politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lady Chope and their daughter must be so proud of Sir Christop

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lady Chope and their daughter must be so proud of Sir Christopher

One thing’s for sure – the MP for Christchurch who was knighted in the last New Year’s Honours, is going to get a lot more media coverage following his blocking on Friday of the private member’s bill to stop what’s known as upskirting.

Read the full story here

Philip_Thompson

He's a fool. Instead of a knighthood he should have been bumped 'upstairs' to the house of old fools.

BigRich

Second

RobD

While I agree he's a fool, I find it hard to imagine he didn't know what it was.

Pulpstar

Chope and his chief partner in crime, Philip Davies really do the Tories no favours whatsoever.
I'd put them into a completely different category to Mogg for instance who although I often disagree with him always argues his points out in the house, a bit like Peter Hitches does in the press.
Chope and Davies just enjoy filibustering and objecting to stuff for the sake of it.

brendan16

While new laws are always welcome perhaps we should ensure that existing laws affecting women's rights are also enforced and appropriate prosecutions undertaken.

Or is it because this issue is more likely to perhaps affect white middle class women in London rather than poor working class girls from BME communities is it likely to be more vigorously enforced rather than have a blind eye turned to to avoid unnecessary upset?

Cos while we can spent our time attacking Chope it isn't really addressing the core issue. If its needed why isn't the government introducing its own legislation to address it and then providing resources to enforce it?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fgm-detectives_uk_5a943fdce4b02cb368c45e10?guccounter=1

JohnLoony

I have already told my man on the inside to tell the Chief Whip that Chope should have the whip removed. Being deselected for an election in 2022 in which he probably won't stand anyway is not enough.

stodge

Evening all

I wonder how many would turn up to a "Conservative Live" event ?

As for Chope, no one questions bad legislation is worse than no legislation but there are Committee stages to "improve" and redraft legislation if there are problems.

It was good to see a number of the PB Conservative fraternity condemn Chope last evening but that isn't really the point. Even though, thanks to Corbyn, it won't change anything it does make the Conservatives a less attractive proposition for some voters.

RoyalBlue

brendan16 said:

While new laws are always welcome perhaps we should ensure that existing laws affecting women's rights are also enforced and appropriate prosecutions undertaken.

Or is it because this issue is more likely to perhaps affect white middle class women in London rather than poor working class girls from BME communities is it likely to be more vigorously enforced rather than have a blind eye turned to to avoid unnecessary upset?

Cos while we can spent our time attacking Chope it isn't really addressing the core issue. If its needed why isn't the government introducing its own legislation to address it and then providing resources to enforce it?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fgm-detectives_uk_5a943fdce4b02cb368c45e10?guccounter=1

New laws are always welcome?

No, no, no. The statute book should not be used to ‘send a message’ as it was under New Labour.

TheWhiteRabbit

brendan16 said:

Cos while we can spent our time attacking Chope it isn't really addressing the core issue. If its needed why isn't the government introducing its own legislation to address it and then providing resources to enforce it?

The government will now legislate for it.

Pulpstar

brendan16 said:

While new laws are always welcome perhaps we should ensure that existing laws affecting women's rights are also enforced and appropriate prosecutions undertaken.

Or is it because this issue is more likely to perhaps affect white middle class women in London rather than poor working class girls from BME communities is it likely to be more vigorously enforced rather than have a blind eye turned to to avoid unnecessary upset?

Cos while we can spent our time attacking Chope it isn't really addressing the core issue. If its needed why isn't the government introducing its own legislation to address it and then providing resources to enforce it?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fgm-detectives_uk_5a943fdce4b02cb368c45e10?guccounter=1

Do you have an issue with private member's bills in principle as Chope and Davies seem to ?
The Government passes plenty of legislation and at the moment is very preoccupied with trying to abide by the referendum result. Individual MPs proposing legislation may well come up with better ideas and it'd be a sad day if ALL the laws came from the government. The upskirting law would.have been given appropriate scrutiny (ironically it might not receive proper attention to any defects given the uproar now).
Much of the anti terror legislation that the courts have difficulty with came directly from the Blair govt.
Also they may well have scuppered Finn's law, it's an intended function of parliament that backbenchers can propose law and a very positive one to my mind.

tlg86

brendan16 said:

While new laws are always welcome perhaps we should ensure that existing laws affecting women's rights are also enforced and appropriate prosecutions undertaken.

Or is it because this issue is more likely to perhaps affect white middle class women in London rather than poor working class girls from BME communities is it likely to be more vigorously enforced rather than have a blind eye turned to to avoid unnecessary upset?

Cos while we can spent our time attacking Chope it isn't really addressing the core issue. If its needed why isn't the government introducing its own legislation to address it and then providing resources to enforce it?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fgm-detectives_uk_5a943fdce4b02cb368c45e10?guccounter=1

+1

TheJezziah

RoyalBlue said:

brendan16 said:

While new laws are always welcome perhaps we should ensure that existing laws affecting women's rights are also enforced and appropriate prosecutions undertaken.

Or is it because this issue is more likely to perhaps affect white middle class women in London rather than poor working class girls from BME communities is it likely to be more vigorously enforced rather than have a blind eye turned to to avoid unnecessary upset?

Cos while we can spent our time attacking Chope it isn't really addressing the core issue. If its needed why isn't the government introducing its own legislation to address it and then providing resources to enforce it?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fgm-detectives_uk_5a943fdce4b02cb368c45e10?guccounter=1

New laws are always welcome?

No, no, no. The statute book should not be used to ‘send a message’ as it was under New Labour.

I want to agree strongly with this, whilst a new law such as something to help the police effectively prosecute upskirting (whilst maintaining the need for a reasonable level of proof) is a good thing in general I feel like it can be too easy to crack down on civil liberties to look like you are doing something without really solving the problems you are looking at.

AnneJGP

Pulpstar said:

brendan16 said:

While new laws are always welcome perhaps we should ensure that existing laws affecting women's rights are also enforced and appropriate prosecutions undertaken.

Or is it because this issue is more likely to perhaps affect white middle class women in London rather than poor working class girls from BME communities is it likely to be more vigorously enforced rather than have a blind eye turned to to avoid unnecessary upset?

