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 16th Jun 2018, 16:33
  #14561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,810
Hang the photographer!

Fareastdriver is online now  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 17:30
  #14562 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
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.

If the 'victim' doesn't determine whether she was humiliated or found the pictures distressing who does?.
BAengineer is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 17:36
  #14563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by BAengineer View Post
If the 'victim' doesn't determine whether she was humiliated or found the pictures distressing who does?.
The police/CPS. They have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the purpose behind taking the image was as given in section (3). I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that's a pretty tough test, and will not be very likely to be passed by any image taken accidentally, for publicity etc.
VP959 is online now  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 18:22
  #14564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: cowtown
Posts: 85
Why do other men accept this behaviour ?
The last time I saw a guy upskirting on the tube I told him to stop . He put his phone away , I regret not hurting him and smashing his phone
fitliker is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 20:24
  #14565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
The police/CPS. They have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the purpose behind taking the image was as given in section (3). I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that's a pretty tough test, and will not be very likely to be passed by any image taken accidentally, for publicity etc.
I dont quite understand that - if the CPS have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the victim has suffered humiliation or distress then really they have to take the victims word for it. And that would equally apply to a celeb giving a quick flash of her knickers as she got out of a taxi or a nobody bending over to examine the carrots in Tescos. If you cannot easily define who would be a victim under this Law then can I suggest it will be a bad Law.

This proposal sounds like it is trying to be rushed through with no consideration or debate - wait a minute, that is exactly what they were doing..
BAengineer is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 20:50
  #14566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by BAengineer View Post
I dont quite understand that - if the CPS have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the victim has suffered humiliation or distress then really they have to take the victims word for it. And that would equally apply to a celeb giving a quick flash of her knickers as she got out of a taxi or a nobody bending over to examine the carrots in Tescos. If you cannot easily define who would be a victim under this Law then can I suggest it will be a bad Law.

This proposal sounds like it is trying to be rushed through with no consideration or debate - wait a minute, that is exactly what they were doing..
It's really pretty simple. The amendment specifies a test, which has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, before someone can be convicted. I cannot see how someone who accidentally takes a candid image could be shown to have met the requirements of that test, given that the CPS seem to have a policy of not prosecuting unless there is a reasonable probability of conviction.

The bottom line is that, even if someone was charged in error, it would be up to the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that one of the conditions in section (3) had been met, and a jury would have to agree with that conclusion, on the basis of the evidence that had been presented to them. I can't see that there is a realistic possibility of a wrongful conviction resulting from this amendment at all.
VP959 is online now  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 21:17
  #14567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 347
However much one might argue the prospect of valid and successful prosecution under existing or proposed new legislation, the fact remains that both bills were accepted by government and opposition alike.
They were blocked only by the opposition of one MP under what he thought was his point of principle. There has to be something very wrong when this can be allowed to happen.
Sallyann1234 is online now  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 22:16
  #14568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,810
I wonder what the reaction would be if a women flashed a mobile underneath a Scotsman's kilt.
Fareastdriver is online now  
Old 16th Jun 2018, 22:19
  #14569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Москва/Ташкент
Age: 50
Posts: 811
Originally Posted by Fareastdriver View Post
I wonder what the reaction would be if a women flashed a mobile underneath a Scotsman's kilt.
Fair point... my mind would never have even thought of that... lets face it I bet a few have tried as well.
flash8 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 05:43
  #14570 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 945
Who would have thunk it possible !

An outbreak of concern for human rights here on JB ! ......albeit not really, more an outbreak of faux concern given the criteria of the bill in question is already law in Scotland and has been for a mere 10 years and, as others have said, has cross party approval. Now why should this be I wonder ?

Plus, since we are all now conversant with the finer points of chemistry and nerve agents, a timely diversification into the even finer points of legislation and legal interpretations as a bonus !

" JB is proud to sponsor part time LLB courses, all in the comfort of your own home and delivered by (self ) accredited experts Take up this offer of a lifetime to ensure your legal career gets off to a flying start ! "

Meanwhile, shurely one for "Private Eye".... " Police Log- Neasden Central Police Station ".....just down , well ok, up the road as well !

