UK's upskirting law can put a photog in jail for 2 years.

[slackercrurster]

UK's upskirting law can put a photog in jail for 2 years. More and more regulation unfolding for street photogs. This time freedom was only saved by 1 vote. No doubt when the one old timer blocking it dies off the millennials will pass it.

The United Kingdom recently attempted to make upskirting illegal and punishable by up to two years in prison. But thanks to a single lawmaker, the bill hasn’t become law after all. 71-year-old Sir Christopher Chope of Conservative party blocked the bill and he didn’t give a reason for it.

Upskirting, as you probably know, is taking unauthorized photos under a woman’s skirt. Gina Martin started a campaign against it in the U.K. after she was a victim of upskirting in 2017. She was unable to file a lawsuit because of the “gap in the law.” Upskirting is not a criminal offense in the U.K., and the police reportedly stated that the photo wasn’t obscene enough “because she was wearing underwear.”

The proposed bill would put upskirting in line with other voyeurism offenses, making it punishable by up to two years in jail. As TIME reports, Prime Minister Theresa May’s government gave its backing to the proposed bill on Friday. However, Chope’s objection means that the law will have to be debated again at a later date. According to the same source, the expected date for a new debate is 6 July 2018.

https://www.diyphotography.net/uk-blocks-the-law-that-bans-taking-photos-up-womens-skirts/

 

[summicron1]

Not entirely sure how passing a law against a blatant invasion of privacy, not to mention voyeurism, restricts anyone's freedom, unless you think "freedom" means "sticking a camera inside someone's clothing and snapping pics of their naughty bits."

Every freedom has a limit. Exceed that, you could lose the whole ball of wax.

 

[Ian Grant]

So they should.

I worked a lot with a friend who was a model in the 1970's, at one party someone was walking around with a stick and a mirror looking up girls skirts including hers, she took the stick away from him. At another the same guy pounced and unzipped her jumpsuit, he got a black eye for that.

We are talking depraved individuals, might be OK for people in the US who are used to the loutish antics of the most senior politicians, but in reality it shouldn't be tolerated anywhere, it's not a consensual act and it's a gross violation of a woman/s privacy

If it had come into law what relevance is that to street photography ? what an absurd post.

Ian

 

[pdeeh]

This time freedom was only saved by 1 vote.

You, Sir, appear to be what is commonly described in the UK as a complete and utter [REDACTED]

 

[pdeeh]

I mean, WTF is wrong with some people?
Really?

 

[pentaxuser]

I may be wrong but I think we are rising to "bait" here. The OP clearly had his tongue in his cheek, surely. It is a "cat amongst the pigeons" for sure but the cat has to be a Cheshire one with a big smile on its face which says "only joking".

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

I too do not see the relevance of that law for a professional or amateur photographer. Maybe I missed something.

The threat of a 1year prison sentence exists in Germany for more than hundred years concerning photography. More exactly for publishing without consent a photograph of a person. And all those years hardly any photographer had nightmerries of prison cells. Only the last weeks an outcry went trough the photographers world with EU legislation on filed information finally to be installed in Germany. Though there has been installed recently even much harsher law including 2 years sentence in Germany for even taking a photograph under certain circumstances.

In this context a camera under a skirt is the least I would be bothered with. But as said I may have missed the point.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I concur with the need for such laws but disagree on the amount of time given.

 

[R.Gould]

This should have been passed a while ago, A friend of mine while on holiday became the victim of an Upskirter, the amount of distress it caused was immence, and accorder to the law it is not an offence, these people can, at present, take pictures up a womens skirt, do what they like with them, and there is nothing anybody can do about it, shame on anybody against such a law.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not entirely sure how passing a law against a blatant invasion of privacy, not to mention voyeurism, restricts anyone's freedom, unless you think "freedom" means "sticking a camera inside someone's clothing and snapping pics of their naughty bits."

Every freedom has a limit. Exceed that, you could lose the whole ball of wax.

I am in complete agreement with summicron1. How would the OP feel if someone invaded his privacy?

 

[BMbikerider]

Whilst I wholeheartedly don't agree with any invasion of privacy or any type of harassment either with sexual connotations or not, I support any attempts at stopping this insidious behavior. But do we in UK actually need a new law the specifically cover this? The current Public Order Act will do the same job just as well. It is tried and tested and all the snags used to get a culprit off have been covered. Using either section 5 or 4 will do nicely and both sections carry possible terms of imprisonment and quite a hefty fine as well.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

This should also apply to up-kilting. I'll never wear my kilt to school AGAIN!

 

[railwayman3]

So the OP would be entirely happy for someone to stick a camera up his young daughter's skirt and photograph her p***y ? "Never mind dear, it's only a pervert excercising his freedom......" .

 

[benjiboy]

It should have been illegal years ago, this is a practice mainly indulged in by so-called professionals, the paparazzi in particular with female celebrities but also other women and I applaud our female prime minister for sponsoring this bill. I understand that anyone indulging in this abhorrent practice will be labelled a sex offender and put on the sex offenders register, and probably jailed as well.
Although I'm no expert on female behaviour I have been married to the same woman for fifty-four years and I know how distressed she as a young woman would have been if anyone would have done this to her, it's not just somebody seeing her private parts but the tremendous disrespect being shown to her.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It should have been illegal years ago, this is a practice mainly indulged in by so-called professionals, the paparazzi in particular with female celebrities but also other women and I applaud our female prime minister for sponsoring this bill. I understand that anyone indulging in this practice will be labelled a sex offender and put on the sex offenders register, and probably jailed as well.
Although I'm no expert on female behaviour I have been married to the same woman for fifty-four years and I know how distressed she as a young woman she would have been if anyone would have done this to her, it's not just somebody seeing her private parts but the tremendous disrespect being shown to her.