Cos while we can spent our time attacking Chope it isn't really addressing the core issue. If its needed why isn't the government introducing its own legislation to address it and then providing resources to enforce it?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fgm-detectives_uk_5a943fdce4b02cb368c45e10?guccounter=1

Do you have an issue with private member's bills in principle as Chope and Davies seem to ?
The Government passes plenty of legislation and at the moment is very preoccupied with trying to abide by the referendum result. Individual MPs proposing legislation may well come up with better ideas and it'd be a sad day if ALL the laws came from the government. The upskirting law would.have been given appropriate scrutiny (ironically it might not receive proper attention to any defects given the uproar now).
Much of the anti terror legislation that the courts have difficulty with came directly from the Blair govt.
Also they may well have scuppered Finn's law, it's an intended function of parliament that backbenchers can propose law and a very positive one to my mind.

It occurred to me that they may simply be bored with having to be in parliament, but unwilling to leave an otherwise congenial way of earning money.

Good evening, everybody.

Pulpstar

TheJezziah said:

RoyalBlue said:

brendan16 said:

While new laws are always welcome perhaps we should ensure that existing laws affecting women's rights are also enforced and appropriate prosecutions undertaken.

Or is it because this issue is more likely to perhaps affect white middle class women in London rather than poor working class girls from BME communities is it likely to be more vigorously enforced rather than have a blind eye turned to to avoid unnecessary upset?

Cos while we can spent our time attacking Chope it isn't really addressing the core issue. If its needed why isn't the government introducing its own legislation to address it and then providing resources to enforce it?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fgm-detectives_uk_5a943fdce4b02cb368c45e10?guccounter=1

New laws are always welcome?

No, no, no. The statute book should not be used to ‘send a message’ as it was under New Labour.

I want to agree strongly with this, whilst a new law such as something to help the police effectively prosecute upskirting (whilst maintaining the need for a reasonable level of proof) is a good thing in general I feel like it can be too easy to crack down on civil liberties to look like you are doing something without really solving the problems you are looking at.

You're looking in the wrong place for the civil liberty angle - the govt anti "extreme" pornography is the place to look for that.

brendan16

TheWhiteRabbit said:

brendan16 said:

Cos while we can spent our time attacking Chope it isn't really addressing the core issue. If its needed why isn't the government introducing its own legislation to address it and then providing resources to enforce it?

The government will now legislate for it.

So why the fuss over Chope - his actions have probably ensured the legislation now happens more quickly!

And secondly will this new law be actively persecuted - because of course it's more likely to affect white middle class women from London on trains and tubes etc?

The government can always find time for small legislative changes - even with Brexit. They put through a bill offering 5 year business rates relief to major telecoms firms like Sky and BT for new telecoms networks in a few weeks recently while retailers still pay full rates and many are going to the wall.

But then as I have observed some groups have more clout than others.

MarqueeMark

stodge said:

Evening all

I wonder how many would turn up to a "Conservative Live" event ?

Last Night of the Proms? Millions......

Casino_Royale

RoyalBlue said:

brendan16 said:

While new laws are always welcome perhaps we should ensure that existing laws affecting women's rights are also enforced and appropriate prosecutions undertaken.

Or is it because this issue is more likely to perhaps affect white middle class women in London rather than poor working class girls from BME communities is it likely to be more vigorously enforced rather than have a blind eye turned to to avoid unnecessary upset?

Cos while we can spent our time attacking Chope it isn't really addressing the core issue. If its needed why isn't the government introducing its own legislation to address it and then providing resources to enforce it?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fgm-detectives_uk_5a943fdce4b02cb368c45e10?guccounter=1

New laws are always welcome?

No, no, no. The statute book should not be used to ‘send a message’ as it was under New Labour.

I think Chris Chope's position is that new laws are guilty until proven innocent, and he applies this principle quite ideologically because he thinks most of the private members bills are driven by trendy causes and political correctness by backbench MPs seeking to jump on backwagons.

Sometimes, he has a point.

I don't agree with his veto on this, and I think criminal law should be reviewed to assess its suitability in the age of smartphones and social media, but it should be subjected to extensive scrutiny first.

Personally, I think the scope for that review is far broader than just snatching shots upskirts.

There's a much bigger question about invasion of personal privacy in the digital age that I'd like to see legislators examine and address.

MarqueeMark

Chope is a twat.

BUT....if he genuinely didn't know what "upskirting" was, then the Private Members Bill he booted into touch out couldn't have had particularly satisfactory definitions....

stodge

brendan16 said:

So why the fuss over Chope - his actions have probably ensured the legislation now happens more quickly!

And secondly will this new law be actively persecuted - because of course it's more likely to affect white middle class women from London on trains and tubes etc?

But then as I have observed some groups have more clout than others.

How do you figure that ? The Government was already supporting Hobhouse's PMB and would have provided time for it to go through Committee and Report stages starting yesterday with the Second or Third Reading and it seemed probable the Bill would have received rapid approval.

As a result of Chope's petty and mean-spirited actions, nothing can now happen until July 6th. Valuable time has been lost and the long summer recess is looming.

HYUFD

Peter Oborne 'Why Corbyn could be the man who saves Brexit'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5850479/PETER-OBORNE-Corbyn-man-saves-Brexit.html

Pulpstar

By the way these sorts of obnoxious MPs can sometimes be mispriced at General Elections.
Christchurch was 1-8 iirc at the 2015 GE which I managed to get a couple of hundred on.
It might appear again in the odds, obviously it's a 1-100 or so shot at 2022 for the blues, something to look out for.

MikeSmithson

MarqueeMark said:

Chope is a twat.

BUT....if he genuinely didn't know what "upskirting" was, then the Private Members Bill he booted into touch out couldn't have had particularly satisfactory definitions....