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44510120
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 06:46
  #14571 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,371
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...-nhs-ckvxtwds6

The NHS will receive an extra £384m a week after a deal to hand the health service the biggest cash boost in its history.

Theresa May will announce today that the health service budget will rise by £20bn a year — but to pay for it the government will have to increase taxes and borrowing by £11bn, the equivalent of around 3p on the basic rate of income tax. The rest of the money will come from what ministers are calling a “Brexit dividend”, by diverting the £9bn the UK pays into the EU budget to NHS funding........

The extra money for the NHS is a victory for Brexiteers Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, who lobbied vocally in cabinet for a “Brexit dividend” for the health service.

ORAC is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 07:20
  #14572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 795
The NHS will receive an extra £384m a week after a deal to hand the health service the biggest cash boost in its history.
Cynical at the extreme! Next week, there will perhaps be an unveiling of the new big bus that will deliver the cash? This has nothing to do with a sudden increase in concern for the NHS, it is a shallow attempt to dig May out of her current mess. Of course, the NHS will appreciate this increase in funding but will no doubt be wondering why it was not available last month or last year?
KelvinD is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 08:22
  #14573 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,371
Tick in the box for Bojo.......
ORAC is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 08:55
  #14574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,435
Originally Posted by KelvinD View Post
Cynical at the extreme! Next week, there will perhaps be an unveiling of the new big bus that will deliver the cash? This has nothing to do with a sudden increase in concern for the NHS, it is a shallow attempt to dig May out of her current mess. Of course, the NHS will appreciate this increase in funding but will no doubt be wondering why it was not available last month or last year?
It's a replacement of some of the cuts the Tories have imposed on the NHS over the last few years.

And it won't be paid for by the non-existent "brexit bonus", so it'll be tax rises.

And it won't be tax rises on the rich, 'cos we've got a Tory government, and as far as they're concerned taxes on the rich are for cutting, not increasing (that's how come the NHS cuts were needed in the first place after all).

So it'll be taxes on the not-rich. National Insurance would be a favourite, so that it's only paid by those in work on lower incomes, not the rich because (a) they don't work and (b) they already earn more than the NI cap. Which will allow the Tories to say, again, "look, we haven't increased tax", because they use "tax" to mean "income tax", and the fact that NI is now more than income tax is something they conveniently forget to mention (this last point is all governments, by the way - the answer is of course the abolition of NI but that was a little more than we could get done in the coalition).
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 09:06
  #14575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,810
The clock is ticking to when we will be released from the shackles of the European Union.

https://howmanydaystill.com/its/brexit-6
Fareastdriver is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 10:03
  #14576 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 945
Originally Posted by Fareastdriver View Post
The clock is ticking to when we will be released from the shackles of the European Union.

https://howmanydaystill.com/its/brexit-6
Now there's a masterpiece of profound observation... yours that is. .

Maybe I should relay that to the nice lady I met last time at this site, given the EU had contributed to the development, and see what she says when I'm in Borth next week on another non JB approved holiday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ynyslas_Sand_Dunes
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 10:07
  #14577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,810
Maybe I should relay that to the nice lady I met last time at this site, given the EU had contributed to the development
She's not going to bite the hand that feeds her.
Fareastdriver is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 10:11
  #14578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 54
Posts: 911
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
The extra money for the NHS is a victory for Brexiteers Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, who lobbied vocally in cabinet for a “Brexit dividend” for the health service.
Except, by all accounts, Bojo and Gove are going to have to accept, in return, some compromise on a possible form of customs union with the EU. The 'Brexit Dividend' is a face saving device.

Incidentally, I was listening to this story on the BBC6 news earlier this morning. During that particular report only one person was invited to pass comment - Alistair Campbell. A vitriolic anti-Conservative and arch-remainer. Why??
Andy_S is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 10:47
  #14579 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,371
Because it’s the BBC?
ORAC is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2018, 12:32
  #14580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 68
Posts: 909
Thornberry says that she would meet Trump despite calling him an "Asteroid of Awfulness".

She flatters herself if she thinks he might want to meet her, a Haemeroid of Uselessness.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44511972
sitigeltfel 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.