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

I think this is already covered under voyeurism laws. I have seen newspaper reports of people been presecuted for having cameras on their shoes and filming women in shops etc.


Personally I think it should be illegal to photograph anyone without their permission, clothed or otherwise. You should be able to own your own image, although this would be virtually impossible to enforce.

Your idea that it should be illegal to be filmed without permission is incredibly naive and stupid. That basically makes filming anything in a public area illegal. It makes filming reality illegal. It violates the fundamental right to free expression which is necessary to ensure we can have an accurate portrayal of reality. Heck, you can see that in action with, for example, child pornography laws, as they distort reality because now everyone thinks kids never want sex, which is untrue, and the legalisation of child porn would reveal this belief to be untrue. That's why free expression is a fundamental right. And you want to make it worse by banning filming of everyday life!

Bottom line: Filming people or filming up women's skirts shouldn't be a crime.

holocaust21 wrote:
Your idea that it should be illegal to be filmed without permission is incredibly naive and stupid. That basically makes filming anything in a public area illegal. It makes filming reality illegal. It violates the fundamental right to free expression which is necessary to ensure we can have an accurate portrayal of reality. Heck, you can see that in action with, for example, child pornography laws, as they distort reality because now everyone thinks kids never want sex, which is untrue, and the legalisation of child porn would reveal this belief to be untrue. That's why free expression is a fundamental right. And you want to make it worse by banning filming of everyday life!

Bottom line: Filming people or filming up women's skirts shouldn't be a crime.

I cant think how anyone would think it is an acceptable thing to do.

But... there would have to be a distinction between unwanted and intrusive filming and the type of photo described as "upskirt" even though it clearly isnt, such as Lily Allen recently sitting completely uncovered in a short skirt. Twice. (I would call that flashing actually)

Children do not want or need sex with adults.
The very idea is sickening.

Well, I can't understand why anyone would think it is acceptable to inflict quite significant violence upon someone for unwanted filming? But, it seems, you do.

And btw, the evidence is indisputable that children often do want sex with adults. Denying it is complete lunacy. Amos Yee for instance has given plenty of studies here: amosyee.wordpress.com/2018/05/27/studies-supporting-pedophilia/

holocaust21 wrote:
Well, I can't understand why anyone would think it is acceptable to inflict quite significant violence upon someone for unwanted filming? But, it seems, you do.

And btw, the evidence is indisputable that children often do want sex with adults. Denying it is complete lunacy. Amos Yee for instance has given plenty of studies here: amosyee.wordpress.com/2018/05/27/studies-supporting-pedophilia/

I'm not even going to click on the link, its far too dangerous or to have that sort of thing on your history. Children don't have the emotional capacity to agree to sex with adults, particularly if they are pre-pubescent then it could be quite damaging. Most of the cases of abuse are non-consensual forced sex.

Sickening and disgusting to think that kids should want sex with adults!! we already have laws re crimes like upskirting etc,..

Anne. wrote:
Sickening and disgusting to think that kids should want sex with adults!! we already have laws re crimes like upskirting etc,..

My understanding is that the lady who started the campaign did so because the police couldn't take action as she was wearing pants and therefore not "exposed"?
Has the law been wrongly applied in this case?

It's interesting that the people on this thread who disagree with me are so dogmatic that they blatantly refuse to even as much as spend 5 seconds reading the research proving their beliefs false.

I think that pretty much settles the case that I'm right and you're wrong. What are you so afraid of robbiex? Perhaps what you're most afraid of is your own repressed paedophilia... Studies show 20% of men are preferential paedophiles, that is, they prefer 13 and under. God knows how many prefer 16 year olds. And I'm sure the majority have some level of attraction to 13 year olds.

holocaust21 wrote:
It's interesting that the people on this thread who disagree with me are so dogmatic that they blatantly refuse to even as much as spend 5 seconds reading the research proving their beliefs false.

I think that pretty much settles the case that I'm right and you're wrong. What are you so afraid of robbiex? Perhaps what you're most afraid of is your own repressed paedophilia... Studies show 20% of men are preferential paedophiles, that is, they prefer 13 and under. God knows how many prefer 16 year olds. And I'm sure the majority have some level of attraction to 13 year olds.

No you're wrong. I've never seen a 13 year old that wouldn't look better at 18 years old. bigger breasts, bigger butt, filled out body, not flat like that of a boy. You're worse than Elon Musk.

holocaust21 wrote:
It's interesting that the people on this thread who disagree with me are so dogmatic that they blatantly refuse to even as much as spend 5 seconds reading the research proving their beliefs false.

I think that pretty much settles the case that I'm right and you're wrong. What are you so afraid of robbiex? Perhaps what you're most afraid of is your own repressed paedophilia... Studies show 20% of men are preferential paedophiles, that is, they prefer 13 and under. God knows how many prefer 16 year olds. And I'm sure the majority have some level of attraction to 13 year olds.

Why don't you cut and paste some of the article on these pages, because no one wants to be clicking on links entitled "supporting paedos", so we can read the article and make up our minds. For all me know you might be from the plod trying to trap people.

holocaust21 wrote:


And btw, the evidence is indisputable that children often do want sex with adults.

Not sure that children often want sex with adults, but we know that some do. This is especially so if you take the ridiculous and unnatural view that a child is anyone under 18 years old. Does anyone seriously deny that some 13 yr olds have crushes on teachers, for example? Or a 16 year old with a 20 year old partner?

Some prepubescent children have an interest in sex, most typically from accidentally discovering masturbation. And there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that it is indeed possible - but uncommon - to have positive sexual experiences at prepubescent ages. Most children are much more interested in Pokemons or whatever the latest thing is.

Laws prohibiting upskirting or voyeurism don't appear to have a logical rationale. The harm - such as it is - caused, is annoyance at most. Surely we couldn't say it extends to anguish, unless the "victim" is emotionally disturbed to begin with. Can anyone suggest why we should ban this annoying behaviour, but not other annoying behaviour, like making insulting comments about someone's appearance?