How do we know he had even read the bill. He kills planned legislation by simply shouting "object" at the right time. I doubt if he does detail

MikeSmithson

I often wonder what David Herdson thinks of Phillip Davis - he was his constituency CON chairman

JackW

MikeSmithson said:

I often wonder what David Herdson thinks of Phillip Davis - he was his constituency CON chairman

Next Saturday's thread ?? ..

stodge

Pulpstar said:

By the way these sorts of obnoxious MPs can sometimes be mispriced at General Elections.
Christchurch was 1-8 iirc at the 2015 GE which I managed to get a couple of hundred on.
It might appear again in the odds, obviously it's a 1-100 or so shot at 2022 for the blues, something to look out for.

I remember Diana Maddock's famous victory in 1993. Robert Adley had a majority in excess of 20,000 but Maddock demolished it with one of the biggest swings ever recorded. I went down there and did a couple of visits and the mood in the by election team at that time was buoyant.

After Newbury, the LDs at the time thought anything was possible and everywhere was winnable and Christchurch seemed to confirm that. Maddock didn't lose by much to Chope in 1997 but it was a shame she couldn't hang on.

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

By the way these sorts of obnoxious MPs can sometimes be mispriced at General Elections.
Christchurch was 1-8 iirc at the 2015 GE which I managed to get a couple of hundred on.
It might appear again in the odds, obviously it's a 1-100 or so shot at 2022 for the blues, something to look out for.

Christchurch was the safest Tory seat at the last general election with Chope having a huge majority of 25,171 so if he stands again he will almost certainly be re elected.

Although the LDs did win the seat at a by election in 1993 though the Tories won it back at the 1997 general election despite being trounced elsewhere.

TheJezziah

Pulpstar said:

TheJezziah said:

RoyalBlue said:

brendan16 said:

While new laws are always welcome perhaps we should ensure that existing laws affecting women's rights are also enforced and appropriate prosecutions undertaken.

Or is it because this issue is more likely to perhaps affect white middle class women in London rather than poor working class girls from BME communities is it likely to be more vigorously enforced rather than have a blind eye turned to to avoid unnecessary upset?

Cos while we can spent our time attacking Chope it isn't really addressing the core issue. If its needed why isn't the government introducing its own legislation to address it and then providing resources to enforce it?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fgm-detectives_uk_5a943fdce4b02cb368c45e10?guccounter=1

New laws are always welcome?

No, no, no. The statute book should not be used to ‘send a message’ as it was under New Labour.

I want to agree strongly with this, whilst a new law such as something to help the police effectively prosecute upskirting (whilst maintaining the need for a reasonable level of proof) is a good thing in general I feel like it can be too easy to crack down on civil liberties to look like you are doing something without really solving the problems you are looking at.

You're looking in the wrong place for the civil liberty angle - the govt anti "extreme" pornography is the place to look for that.

Yeah this isn't a valid example but I do agree with the general point of not making rules that sound good to people as opposed to a need (which is what upskirting actually comes under)

stodge

HYUFD said:

Christchurch was the safest Tory seat at the last general election with Chope having a huge majority of 25,171 so if he stands again he will almost certainly be re elected.

Although the LDs did win the seat at a by election in 1993 though the Tories won it back at the 1997 general election despite being trounced elsewhere.

What do you think of Chope's actions ? Would you support him if he were seeking re-selection as your constituency MP ?

Jonathan

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

TheJezziah

stodge said:

Evening all

I wonder how many would turn up to a "Conservative Live" event ?

They had 'Tory Glastonbury' which must had at least 3 figures in terms of attendance...

AndyJS

brendan16 said:

While new laws are always welcome perhaps we should ensure that existing laws affecting women's rights are also enforced and appropriate prosecutions undertaken.

Or is it because this issue is more likely to perhaps affect white middle class women in London rather than poor working class girls from BME communities is it likely to be more vigorously enforced rather than have a blind eye turned to to avoid unnecessary upset?

Cos while we can spent our time attacking Chope it isn't really addressing the core issue. If its needed why isn't the government introducing its own legislation to address it and then providing resources to enforce it?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fgm-detectives_uk_5a943fdce4b02cb368c45e10?guccounter=1

FGM has been illegal since 1985. How many successful prosecutions have there been? Zero, which is disgraceful.

https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media-centre/bar-blog/contributing-writers/2018/february/2018/march/guest-blog-fgm-making-the-law-work/

SquareRoot

Jonathan said:

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

Wishful thinking.. Southern England will never vote for the loony left

YBarddCwsc

Jonathan said:

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

Lets hope the Labour seats in South Wales go first. It will be truly cathartic.

A larger collection of more useless individuals it would be hard to find than the South Walien Labour MPs

HYUFD

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Christchurch was the safest Tory seat at the last general election with Chope having a huge majority of 25,171 so if he stands again he will almost certainly be re elected.

Although the LDs did win the seat at a by election in 1993 though the Tories won it back at the 1997 general election despite being trounced elsewhere.

What do you think of Chope's actions ? Would you support him if he were seeking re-selection as your constituency MP ?

Probably not but the fact he has such a big majority suggests most of his constituents think he has done a good job up to now

RochdalePioneers

I almost feel sorry for the man. Our society has evolved markedly and rapidly and he simply can't keep up with events. His problem is that politically it at best make the Tories look like a bunch of ancient old dinosaurs and at worst a bunch of misogynist ancient old dinosaurs. Yes I know its the Tories who brought in gay marriage. But most apolitical punters don't identify them with that - they see someone like Chope apparently defending the right of the man to have a peek at a pair of pants and aren't surprised by the blue rosette

hunchman

Well his directorship of carclew Ltd should make waves as well as his idiotic behaviour over the past week .

HYUFD

Jonathan said:

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

Tory safe seats in Southern England have always been vulnerable to the LDs at by elections, see Christchurch, Romsey and Newbury etc and occasionally at general elections too, particularly from 1997-2010 but they will almost certainly never vote Labour. Even in 1997 Labour's gains came mainly in the suburbs, London, the Midlands and more working class seats in Kent and Essex, Portsmouth and Plymouth not Tory seats in the shires in the south.

In Scotland the SNP did in 2015 a similar function to the LDs in southern England, Labour safe seats which would never vote Tory were prepared to vote SNP

hunchman

Jonathan said:

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

For once I agree with you Jonathan! And it will happen when people find out about all their terrible corruption related to you know which road historically.

