Britain's May 'disappointed' after colleague blocks 'upskirting' law

 

800x800 (2).jpg

FILE PHOTO: Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May leaves 10 Downing Street in London, Britain, May 23, 2018. REUTERS/Toby Melville/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Theresa May said on Friday she was disappointed a lawmaker from her Conservative party had blocked a bill to make "upskirting" - surreptitiously taking photographs up women's skirts - a criminal offence.

 

Christopher Chope, 71, a veteran politician who was knighted this year, blocked the bill proposed by opposition Liberal Democrat parliamentarian Wera Hobhouse that was widely supported in the House of Commons.

 

Chope did not explain his reasoning publicly and was not immediately available for comment.

 

Commenting on Twitter, May said: "Upskirting is an invasion of privacy which leaves victims feeling degraded and distressed.

 

"I am disappointed the Bill didn't make progress in the Commons today, and I want to see these measures pass through Parliament - with government support - soon."

 

The bill would make the crime punishable by up to two years in prison.

 

Dawn Butler, the main opposition Labour party spokeswoman for women and equalities, said: "What possible reason could there be to block a law that supports women and girls?"

 

Conservative lawmaker Nick Boles tweeted: "In every party, there are one or two MPs whose knuckles drag along the ground. Today, unfortunately, a sensible reform to protect women was blocked by one of ours."

 

 
reuters_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-06-16
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Chope did not explain his reasoning publicly and was not immediately available for comment.

 

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Commenting on Twitter, May said: "Upskirting is an invasion of privacy which leaves victims feeling degraded and distressed.

 

"I am disappointed the Bill didn't make progress in the Commons today, and I want to see these measures pass through Parliament - with government support - soon."

Get this twunt in your office at 0900 sharp on Monday morning and sack him.

Edited by The Renegade
  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Happy enough said:

hold on a minute. i'm a bit confused. what about the thai judges kid who got done in oxford street not long ago?

so it is a criminal offence right

Probably (I guess) an offence under common law already, but the legislation would make it black-letter law so noone in any doubt and (perhaps) increases the penalty ...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The bill would make the crime punishable by up to two years in prison.

Ridiculous !

And people here complain that some Thai laws are disproportionate.

500 B or 13 GBP , next !

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BuaBS said:

Ridiculous !

And people here complain that some Thai laws are disproportionate.

500 B or 13 GBP , next !

2 years is over the top but it is pervy though. if i caught someone doing that to my mrs i'd kick off. japanese influence i think. they seem to be into that

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What possible reason could there be to block a law that supports women and girls?"

er....im sure sharia law/islam have a valid reason...oh yes, grooming young girls...where is that Robinson bloke when you need him?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Renegade said:

 

Get this twunt in your office at 0900 sharp on Monday morning and sack him.

 

Sadly she can't. He's a backbencher with no government job. Not surprising. She could hope his local party might de-select him.

 

Parliament is full of them, across all parties. But he was following procedure, ludicrous as it seems.

Edited by Baerboxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, nahkit said:

Yes, that's why he blocked it, he said its already covered by law and no need for a seperate one.

 

He also says that the proposal should be debated in parliament rather than just passed into law.

 

(From UK press this morning)

It's not a criminal offense that provides for a prison term.

It's currently more of a nuisance law. Victims and police are only able to pursue offenses of voyeurism and indecency. If you catch somebody doing it, and inform the authorities, they can request that the image is deleted, but no further prosecution is possible. It is already a criminal offense in Scotland.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5623843/upskirting-meaning-definition-photos-criminal-offence-uk/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to have this actually debated in parliament shows how pathetic  the uk and us have now become . They can look up my skirt anytime . who cares . Like knicker nicking harmless pervs .More laws on the books to confuse people . 2 yrs ?!, 2 weeks would be ok. Not long ago made a new law in uk  that probably nobody knows about making it illegal to eat dogs  . It was made because a lot of the immigrants eat dogs . Not allowed to eat nasty dirty , infectious wild animals but allowed to eat poor lambsy  , peppa pig , bunny rabbits and baby calves and halal meat , makes  me sick with the hypocrisy . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wombat said:

"What possible reason could there be to block a law that supports women and girls?"

er....im sure sharia law/islam have a valid reason...oh yes, grooming young girls...where is that Robinson bloke when you need him?

 

Ludicrous comment.

 

I don't understand though, how can one man block?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, flyingtlger said:

I get the Heebie Jeebies thinking what's up Theresa May's skirt....

 

Image result for theresa may

 

 

As a PM, she's as much use as a chocolate fireguard, so not a pair of b*++*<7s, that's for sure!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might need clarification to avoid excess, like parents going to jail because they took a picture of their toddler running bare bottom through a sprinkler. Say you are at a patio restaurant and you snap a picture. A woman in a mini is sitting with legs crossed but you can see a few inches of thigh. Are you going to jail. It's all in the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...
""