+10

 

[eddie]

It’s not aimed at photographers. It’s aimed at perverts. Make it 5 years.

 

[pentaxuser]

Is there a similar law in the U.S. and if not, what plans if any are there to enact one? As these offences normally take place in crowded areas where most people these days have camera phones on show, perhaps a variation of DT's idea that every school has an unknown but armed teacher could be used. The potential perpetrator of the crime has no idea which camera phone user on the street has the Saturday Night Special at the end of a Selfie Stick

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

Hey guys, I still do not understand your reaction.
Please read the OP's first sentences. I do not understand his aggrevation. How could that law, if it had passed, be of influence on street photography??
(As stated, elsewhere is old legislation in strong opposition to street photography and even made much harsher.)

UK's upskirting law can put a photog in jail for 2 years. More and more regulation unfolding for street photogs. This time freedom was only saved by 1 vote.

 

[removed account4]

UK's upskirting law can put a photog in jail for 2 years. More and more regulation unfolding for street photogs. This time freedom was only saved by 1 vote. No doubt when the one old timer blocking it dies off the millennials will pass it.

The United Kingdom recently attempted to make upskirting illegal and punishable by up to two years in prison. But thanks to a single lawmaker, the bill hasn’t become law after all. 71-year-old Sir Christopher Chope of Conservative party blocked the bill and he didn’t give a reason for it.

Upskirting, as you probably know, is taking unauthorized photos under a woman’s skirt. Gina Martin started a campaign against it in the U.K. after she was a victim of upskirting in 2017. She was unable to file a lawsuit because of the “gap in the law.” Upskirting is not a criminal offense in the U.K., and the police reportedly stated that the photo wasn’t obscene enough “because she was wearing underwear.”

The proposed bill would put upskirting in line with other voyeurism offenses, making it punishable by up to two years in jail. As TIME reports, Prime Minister Theresa May’s government gave its backing to the proposed bill on Friday. However, Chope’s objection means that the law will have to be debated again at a later date. According to the same source, the expected date for a new debate is 6 July 2018.

https://www.diyphotography.net/uk-blocks-the-law-that-bans-taking-photos-up-womens-skirts/

GOOD
its too bad it isn't for more time in jail

 

[David Brown]

I may be wrong but I think we are rising to "bait" here. The OP clearly had his tongue in his cheek, surely. It is a "cat amongst the pigeons" for sure but the cat has to be a Cheshire one with a big smile on its face which says "only joking".

pentaxuser

Time was, on the old APUG, we'd not hesitate to call a troll a troll.

 

[MattKing]

This should also apply to up-kilting. I'll never wear my kilt to school AGAIN!

I didn't know there were "clans" in Saskatchewan.
Would the law have applied only to digital photographs, or could us film photographers have been caught up in it too.
Could someone caught doing this with a digital camera argue that they couldn't be convicted because the output from a digital camera doesn't qualify as a "photograph"? Will threads from APUG/Photrio on the subject be referred to in argument?

 

[eddie]

I may be wrong but I think we are rising to "bait" here. The OP clearly had his tongue in his cheek, surely.

I don't think his post was tongue in cheek.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I mean, WTF is wrong with some people?
Really?

Plenty, apparently.

The whole 'street photography' thing of the last few years seems to me to be much more about public machismo & the performance of a particular sort of confrontational masculinity than anything actually related to photography.

 

[Wallendo]

"Upskirt" photography is in no way defensible. On the other hand, it would be interesting to see exactly what the proposed law stipulates. At times, well-intentioned laws have unintended consequences.

In the US, several high school annuals have been recalled and destroyed when it was discovered that young males under 18 had exposed their genitals in group photographs. Technically, this meets the current definition of child pornography.

A camera on a selfie stick taking upstart photographs is blatantly wrong. But what about women photobombing by exposing themselves? or woman whose dresses take off with a heavy breeze just as the photographer takes a photo? or a woman walking across an elevated walkway in the background of a photo?

 

[awty]

A few years back a guy was accused of being a pedophile because someone saw him taking random photos of children in the park, police were called, his camera was confiscated, the police went to his house and seized his computers, was in the news all over social media, people were quick to accuse. After some weeks the police past the evidence to the prosecution, couldn't find anything more than a few random pictures of children playing......but the damage had been done.
If someone makes a complaint about you because you happened to take a photo of a girl sitting on a park bench this is what will happen to you, except if you use film camera they will seize your negatives as well......god help you if her inner thighs are showing.
Was taken a photo in the city a couple of weeks ago and someone happened to walk into my shot, held out his hand and said dont shoot, was slow to react and took the picture, came up to me yelling and carrying on, demanded that I delete the picture or he would call the police, tried to explain it was a film camera, didnt seem to understand so I pushed the back of my 1956 range finder as if there were buttons, said its gone and he went his way, I mine.
Yes you need laws to protect privacy, but it will have a consequence on anyone taking pictures in general public.
Safer just taking pictures of trees where no one else is about.