Sean_F

RochdalePioneers said:

I almost feel sorry for the man. Our society has evolved markedly and rapidly and he simply can't keep up with events. His problem is that politically it at best make the Tories look like a bunch of ancient old dinosaurs and at worst a bunch of misogynist ancient old dinosaurs. Yes I know its the Tories who brought in gay marriage. But most apolitical punters don't identify them with that - they see someone like Chope apparently defending the right of the man to have a peek at a pair of pants and aren't surprised by the blue rosette

It seems perfectly normal to me.

Philip_Thompson

SquareRoot said:

Jonathan said:

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

Wishful thinking.. Southern England will never vote for the loony left

They don't need to. Scottish Labour didn't fall to the Tories, if a moderate centre-right rival party could spring up (I'm not thinking UKIP in any guise here) then that could do the trick.

YBarddCwsc

There have been convictions for upskirting under outraging public decency.

"Allington-Smith further admitted outraging public decency, between September 2009 and September 2014, for a series of acts of a “lewd, obscene or disgusting nature” by taking images up women’s skirts without their knowledge. "

So, what are the offences that are not covered by existing legislation?

AnneJGP

Jonathan said:

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

ISTR they did have a pretty good clear-out at the time of the expanses scandal, so it may not be quite the same.

Sean_F

SquareRoot said:

Jonathan said:

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

Wishful thinking.. Southern England will never vote for the loony left

But, the seats might switch to parties to the right of the Coservatives.

Big_G_NorthWales

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Christchurch was the safest Tory seat at the last general election with Chope having a huge majority of 25,171 so if he stands again he will almost certainly be re elected.

Although the LDs did win the seat at a by election in 1993 though the Tories won it back at the 1997 general election despite being trounced elsewhere.

What do you think of Chope's actions ? Would you support him if he were seeking re-selection as your constituency MP ?

I was clear yesterday. No matter his motives he has brought shame on the party and his chairman needs to have a word. I hope he does not stand again. I am beyond annoyance with him but pleased he has been roasted by the party including TM

I am sure many of his constituents and supporters are furious with him

Philip_Thompson

YBarddCwsc said:

There have been convictions for upskirting under outraging public decency.

"Allington-Smith further admitted outraging public decency, between September 2009 and September 2014, for a series of acts of a “lewd, obscene or disgusting nature” by taking images up women’s skirts without their knowledge. "

So, what are the offences that are not covered by existing legislation?

Recently a victim was told that the guy who did that couldn't be prosecuted under that law because she was wearing underwear. F===ed up loophole to have.

FrancisUrquhart

Flooding involves deluging the citizen with a torrent of information – some accurate, some phoney, some biased – with the aim of making people overwhelmed. In a digital world, flooding is child’s play: it’s cheap, effective and won’t generate backlash. (En passant, it’s what Russia – and Trump – do.)

In her book, Roberts provides abundant evidence of how the Chinese authorities deploy these three techniques. She also suggests that other authoritarian regimes are now taking lessons from the Beijing playbook. This is significant because there are only two systems of governance left in our world: some version of liberal – or, as in Hungary – illiberal democracy; and the Chinese model of networked authoritarianism. Up to now, we in the west – high on Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” narrative – have tended to assume that our system would triumph and that digital technology would help make that happen. The Chinese take a different view. And in the end they may have the last laugh.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/16/how-china-censors-internet-information

HYUFD

Philip_Thompson said:

SquareRoot said:

Jonathan said:

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

Wishful thinking.. Southern England will never vote for the loony left

They don't need to. Scottish Labour didn't fall to the Tories, if a moderate centre-right rival party could spring up (I'm not thinking UKIP in any guise here) then that could do the trick.

The Tories already are a moderate centre right party

tlg86

Sort of on topic, I must say I'm glad that the fashion of young men and women having their trousers hanging low seems to have ended.

Philip_Thompson

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SquareRoot said:

Jonathan said:

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

Wishful thinking.. Southern England will never vote for the loony left

They don't need to. Scottish Labour didn't fall to the Tories, if a moderate centre-right rival party could spring up (I'm not thinking UKIP in any guise here) then that could do the trick.

The Tories already are a moderate centre right party

Yes but they're not "a moderate centre-right rival party".

YBarddCwsc

Philip_Thompson said:

YBarddCwsc said:

There have been convictions for upskirting under outraging public decency.

"Allington-Smith further admitted outraging public decency, between September 2009 and September 2014, for a series of acts of a “lewd, obscene or disgusting nature” by taking images up women’s skirts without their knowledge. "

So, what are the offences that are not covered by existing legislation?

Recently a victim was told that the guy who did that couldn't be prosecuted under that law because she was wearing underwear. F===ed up loophole to have.

By whom? The police ? The Crown Prosecution Service?

It seems to me as though a prosecution should have gone ahead to test the (claimed) interpretation of the existing law.

Jonathan

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

Tory safe seats in Southern England have always been vulnerable to the LDs at by elections, see Christchurch, Romsey and Newbury etc and occasionally at general elections too, particularly from 1997-2010 but they will almost certainly never vote Labour. Even in 1997 Labour's gains came mainly in the suburbs, London, the Midlands and more working class seats in Kent and Essex, Portsmouth and Plymouth not Tory seats in the shires in the south.

In Scotland the SNP did in 2015 a similar function to the LDs in southern England, Labour safe seats which would never vote Tory were prepared to vote SNP

The Labour vote in the South used to tactically back the LDs, the Coalition killed that stone dead, the LDs lost their seats and are no longer the challenger in dozens of others. . I doubt they will come back without some kind of rebrand or merger.

Philip_Thompson

YBarddCwsc said:

Philip_Thompson said:

YBarddCwsc said:

There have been convictions for upskirting under outraging public decency.

"Allington-Smith further admitted outraging public decency, between September 2009 and September 2014, for a series of acts of a “lewd, obscene or disgusting nature” by taking images up women’s skirts without their knowledge. "

So, what are the offences that are not covered by existing legislation?

Recently a victim was told that the guy who did that couldn't be prosecuted under that law because she was wearing underwear. F===ed up loophole to have.

By whom? The police ? The Crown Prosecution Service?

