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

[FritsSikkink]

20 hours ago, BuaBS said:

Ridiculous !

And people here complain that some Thai laws are disproportionate.

500 B or 13 GBP , next !

Try to do it with one of my kids, you would wish you had gotten 2 years.

[Kadilo]

He objected because he didnt even know what it was. Bless. And knighted too last year. Just shows what an out of touch pile of <deleted> the country has become. 

[nahkit]

20 hours ago, Srikcir said:

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/

 

 

The offence of "outraging public decency" has been applied in several upskirting cases (including the one involving the Thai NLA member's son arrested in London) and, according to section 2.60 of the law commission, "the power of imprisonment is unlimited".

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/438194/50076_Law_Commission_HC_213_bookmark.pdf

 

So yes, it is a criminal offence that provides for a prison term.

[Kieran00001]

On 6/16/2018 at 9:07 AM, mfd101 said:

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 ...

 

It currently comes under outraging public decency, so yes it is only in common law and the idea was to make it a specific offence, but that actually reduces the penalty from unlimited as in common law to the specified maximum sentences of black letter law,

[ivor bigun]

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)

And quite right to .if you allow any old proposal into law that is the way to a 1984 state.
It was already against the law and up to the judge to senrence the perv.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[ivor bigun]

He objected because he didnt even know what it was. Bless. And knighted too last year. Just shows what an out of touch pile of the country has become. 

Rubbish he knew exactly what it was .he just wanted it debated before a law was passed.
By the way will a woman get 2 years for taking a pic up a Scotsmans kilt?

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Kadilo]

12 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

Rubbish he knew exactly what it was .he just wanted it debated before a law was passed.
By the way will a woman get 2 years for taking a pic up a Scotsmans kilt?

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Who cares. This law is about perverts taking uninvited pictures up ladies skirts. It may seem OTT for certain Thai customers, but for most it is a disgusting invasion of someone’s privacy. 

[ivor bigun]

Who cares. This law is about perverts taking uninvited pictures up ladies skirts. It may seem OTT for certain Thai customers, but for most it is a disgusting invasion of someone’s privacy. 

You dont get it.its already against the law and you can go to prison.but if you just let laws go on the statute books willey nilley that way lies a danger for people.
And that goes for any law.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, nahkit said:

including the one involving the Thai NLA member's son arrested in London

Tupchareon's transgression was treated as a civil matter and not as a criminal matter:

• banned from the City of Westminster for four months and
• made to wear a tag (?)
• be home between 7pm and 6am for 12 weeks.
• must pay a victim surcharge of £85 and costs of £85.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30341555

 

[rosst]

Ah, this must make his constituents really proud that he is standing up for the rights of the perverts and the disgusting people who do this, Britain, you must be happy that <deleted> like this are bringing you such limelight. 

Hang your head in shame you piece of filth 

[nahkit]

15 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Tupchareon's transgression was treated as a civil matter and not as a criminal matter:

• banned from the City of Westminster for four months and
• made to wear a tag (?)
• be home between 7pm and 6am for 12 weeks.
• must pay a victim surcharge of £85 and costs of £85.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30341555

 

You seem very selective in your replies, what about the link I provided to the Law society in response to your earlier post that quite clearly shows that outraging public decency is a criminal offence punishable by a jail term? Do you still say that outraging public decency is not a criminal offence that can be punished with a jail term?

 

From the same source as you quoted :-

 

" Pratyayoud Tupchareon, 27, son of Youdtana who is an NLA member, has been spared jail"

 

" Tupchareon, of Oxford, who admitted outraging public decency"