Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Old 15th Jun 2018, 06:34
  #14541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 68
Posts: 913
The latest PC crap to infest parliament...

The Daily Telegraph has learnt that staff working in Strangers’ Dining Room, the 19th-century restaurant used by MPs to entertain guests, have resorted to using the name “Spotted Richard” in order to spare the clientele their blushes.

Four staff waiting on tables in the restaurant confirmed the name change when approached last night. They were less forthcoming when asked for an explanation, stating only that “Richard” was less likely to cause a stir with guests.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...taurant-spare/

Maybe they should rename Raspberry Fool to avoid upsetting Diane Abbott?
sitigeltfel is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2018, 06:36
  #14542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 418
Originally Posted by sitigeltfel View Post

Maybe they should rename Raspberry Fool to avoid upsetting Diane Abbott?
Somebody, somewhere is going to find a way of claiming that that is 'racist'!!
Trossie is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2018, 07:32
  #14543 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,522
Kim Il Sung, Leon Trotsky and Tony Blair to attend “Labour Live” concert........

https://order-order.com/2018/06/14/k...g-labour-live/

ORAC is online now  
Old 15th Jun 2018, 15:39
  #14544 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 953
And a special mention for a special Tory MP......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope

It's nice to see his priorities here, technicalities of readings being the prime concern. After all, what woman could possibly object to such a malignant invasion of her privacy, this being rather central to the bill in question. A credit to those famed Tory values really and even more so when his past negations are taken into account.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427

Last edited by Krystal n chips; 15th Jun 2018 at 15:58.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2018, 16:53
  #14545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 0
Good for him - any Law that can give people jail terms should be thoroughly looked at and all the issues debated and not just nodded through by a few MP's who happen to turn up.
BAengineer is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2018, 16:58
  #14546 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 953
Originally Posted by BAengineer View Post
Good for him - any Law that can give people jail terms should be thoroughly looked at and all the issues debated and not just nodded through by a few MP's who happen to turn up.
Nice to learn you are supportive of any attempt to ensure the safety and privacy of women is of no relevance in the 21st century. And doubtless his previous negations of private members bills, apart from his own use of them, also meets with your full approval.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2018, 17:39
  #14547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
Nice to learn you are supportive of any attempt to ensure the safety and privacy of women is of no relevance in the 21st century. And doubtless his previous negations of private members bills, apart from his own use of them, also meets with your full approval.
Not at all - I happen to think the Bill is a good idea. I am just very uncomfortable with new Laws being introduced that could send people to prison without any debate on just the nod through by 26 MP's who happen to be hanging around Parliament on a Friday afternoon.
BAengineer is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2018, 21:26
  #14548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North of the South Pole
Posts: 1,006
There must already be any number of existing laws which could be used to jail an 'upskirt' photographer. Isn't this new law just an exercise in virtue signalling?
ZeBedie is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2018, 21:58
  #14549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,435
Originally Posted by ZeBedie View Post
There must already be any number of existing laws which could be used to jail an 'upskirt' photographer.
I have read an analysis which comes to the conclusion that in fact that is not the case. By some well respected lawyer, might have been Secret Barrister but I don't remember for sure.

Ah yes, here we are: https://thesecretbarrister.com/tag/upskirting/

Last edited by Gertrude the Wombat; 15th Jun 2018 at 21:59. Reason: Add link
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2018, 22:37
  #14550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 73
Posts: 796
Re Christoher Chope; he was apparently in fine form today, blocking not 1 but 2 Private Members bills. In addition to the upskirting issue (oh, how I would love to see some enterprising perv get some up his wife/mother's kilt and see how he enjoys that!), there was another Private members bill to stop people who get into a ruck with a police dog claim self defence when they go to court when charged with, for example, stabbing the dog. Chope did his "Object" routine for that one too. The first one will go through eventually, on government time, thus wasting parliamentary time on something that should have gone through as a Private Member's bill.
KelvinD is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 07:13
  #14551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 512
KelvinD
The first one will go through eventually, on government time, thus wasting parliamentary time
Why is it wasting parliamentary time, if the bill is properly scrutinised and a Law is enacted. Laws need to be made with due process, otherwise democracy is dead and we have "Dear Leaders" ruling by decree. The new law will surely receive the support it needs when it reaches the Commons again.
iceman50 is online now  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 07:58
  #14552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 73
Posts: 796
iceman50: If a bill can be dealt with simply and outside of parliamentary time, usually when introduced with a large popular support, then the full parliament can get on with the business of debating the more serious issues. Regardless, two features of private members bills stand out; 1. They have to go through the very same process as to which you refer (ie you don't get to just pick a bill and have it nodded through with the chance for debate) and 2. If MPs are interested in such bills, they can just turn up in the chamber and behave like elected representatives of the people, instead of taking an early dart (Private Members bills are discussed on Fridays)
If an MP sees something he/she feels needs to be addressed by the law but the government can't be bothered to allocate time for it, the MP can introduce it for discussion/legislation. That is known as parliamentary democracy. So what exactly is it Chope is afraid of? Well, judging by his record in parliament, the 21st century! Go and look at his record. A tosser!
KelvinD is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 12:14
  #14553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wilts
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by Hussar 54 View Post
As an outsider looking in, it seems the only way for the SNP to assure that Scotland becomes independent is to have another referendum but this time let the Welsh, the Irish and the English vote as well.