It seems to me as though a prosecution should have gone ahead to test the (claimed) interpretation of the existing law.

The Police IIRC. You may be right but that's how the law as it is has been getting interpreted so unless we get a clear change in the law by trials then its Parliaments job to address loopholes in the law.

dodrade

MikeSmithson said:

MarqueeMark said:

Chope is a twat.

BUT....if he genuinely didn't know what "upskirting" was, then the Private Members Bill he booted into touch out couldn't have had particularly satisfactory definitions....

How do we know he had even read the bill. He kills planned legislation by simply shouting "object" at the right time. I doubt if he does detail

Surely the real problem is that parliamentary procedure still allows a single MP to effectively veto a private members bill?

Philip_Thompson

dodrade said:

MikeSmithson said:

MarqueeMark said:

Chope is a twat.

BUT....if he genuinely didn't know what "upskirting" was, then the Private Members Bill he booted into touch out couldn't have had particularly satisfactory definitions....

How do we know he had even read the bill. He kills planned legislation by simply shouting "object" at the right time. I doubt if he does detail

Surely the real problem is that parliamentary procedure still allows a single MP to effectively veto a private members bill?

Though if it didn't then chances are enough Parliamentary time would have been taken by other proposed bills before this one that this one would not have even reached the Commons by now.

HYUFD

Jonathan said:

HYUFD said:

Jonathan said:

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

Tory safe seats in Southern England have always been vulnerable to the LDs at by elections, see Christchurch, Romsey and Newbury etc and occasionally at general elections too, particularly from 1997-2010 but they will almost certainly never vote Labour. Even in 1997 Labour's gains came mainly in the suburbs, London, the Midlands and more working class seats in Kent and Essex, Portsmouth and Plymouth not Tory seats in the shires in the south.

In Scotland the SNP did in 2015 a similar function to the LDs in southern England, Labour safe seats which would never vote Tory were prepared to vote SNP

The Labour vote in the South used to tactically back the LDs, the Coalition killed that stone dead, the LDs lost their seats and are no longer the challenger in dozens of others. . I doubt they will come back without some kind of rebrand or merger.

That does not mean Labour are suddenly going to start winning shire seats.

Not one of Corbyn's 2017 gains came in the rural southern market town shires.


Even Canterbury was technically a city where Labour scraped home because of the student vote at Kent University.


The only viable alternative to actually win some of those seats from the Tories is a revived LDs or a new centrist party

Sean_F

FPT Sinn Fein. They will now require all representatives to support abortion up to 12 weeks, rather than treating it as a conscience issue. That will certainly not win support from SDLP voters, but may win support from Alliance and Greens. It won't win one iota from Unionists.

HYUFD

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SquareRoot said:

Jonathan said:

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

Wishful thinking.. Southern England will never vote for the loony left

They don't need to. Scottish Labour didn't fall to the Tories, if a moderate centre-right rival party could spring up (I'm not thinking UKIP in any guise here) then that could do the trick.

The Tories already are a moderate centre right party

Yes but they're not "a moderate centre-right rival party".

Which would be utterly pointless as given a choice between the Tories or pale imitation Tories voters will always prefer the real thing

Pulpstar

Whats happened to football in Africa ?
Every African performance so far has been woeful.

FrancisUrquhart

Pulpstar said:

Whats happened to football in Africa ?
Every African performance so far has been woeful.

There was an article on BBC website the other day, total lack of organization and professionalism (plus massive corruption).

tlg86

Pulpstar said:

Whats happened to football in Africa ?
Every African performance so far has been woeful.

I reckon Senegal will be Africa's one decent team at this tournament. I'll remind you of your post when they defeat England in the last 16.

Alistair

MarqueeMark said:

Chope is a twat.

BUT....if he genuinely didn't know what "upskirting" was, then the Private Members Bill he booted into touch out couldn't have had particularly satisfactory definitions....

Chances are he never read the bill.

Alistair

Chope voted against lowering the age of consent for homosexuality.

So if you hear him talk about wanting the government to be less interfering busy body then he is talking utter shit. That's just cover for his reactionary twatitudeness.

felix

He is one of several Tory MPs in safe seats who should retire before the next GE.

Philip_Thompson

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SquareRoot said:

Jonathan said:

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

Wishful thinking.. Southern England will never vote for the loony left

They don't need to. Scottish Labour didn't fall to the Tories, if a moderate centre-right rival party could spring up (I'm not thinking UKIP in any guise here) then that could do the trick.

The Tories already are a moderate centre right party

Yes but they're not "a moderate centre-right rival party".

Which would be utterly pointless as given a choice between the Tories or pale imitation Tories voters will always prefer the real thing

Not necessarily. The SNP took Labour seats by being a moderate centre-left rival party with a unique selling point. If a centre-right party can launch with a USP then nothing is guaranteed.

Alistair

YBarddCwsc said:

There have been convictions for upskirting under outraging public decency.

"Allington-Smith further admitted outraging public decency, between September 2009 and September 2014, for a series of acts of a “lewd, obscene or disgusting nature” by taking images up women’s skirts without their knowledge. "

So, what are the offences that are not covered by existing legislation?

That was part of an omnibus of offences including possession of child porn and filming people undressing.

Scant chance of it being prosecuting it on it's own.

Sean_F

I don't agree with him on this issue, but he was an outstanding leader of Wandsworth.

Philip_Thompson

Alistair said:

Chope voted against lowering the age of consent for homosexuality.

So if you hear him talk about wanting the government to be less interfering busy body then he is talking utter shit. That's just cover for his reactionary twatitudeness.

He also voted against liberalising Sunday Trading Laws. He's not a libertarian.

Philip_Thompson

Sean_F said:

FPT Sinn Fein. They will now require all representatives to support abortion up to 12 weeks, rather than treating it as a conscience issue. That will certainly not win support from SDLP voters, but may win support from Alliance and Greens. It won't win one iota from Unionists.

Why not? I'm sure there's plenty of 21st century Unionists who have more respect for women than the Church.

SquareRoot

Alistair said:

YBarddCwsc said:

There have been convictions for upskirting under outraging public decency.

