politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Review : June 14th 2018
Options
Comments
-
I missed an amazing detail on the New York attorney general filing charges against trump story.
It is a matter of legal record that Trump knew about the sexual assaults allegation against the former New York AG. Moments after the olf AG leaves office the new AG files charges against Trump on a case who's details have been known for months.
The implications are incredible.0 -
1st April 1976 was our last move, maybe something to do with the date, but we are as happy 42 years later as the first day we moved inCasino_Royale said:
It’s a nightmare.TheScreamingEagles said:
After my last house move I said never again.AlastairMeeks said:Off topic, it seems that moving house is hard work.
0 -
He co-ordinated with Phillip David's to ensure there was no time for a debate on this bill.Sandpit said:
It appears he objects to pretty much every PM Bill being passed on the nod, without scrutiny, as opposed to any objection regarding this specific measure.David_Evershed said:Why did Chope object to the private members bill?
Then objected because there was no debate. Hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe him.0 -
De Gea...bloody liability.0
-
More goalkeeping concussion ....
0 -
De Gea LOL0
-
Vetoing laws designed to stop abuse of women before they even reach the committee stages does though.Casino_Royale said:
Disagreeing with someone vehemently on a number of issues doesn’t make them odious.logical_song said:
Perhaps because, as BigG says "he is an odious member of our party".Casino_Royale said:
Why should he be deselected?Benpointer said:
I don't Big_G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviourBenpointer said:
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!ydoethur said:He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times
). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
A better reponse would be to reform the rules for the review and passage of private members bills.0 -
Well that should keep him at United !!!dixiedean said:De Gea...bloody liability.
0 -
Chope got 70% of the vote, the joint highest Tory share. He must be popular there.0
-
Wise words indeed.ralphmalph said:
You are only meant to move the contents!AlastairMeeks said:Off topic, it seems that moving house is hard work.
The wining hour has been reached, so all is survivable.0 -
If the argument is about scrutiny, then couldn't it be done at the committee stage.Philip_Thompson said:
Vetoing laws designed to stop abuse of women before they even reach the committee stages does though.Casino_Royale said:
Disagreeing with someone vehemently on a number of issues doesn’t make them odious.logical_song said:
Perhaps because, as BigG says "he is an odious member of our party".Casino_Royale said:
Why should he be deselected?Benpointer said:
I don't Big_G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviourBenpointer said:
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!ydoethur said:He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
A better reponse would be to reform the rules for the review and passage of private members bills.
From the radio it just sounded like he yelled object and the bill died there0 -
It is coming back in July but he may do the same again, believe it or notPulpstar said:
If the argument is about scrutiny, then couldn't it be done at the committee stage.Philip_Thompson said:
Vetoing laws designed to stop abuse of women before they even reach the committee stages does though.Casino_Royale said:
Disagreeing with someone vehemently on a number of issues doesn’t make them odious.logical_song said:
Perhaps because, as BigG says "he is an odious member of our party".Casino_Royale said:
Why should he be deselected?Benpointer said:
I don't Big_G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviourBenpointer said:
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!ydoethur said:He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
A better reponse would be to reform the rules for the review and passage of private members bills.
From the radio it just sounded like he yelled object and the bill died there0 -
This is property transaction number two in a series of somewhere between five and eight.TheScreamingEagles said:
After my last house move I said never again.AlastairMeeks said:Off topic, it seems that moving house is hard work.
0 -
I'm going to check hansard0
-
Precisely. This vote is to filter out dud bills, the committee stage is for scrutiny. To complain its not been debated before the committee stage is to put the cart before the horse.Pulpstar said:
If the argument is about scrutiny, then couldn't it be done at the committee stage.Philip_Thompson said:
Vetoing laws designed to stop abuse of women before they even reach the committee stages does though.Casino_Royale said:
Disagreeing with someone vehemently on a number of issues doesn’t make them odious.logical_song said:
Perhaps because, as BigG says "he is an odious member of our party".Casino_Royale said:
Why should he be deselected?Benpointer said:
I don't Big_G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviourBenpointer said:
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!ydoethur said:He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
A better reponse would be to reform the rules for the review and passage of private members bills.