A landslide for an independent Scotland would be guaranteed.
which is exactly what I said after the last referendum. They asked the right question but to the wrong people.
DON T is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 12:16
  #14554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 0
Kelvin - do you really want Laws that could result in the jailing of people simply passed on the nod without any discussion or debate, by 26 MP's who happen to be hanging around Parliament on a Friday afternoon?. My concern is that given the overcrowding in our jails and the cost of incarceration is a jail sentence an appropriate punishment for someone taking a picture of a girls knickers - I am certainly not convinced that it is and would like some discussion of the issue before it becomes Law.

Do you believe that the guy who took this photo is deserving of 2 years inside?


BAengineer is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 13:28
  #14555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Lots of sensational-sounding crap being spouted about the proposed amendment to Sexual Offences Act 2003 that is contained within the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill 2017. The new bill doesn't actually use the term "upskirting" at all, so rather than jump to the conclusion that it's poorly worded it's worth taking the time to read it. The idiot Chope objected to it without bothering to read it, by his own admission. He didn't even understand what the bill was about, but objected because he has a problem with Private Member's Bills as a point of principle, not because they are necessarily bad.

Worth reading the proposed amendment before assuming that it would make a photo like the one above unlawful: https://publications.parliament.uk/p...0174/18174.pdf
VP959 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 13:50
  #14556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Worth reading the proposed amendment before assuming that it would make a photo like the one above unlawful: https://publications.parliament.uk/p...0174/18174.pdf
Arguably under section 2.2.2 it would be an offence.
A person (“A”) commits an offence if A— (a) without another person (“B”) consenting, and (b) without any reasonable belief that B consents, records an image beneath B’s clothing of B’s genitals or buttocks (whether exposed or covered with underwear) or the underwear covering B’s genitals or buttocks, in circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would not otherwise be visible, with the intention that A or another person (“C”), for a purpose mentioned in subsection (3), will look at the image


This is precisely why Laws should be debated and not just passed on the nod.
BAengineer is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 13:57
  #14557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by BAengineer View Post
Arguably under section 2.2.2 it would be an offence.
A person (“A”) commits an offence if A— (a) without another person (“B”) consenting, and (b) without any reasonable belief that B consents, records an image beneath B’s clothing of B’s genitals or buttocks (whether exposed or covered with underwear) or the underwear covering B’s genitals or buttocks, in circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would not otherwise be visible, with the intention that A or another person (“C”), for a purpose mentioned in subsection (3), will look at the image


This is precisely why Laws should be debated and not just passed on the nod.
That ignores the clear motive that is required, as defined in section (3) though:

(3) The purposes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are—

(a) obtaining sexual gratification (whether for A or C), or

(b) humiliating, distressing or alarming B.
That makes it crystal clear that in order for an offence to have deemed to have been committed there had to be a purpose as defined in section (3). Your photo doesn't look to me as if it would fit within the section (3) definition. It does seem clear that accidentally taking a photo like your example, or taking one for a purpose other than as defined in the proposed amendment, would not be an offence.

Anyway, in that photo the lady in question had allowed her skirt to blow up and expose her backside, it was not something arranged by the photographer as far as we can tell.
VP959 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 14:11
  #14558 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
That ignores the clear motive that is required, as defined in section (3) though:

That makes it crystal clear that in order for an offence to have deemed to have been committed there had to be a purpose as defined in section (3). Your photo doesn't look to me as if it would fit within the section (3) definition. It does seem clear that accidentally taking a photo like your example, or taking one for a purpose other than as defined in the proposed amendment, would not be an offence.

Anyway, in that photo the lady in question had allowed her skirt to blow up and expose her backside, it was not something arranged by the photographer as far as we can tell.
Surely it is up to the women in question to decide whether she finds pictures taken of her backside, without her permission, and published for the world to see as humiliating or distressing..

likewise would this picture be an offence?



It does fit all the criteria mentioned in the proposal you posted.
BAengineer is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 14:38
  #14559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
My reading of section (3) is that in order for the offence to have been committed an image has to be taken for one of the purposes that it defines.

In other words, did the person taking that photo do so to obtain sexual gratification, or did they take it for the purpose of humiliating, distressing or alarming the person being whose image was taken?

It seems a pretty clear definition to me, and not one that would apply to news images or incidental photos taken in a public place. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that section (3) places a burden of proof on the investigators and the CPS , in that they have to show that an image was taken for the reasons given. It doesn't seem to me that it's enough to just show that an image has been taken, the purpose for taking it has to pass the test in order for a crime to have been committed.

It seems clear to me that the wording has been carefully chosen to be specifically about people taking voyeuristic images for those clearly defined purposes, not to make photojournalism potentially subject to this proposed amendment to the law.
VP959 is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 15:34
  #14560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,435
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Anyway, in that photo the lady in question had allowed her skirt to blow up and expose her backside, it was not something arranged by the photographer as far as we can tell.
It could alternatively be a posed professional porn photo in which case consent would be present.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.