"Allington-Smith further admitted outraging public decency, between September 2009 and September 2014, for a series of acts of a “lewd, obscene or disgusting nature” by taking images up women’s skirts without their knowledge. "

So, what are the offences that are not covered by existing legislation?

That was part of an omnibus of offences including possession of child porn and filming people undressing.

Scant chance of it being prosecuting it on it's own.

I wonder if anyone has actually asked Chope why he called it down? He must have proper reason surely... and not just hating private members bills. If he does hate private members bills as alleged, he has a screw loose somewhere.

Recidivist

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SquareRoot said:

Jonathan said:

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

Wishful thinking.. Southern England will never vote for the loony left

They don't need to. Scottish Labour didn't fall to the Tories, if a moderate centre-right rival party could spring up (I'm not thinking UKIP in any guise here) then that could do the trick.

The Tories already are a moderate centre right party

If only.

HYUFD

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

FPT Sinn Fein. They will now require all representatives to support abortion up to 12 weeks, rather than treating it as a conscience issue. That will certainly not win support from SDLP voters, but may win support from Alliance and Greens. It won't win one iota from Unionists.

Why not? I'm sure there's plenty of 21st century Unionists who have more respect for women than the Church.

In which case they will vote Alliance or UUP not Sinn Fein

HYUFD

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SquareRoot said:

Jonathan said:

One day we will see the Tory safe seats tumble in Southern England as Labour’s safe seats fell in Scotland . The power base is as hollow. A lot of dead wood will go and electorates will no longer taken for granted. It will be cathartic.

Wishful thinking.. Southern England will never vote for the loony left

They don't need to. Scottish Labour didn't fall to the Tories, if a moderate centre-right rival party could spring up (I'm not thinking UKIP in any guise here) then that could do the trick.

The Tories already are a moderate centre right party

Yes but they're not "a moderate centre-right rival party".

Which would be utterly pointless as given a choice between the Tories or pale imitation Tories voters will always prefer the real thing

Not necessarily. The SNP took Labour seats by being a moderate centre-left rival party with a unique selling point. If a centre-right party can launch with a USP then nothing is guaranteed.

The SNP took Labour seats by being a pro Scotland, nationalist party in a nation which wanted more powers for Holyrood even if not outright independence not by being a copycat of Labour.

A copycat centre right party which has no distinguishing features at all from the Tories will make no headway at all, if the Tories had abandoned Brexit then there may have been an opening for a moderate centre right pro Brexit Party after the Leave vote, but they haven't so there won't be.

There already is a separate UK Libertarian Party and far right parties like 'For Britain' but those really represent purist versions of right of centre ideology not a moderate, pragmatic centre right party

rural_voter

Philip_Thompson said:

Alistair said:

Chope voted against lowering the age of consent for homosexuality.

So if you hear him talk about wanting the government to be less interfering busy body then he is talking utter shit. That's just cover for his reactionary twatitudeness.

He also voted against liberalising Sunday Trading Laws. He's not a libertarian.

I dislike his far right views but he's free to say what he likes in parliament even if it's the word 'object'. Parliament should change the rules if it dislikes this procedure.

The Daily Mail and Sun are the price we pay for a free press. Having some truly obnoxious MPs may be the price we have to pay for democracy. He's not the only objectionable individual in the HoC.

The_Taxman

I have been looking at Wikipedia for Christopher Chope. He has a long history of making odd interjections on some quite astonishing policies:

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

I don't agree with what he has done but I cannot see the Tories been usurped in Christchurch. This is the problem with such safe seats, it is hard to get rid of them. Maybe the Knighthood was given to him to make way at the right time i.e. so well connected and influential people can be installed with little competition?

another_richard

Pulpstar said:

Whats happened to football in Africa ?
Every African performance so far has been woeful.

Its never been impressive but they really should be able to do better.

Especially when you remember that Nigeria has about 50x the population of Croatia and Egypt 25x the population of Uruguay.

Philip_Thompson

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

FPT Sinn Fein. They will now require all representatives to support abortion up to 12 weeks, rather than treating it as a conscience issue. That will certainly not win support from SDLP voters, but may win support from Alliance and Greens. It won't win one iota from Unionists.

Why not? I'm sure there's plenty of 21st century Unionists who have more respect for women than the Church.

In which case they will vote Alliance or UUP not Sinn Fein

I read it as Sean was saying Unionists would object to treating abortion not as a woman's rights rather than a conscience issue, not that Unionists would object to Sinn Fein come what may.

Benpointer

The_Taxman said:

I have been looking at Wikipedia for Christopher Chope. He has a long history of making odd interjections on some quite astonishing policies:

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

I don't agree with what he has done but I cannot see the Tories been usurped in Christchurch. This is the problem with such safe seats, it is hard to get rid of them. Maybe the Knighthood was given to him to make way at the right time i.e. so well connected and influential people can be installed with little competition?

Couldn't the party deselect him?

another_richard

Benpointer said:

The_Taxman said:

I have been looking at Wikipedia for Christopher Chope. He has a long history of making odd interjections on some quite astonishing policies:

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

I don't agree with what he has done but I cannot see the Tories been usurped in Christchurch. This is the problem with such safe seats, it is hard to get rid of them. Maybe the Knighthood was given to him to make way at the right time i.e. so well connected and influential people can be installed with little competition?

Couldn't the party deselect him?

I doubt he'd stand at the next election given his age.

And he may well have cost himself a place in the HoL.

Freggles

tlg86 said:

Sort of on topic, I must say I'm glad that the fashion of young men and women having their trousers hanging low seems to have ended.

Trousers have been replaced by threadbare leggings in the female case. Or gym wear.

another_richard

Today's Tesco Strawberry score is a repeat of yesterday's nine:

Aberdeenshire
Perthshire
Fife
Nottinghamshire
Staffordshire
Cambridgeshire
Herefordshire
Surrey
Kent

The only changes being a gain of Cambridgeshire and a loss of Somerset.

The_Taxman

Benpointer said:

The_Taxman said:

I have been looking at Wikipedia for Christopher Chope. He has a long history of making odd interjections on some quite astonishing policies:

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

I don't agree with what he has done but I cannot see the Tories been usurped in Christchurch. This is the problem with such safe seats, it is hard to get rid of them. Maybe the Knighthood was given to him to make way at the right time i.e. so well connected and influential people can be installed with little competition?