From the radio it just sounded like he yelled object and the bill died there0 -
I don’t think his vetoing of this law is different from the many others he has previously vetoed, and I doubt if he has strong views on the merits of the matter either.Philip_Thompson said:
Vetoing laws designed to stop abuse of women before they even reach the committee stages does though.Casino_Royale said:
Disagreeing with someone vehemently on a number of issues doesn’t make them odious.logical_song said:
Perhaps because, as BigG says "he is an odious member of our party".Casino_Royale said:
Why should he be deselected?Benpointer said:
I don't Big_G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviourBenpointer said:
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!ydoethur said:He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
A better reponse would be to reform the rules for the review and passage of private members bills.
It’s just what he’s always done. He’s clearly invited a lot of opprobrium down on himself by doing it, but I won’t be joining it with it other than to say I disagree with him.
I don’t like feeding frenzies.0 -
I'm struggling to understand how that makes it OK.Casino_Royale said:
I don’t think his vetoing of this law is different from the many others he has previously vetoed, and I doubt if he has strong views on the merits of the matter either.Philip_Thompson said:
Vetoing laws designed to stop abuse of women before they even reach the committee stages does though.Casino_Royale said:
Disagreeing with someone vehemently on a number of issues doesn’t make them odious.logical_song said:
Perhaps because, as BigG says "he is an odious member of our party".Casino_Royale said:
Why should he be deselected?Benpointer said:
I don't Big_G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviourBenpointer said:
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!ydoethur said:He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
A better reponse would be to reform the rules for the review and passage of private members bills.
It’s just what he’s always done. He’s clearly invited a lot of opprobrium down on himself by doing it, but I won’t be joining it with it other than to say I disagree with him.
I don’t like feeding frenzies.
If he had a strong view on the matter that would make it better. If he doesn't care and is vetoing bills before they can be scrutinised for no reason at all then that's not principled.0 -
Hansard doesn't seem to specify him shouting object, but I note Chope and Davies were busy taking plenty of time "debating" a mental health bill about half one today...0
-
I heard him say objectPulpstar said:Hansard doesn't seem to specify him shouting object, but I note Chope and Davies were busy taking plenty of time "debating" a mental health bill about half one today...
0 -
Bit his reasoning for doing so is totally specious.Casino_Royale said:
I don’t think his vetoing of this law is different from the many others he has previously vetoed, and I doubt if he has strong views on the merits of the matter either.Philip_Thompson said:
Vetoing laws designed to stop abuse of women before they even reach the committee stages does though.Casino_Royale said:
Disagreeing with someone vehemently on a number of issues doesn’t make them odious.logical_song said:
Perhaps because, as BigG says "he is an odious member of our party".Casino_Royale said:
Why should he be deselected?Benpointer said:
I don't Big_G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviourBenpointer said:
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!ydoethur said:He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
A better reponse would be to reform the rules for the review and passage of private members bills.
It’s just what he’s always done. He’s clearly invited a lot of opprobrium down on himself by doing it, but I won’t be joining it with it other than to say I disagree with him.
I don’t like feeding frenzies.0 -
This match is already far better than all the others put together...0
-
Or for the election of MPs.Casino_Royale said:
Why should he be deselected?Benpointer said:
I don't Big_G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviourBenpointer said:
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!ydoethur said:He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
A better reponse would be to reform the rules for the review and passage of private members bills.0 -
“By Mark D'Arcy, BBC parliamentary correspondent
Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statue book by a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting.
And after all this is a bill to create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail.
So, however worthy the cause, he insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that.
Indeed, a few minutes before he blocked the upskirting bill, he forced a delay to Seni's Law, which also had strong support from the government.
He also opposed plans to give police dogs and horses extra legal protections from attack.”
