From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 04:28 PM
Then he should do things properly, and seek the support of other MPs in a campaign to effect a change in parliamentary procedures by the appropriate, formal means. Deliberately destroying a Bill, which sought to introduce much-needed legislation relating to protecting women against sexual crime, by invoking an antiquated, archaic procedural rule is nothing short of parliamentary hooliganism, and brings the Mother of Parliaments into disrepute.

If that is what he has done, it would be reprehensible.
But if what he has done is to ensure that, rather than being passed 'on the nod', the proposed legislation has to be debated then he is keeping parliament in line.

Yes, 'upskirting' should be recognised, and it should be considered as an unacceptable practice.

DMcG makes an interesting point about whether someone will know they are breaking the law:
I said earlier that the current position is odd in law. Let me elaborate, and make an analogy with property law. I think most people would agree that one aspect of a good law is that you can tell if a set of actions will break it. I.e. I can answer the question "If I do this, will I be breaking the law?" . Seems reasonable? Yet the current position is that I can take such a photograph and no-one knows if the law has been broken. It is only subsequently - perhaps hours or days or even months later - when the photograph is looked at that we can know if the law was broken at the time. The corresponding position in property law would be if it was perfectly to enter a building without any permission, take some property but it was only against the law if a subsequent valuation of the thing taken showed it to be 'valuable'. That is self-evidently a nonsensical law, yet is it basically the position on 'upskirting'.

So, taken to extremes (reductio ad absurdum) if someone takes a 'wholly innocent' photograph, and, in the background, are two young girls, sitting on a wall, with their knickers showing, then he would be breaking this new law. His intent would be to get the foreground shot (hopefully) but he could find his actions criminalised by the suggested law.

I believe, Christopher Chope is protecting our laws by insisting that laws are not passed without due scrutiny.