Couldn't the party deselect him?

I don't think a party would deselect an MP for just shouting "object". I don't agree with what he has done over the years but I have seen worse. It may also be the case that Chope has a personal following in the constituency party, which means he is safe.

Sean_F

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

FPT Sinn Fein. They will now require all representatives to support abortion up to 12 weeks, rather than treating it as a conscience issue. That will certainly not win support from SDLP voters, but may win support from Alliance and Greens. It won't win one iota from Unionists.

Why not? I'm sure there's plenty of 21st century Unionists who have more respect for women than the Church.

It won't cause them to switch to Sinn Fein.

YBarddCwsc

Alistair said:

YBarddCwsc said:

There have been convictions for upskirting under outraging public decency.

"Allington-Smith further admitted outraging public decency, between September 2009 and September 2014, for a series of acts of a “lewd, obscene or disgusting nature” by taking images up women’s skirts without their knowledge. "

So, what are the offences that are not covered by existing legislation?

That was part of an omnibus of offences including possession of child porn and filming people undressing.

Scant chance of it being prosecuting it on it's own.

He committed other offences, for sure.

However, the upskirting was specifically prosecuted, and it was specifically prosecuted under outraging public decency.

Clearly, Allington-Smith was a multiple offender. However, the law was sufficient to obtain a conviction for up skirting (and also additional convictions for the other offences).

If there is scant chance of it being prosecuted on its own, then the blame lies with the police or CPS

(Actually -- I don't think it has been shown that there is scant chance of prosecution on its own).

Scott_P

rural_voter said:

Parliament should change the rules if it dislikes this procedure.

Did he not also vote against changing the rules?

Sean_F

rural_voter said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alistair said:

Chope voted against lowering the age of consent for homosexuality.

So if you hear him talk about wanting the government to be less interfering busy body then he is talking utter shit. That's just cover for his reactionary twatitudeness.

He also voted against liberalising Sunday Trading Laws. He's not a libertarian.

I dislike his far right views but he's free to say what he likes in parliament even if it's the word 'object'. Parliament should change the rules if it dislikes this procedure.

The Daily Mail and Sun are the price we pay for a free press. Having some truly obnoxious MPs may be the price we have to pay for democracy. He's not the only objectionable individual in the HoC.

Likewise the Guardian is the price we pay for a free press.

Benpointer

The_Taxman said:

Benpointer said:

The_Taxman said:

I have been looking at Wikipedia for Christopher Chope. He has a long history of making odd interjections on some quite astonishing policies:

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

I don't agree with what he has done but I cannot see the Tories been usurped in Christchurch. This is the problem with such safe seats, it is hard to get rid of them. Maybe the Knighthood was given to him to make way at the right time i.e. so well connected and influential people can be installed with little competition?

Couldn't the party deselect him?

I don't think a party would deselect an MP for just shouting "object". I don't agree with what he has done over the years but I have seen worse. It may also be the case that Chope has a personal following in the constituency party, which means he is safe.

I would have thought deselect him for bringing the party into disrepute.

kle4

I cannot say I'm ever a fan of this type of headline. For all I think that his actions in blocking bills, whatever their contents and with no assessment on his part of if they can be salvaged in committee stage it seems, are disproportionate to his stated aims and this one is a particularly egregious example of that, I don't see what bringing his wife and daughter into it accomplishes. For all I know they are fully supportive of his actions against this type of bill, even if they supported the intentions behind this particular one.

Philip_Thompson

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

FPT Sinn Fein. They will now require all representatives to support abortion up to 12 weeks, rather than treating it as a conscience issue. That will certainly not win support from SDLP voters, but may win support from Alliance and Greens. It won't win one iota from Unionists.

Why not? I'm sure there's plenty of 21st century Unionists who have more respect for women than the Church.

It won't cause them to switch to Sinn Fein.

If there were any DUP/Sinn Fein wavering voters it might but since I doubt there are any its rather moot.

Hopefully one day there will be DUP/Sinn Fein swing voters. There are afterall Labour/Tory ones. Northern Ireland's sectarian history will only truly be behind it once people feel comfortable to swing like that.

kle4

another_richard said:

Benpointer said:

The_Taxman said:

I have been looking at Wikipedia for Christopher Chope. He has a long history of making odd interjections on some quite astonishing policies:

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

I don't agree with what he has done but I cannot see the Tories been usurped in Christchurch. This is the problem with such safe seats, it is hard to get rid of them. Maybe the Knighthood was given to him to make way at the right time i.e. so well connected and influential people can be installed with little competition?

Couldn't the party deselect him?

I doubt he'd stand at the next election given his age.

He's only 71. There's several MPs 80 and above, one considerably so. And several more intheir mid to late 70s

So while it would not be unexpected, it would also not be a big shock if he continued, or had intended to.

RobD

More evidence the bus was a lie:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/16/350m-extra-week-nhs-hunt-announces-theresa-may-locks-britain/

384mn rather than 350mn....

kle4

Benpointer said:

The_Taxman said:

Benpointer said:

The_Taxman said:

I have been looking at Wikipedia for Christopher Chope. He has a long history of making odd interjections on some quite astonishing policies:

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

I don't agree with what he has done but I cannot see the Tories been usurped in Christchurch. This is the problem with such safe seats, it is hard to get rid of them. Maybe the Knighthood was given to him to make way at the right time i.e. so well connected and influential people can be installed with little competition?

Couldn't the party deselect him?

I don't think a party would deselect an MP for just shouting "object". I don't agree with what he has done over the years but I have seen worse. It may also be the case that Chope has a personal following in the constituency party, which means he is safe.

I would have thought deselect him for bringing the party into disrepute.

I'd guess parties are reluctant to break that out as a reason, in case it becomes overused. Causing a media storm, however justified, is probably something seen as inevitable at some point in an MPs career, and I doubt parties want to appear as though they toss people too eagerly to the wolves.

But they can act quickly of course. Didn't an Isle of Wight MP announce he wouldn't stand at the next election mere hours or days after causing a storm over his views on homosexuals?