You can disagree with that but that doesn’t make him odious.0 -
Given he got 70% of the vote, I'm not sure any other voting system would have prevented his election.PClipp said:
Or for the election of MPs.Casino_Royale said:
Why should he be deselected?Benpointer said:
I don't Big_G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviourBenpointer said:
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!ydoethur said:He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
A better reponse would be to reform the rules for the review and passage of private members bills.0 -
Well, under STV he would ideally be in competition with other Conservative candidates, and then Conservative voters would be able to choose between his strand of Conservatism and others, as well as his personal qualities.RobD said:
Given he got 70% of the vote, I'm not sure any other voting system would have prevented his election.PClipp said:
Or for the election of MPs.Casino_Royale said:
Why should he be deselected?Benpointer said:
I don't Big_G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviourBenpointer said:
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!ydoethur said:He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
A better reponse would be to reform the rules for the review and passage of private members bills.
The Irish experience suggests that he could well still be elected, but at least the electorate would be in a position to change their mind without having to vote against the Conservatives.0 -
I find it hard to believe that taking a picture of someone's intimate body parts is not already covered by legislation.
Not my area of expertise, in any sense. But if legislation is needed, Chope is an idiot for preventing it being debated.
Perhaps I've lived a sheltered life. But there does seem to be more of this sleazy, pervy behaviour directed at women, no? Or am I being nostalgic?0 -
What's odious about it is that there wasn't much honest attempt at scrutiny of any of the bills because his mate wasted two hours filibustering.Casino_Royale said:“By Mark D'Arcy, BBC parliamentary correspondent
Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statue book by a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting.
And after all this is a bill to create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail.
So, however worthy the cause, he insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that.
Indeed, a few minutes before he blocked the upskirting bill, he forced a delay to Seni's Law, which also had strong support from the government.
He also opposed plans to give police dogs and horses extra legal protections from attack.”
You can disagree with that but that doesn’t make him odious.0 -
They have that system here in the US, where you end up with two candidates from the same party to "choose" from. I bet that does wonders for turnout.OblitusSumMe said:
Well, under STV he would ideally be in competition with other Conservative candidates, and then Conservative voters would be able to choose between his strand of Conservatism and others, as well as his personal qualities.RobD said:
Given he got 70% of the vote, I'm not sure any other voting system would have prevented his election.PClipp said:
Or for the election of MPs.Casino_Royale said:
Why should he be deselected?Benpointer said:
I don't Big_G.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am utterly disgusted with Chope and I concur he is an odious member of our party. Please do not judge us all on his unacceptable behaviourBenpointer said:
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!ydoethur said:He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope
You and pretty much all the PB Tories seem like reasonable decent, people to me, sincere in what you believe in (even if you are a bit misguided at times). But this guy seems to be a 'nasty party' dinosaur of the first degree. Hard to believe your party doesn't have a way of weeding such MPs out.
Deselect Soubry, Woolaston, or Greive? - Get rid of this guy first, would be my advice!
I don’t agree with him on this, but he represents a strand of socially conservative Thatcherite thinking that is deserving of representation at Westminster.
A better reponse would be to reform the rules for the review and passage of private members bills.
The Irish experience suggests that he could well still be elected, but at least the electorate would be in a position to change their mind without having to vote against the Conservatives.0 -
what actually happened:
Philip Davies had a lot of amendments to the Mental Health restraint Act, and apparently he was not happy with it, so he talked it out essentially, on the basis that the government should do a better job, basically.
This consumed all available time, and subsequently no less than 20 Bills were put to Parliament to be voted on without debate, which were all summarily objected to.
I doubt that the MPs had even read the Bills in question, so didn't know that one of them was an 'upskirting' bill.
There was other worthy legislation, I guess, such as the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill (banning them), or the London Pedicabs (regulating the various rip-off artists plying their trades) Bill, but they just object to them all out of principle.
Presumably SOMEONE has drafted and considered all this legislation, but whether you consider it is better for bureaucrats to essentially make law without real scrutiny, or for Parliament to do it, is perhaps a philosophical issue.
Clearly it is woolly-headed nonsense to start screaming and shouting that this dreadful man chucked out this Bill when the reality is that he chucks them ALL out.
If we want to change the system then we should do that. But let's not start shock horror, MP doesn't allow Bill to be passed without debate witch hunts at random, when this is exactly how things work.0 -
sorry Mental Health restraint Bill, not Act.0
-
It is more easily detected, now that most people feel you haven't really committed a crime properly unless you have videoed it and uploaded to social media.Cyclefree said:I find it hard to believe that taking a picture of someone's intimate body parts is not already covered by legislation.