FrancisUrquhart

RobD said:

More evidence the bus was a lie:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/16/350m-extra-week-nhs-hunt-announces-theresa-may-locks-britain/

384mn rather than 350mn....

Imagine if May had done this last year for the GE.....bloody total and utter numpty.

kle4

YBarddCwsc said:

There have been convictions for upskirting under outraging public decency.

"Allington-Smith further admitted outraging public decency, between September 2009 and September 2014, for a series of acts of a “lewd, obscene or disgusting nature” by taking images up women’s skirts without their knowledge. "

So, what are the offences that are not covered by existing legislation?

The issue seems to be it can be quite difficult in some circumstances to prosecute without a specific offence, even when it is clear something outrageous has occurred. That some prosecutions have been successful does not in itself speak as to whether there is a need for this to be covered under a specific offence. I'm no legislative expert (and Chope in any case was not making a point about the specifics of this bill, so he certainly wasn't making a judgement about it), but from the news write ups on the face of it the change appears justified.

The_Taxman

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

The_Taxman said:

Benpointer said:

The_Taxman said:

I have been looking at Wikipedia for Christopher Chope. He has a long history of making odd interjections on some quite astonishing policies:

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

I don't agree with what he has done but I cannot see the Tories been usurped in Christchurch. This is the problem with such safe seats, it is hard to get rid of them. Maybe the Knighthood was given to him to make way at the right time i.e. so well connected and influential people can be installed with little competition?

Couldn't the party deselect him?

I don't think a party would deselect an MP for just shouting "object". I don't agree with what he has done over the years but I have seen worse. It may also be the case that Chope has a personal following in the constituency party, which means he is safe.

I would have thought deselect him for bringing the party into disrepute.

I'd guess parties are reluctant to break that out as a reason, in case it becomes overused. Causing a media storm, however justified, is probably something seen as inevitable at some point in an MPs career, and I doubt parties want to appear as though they toss people too eagerly to the wolves.

But they can act quickly of course. Didn't an Isle of Wight MP announce he wouldn't stand at the next election mere hours or days after causing a storm over his views on homosexuals?

I thought he( Isle of Wight MP) announced his intention not to seek re-election due to marital problems and his constituency party being vociferous in their contempt for him?

FrancisUrquhart

1 in 10 of Iceland's population is in Russia...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5852295/Iceland-charms-World-Cup-debut-against-Argentina.html

rottenborough

I see Javid's steady march to No 10 continues tonight: lead on bbc news.

Nemtynakht

kle4 said:

I cannot say I'm ever a fan of this type of headline. For all I think that his actions in blocking bills, whatever their contents and with no assessment on his part of if they can be salvaged in committee stage it seems, are disproportionate to his stated aims and this one is a particularly egregious example of that, I don't see what bringing his wife and daughter into it accomplishes. For all I know they are fully supportive of his actions against this type of bill, even if they supported the intentions behind this particular one.

Can't agree more. The guy is clearly a tool but no need to drag his family into it.

kle4

The_Taxman said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

The_Taxman said:

Benpointer said:

The_Taxman said:

I have been looking at Wikipedia for Christopher Chope. He has a long history of making odd interjections on some quite astonishing policies:

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

I don't agree with what he has done but I cannot see the Tories been usurped in Christchurch. This is the problem with such safe seats, it is hard to get rid of them. Maybe the Knighthood was given to him to make way at the right time i.e. so well connected and influential people can be installed with little competition?

Couldn't the party deselect him?

I don't think a party would deselect an MP for just shouting "object". I don't agree with what he has done over the years but I have seen worse. It may also be the case that Chope has a personal following in the constituency party, which means he is safe.

I would have thought deselect him for bringing the party into disrepute.

I'd guess parties are reluctant to break that out as a reason, in case it becomes overused. Causing a media storm, however justified, is probably something seen as inevitable at some point in an MPs career, and I doubt parties want to appear as though they toss people too eagerly to the wolves.

But they can act quickly of course. Didn't an Isle of Wight MP announce he wouldn't stand at the next election mere hours or days after causing a storm over his views on homosexuals?

I thought he( Isle of Wight MP) announced his intention not to seek re-election due to marital problems and his constituency party being vociferous in their contempt for him?

In fairness I just sort of assumed that pressure within the party most notably around that incident was behind it - whatever the other issues behind it my recollection was he intention not to seek re-election was only announced in the immediate aftermath of said incident, which would suggest to me (if my recollection of the timing is correct) that the party put a lot of pressure on him to do that so they would not have to do something formal.

The_Taxman

The_Taxman said:

kle4 said:

Benpointer said:

The_Taxman said:

Benpointer said:

The_Taxman said:

I have been looking at Wikipedia for Christopher Chope. He has a long history of making odd interjections on some quite astonishing policies:

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

I don't agree with what he has done but I cannot see the Tories been usurped in Christchurch. This is the problem with such safe seats, it is hard to get rid of them. Maybe the Knighthood was given to him to make way at the right time i.e. so well connected and influential people can be installed with little competition?

Couldn't the party deselect him?

I don't think a party would deselect an MP for just shouting "object". I don't agree with what he has done over the years but I have seen worse. It may also be the case that Chope has a personal following in the constituency party, which means he is safe.

I would have thought deselect him for bringing the party into disrepute.

I'd guess parties are reluctant to break that out as a reason, in case it becomes overused. Causing a media storm, however justified, is probably something seen as inevitable at some point in an MPs career, and I doubt parties want to appear as though they toss people too eagerly to the wolves.

But they can act quickly of course. Didn't an Isle of Wight MP announce he wouldn't stand at the next election mere hours or days after causing a storm over his views on homosexuals?

I thought he( Isle of Wight MP) announced his intention not to seek re-election due to marital problems and his constituency party being vociferous in their contempt for him? Actually reading through his Wikipedia it is his stance on Homosexuality that got him.

FrancisUrquhart

Oh dear, Mr Mastermind has lost his cool.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6548828/mp-david-lammy-grapples-with-sun-reporter-and-storms-out-of-interview-and-after-we-dared-ask-about-anti-semitism-row-at-labour-live-festival/