Not my area of expertise, in any sense. But if legislation is needed, Chope is an idiot for preventing it being debated.
Perhaps I've lived a sheltered life. But there does seem to be more of this sleazy, pervy behaviour directed at women, no? Or am I being nostalgic?
I am just mystified. Surely this is already illegal, and if not why hasn't a government minister piped up this afternoon and said it will be sorted with a proper bill, and why hasn't the opposition asked why a government minister hasn't piped up this afternoon...0 -
I suspect that, by the power of the internet, people can find out and share in more and more niche *interests*, and the rest of us can find out about these people. People are no better or worse than before, just more connected.Cyclefree said:I find it hard to believe that taking a picture of someone's intimate body parts is not already covered by legislation.
Not my area of expertise, in any sense. But if legislation is needed, Chope is an idiot for preventing it being debated.
Perhaps I've lived a sheltered life. But there does seem to be more of this sleazy, pervy behaviour directed at women, no? Or am I being nostalgic?0 -
I knew the odious Phillip Davies would probably be involved somewhere along the line..OblitusSumMe said:
What's odious about it is that there wasn't much honest attempt at scrutiny of any of the bills because his mate wasted two hours filibustering.Casino_Royale said:“By Mark D'Arcy, BBC parliamentary correspondent
Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statue book by a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting.
And after all this is a bill to create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail.
So, however worthy the cause, he insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that.
Indeed, a few minutes before he blocked the upskirting bill, he forced a delay to Seni's Law, which also had strong support from the government.
He also opposed plans to give police dogs and horses extra legal protections from attack.”
You can disagree with that but that doesn’t make him odious.0 -
In fact that is what some are indeed objecting to - his commitment to this principle appears to be a disproportionate response even it is a sincere view he holds. It's not as though the bills moving on would mean poor legislation would definitely be adopted as a result, they aren't going on to the statute book tomorrow.ipfreely said:
Clearly it is woolly-headed nonsense to start screaming and shouting that this dreadful man chucked out this Bill when the reality is that he chucks them ALL out.
Let's not have a witch hunt. But let's also not pretend all criticism is to be dismissed as irrelevant because of the fear of starting a witch hunt.0 -
That was another sure-footed move by the Government, would you say?Casino_Royale said:
He’s not an idiot. He led Wandsworth Council shortly after the Tories took control in 1978, and drove it to have one of the lowest council taxes in the country using Thatcherite principles.malcolmg said:
The clown has not got enough brain cells to be able to think cogently.AndyJS said:
Maybe he thought that current laws are adequate to cover the situation.David_Evershed said:Why did Chope object to the private members bill?
And he was knighted for political and public service only this year.0 -
The descriptions I've see are that the bill was intended to make it a specific offence, so I would presume while the authorities can find things to charge people with in such cases, it is believed it will be easier (and fairer) to do so if it is a specific offence.Cyclefree said:I find it hard to believe that taking a picture of someone's intimate body parts is not already covered by legislation.
I have a great deal of sympathy with not wanting poor legislation to be adopted, but this tactic seems over the top, and as poor a view as we have of MPs as a group, if the hundreds upon hundreds in their now, and thousands in the past, don't utilise such extreme tactics on poor bills, I think there a good chance it is an unnecessary tactic.
Relatedly, I know she is merely being descriptive of the person who objected, but out of context it could be read that Dawn Butler is suggesting it would have be ok for a woman non tory to have blocked the bill, which obviously is not what she means I know.
Dawn Butler, Labour's shadow minister for women and equalities, said: "It's absolutely disgusting that a male Tory MP has blocked upskirting from becoming a criminal offence.
0 -
Sign him up Jose0
-
The Final is already packing its bags and slinking off home "Can't compete with this....."0
-
Ronaldo has looked worth every penny of his €100 million earnings or whatever he makes this evening0
-
Hardly astonishing. Millions of voters share his views, and the Conservative Party wants their support.Benpointer said:
If his wikipedia entry is to be believed he sounds like an odious shite. To think there are current MPs with this set of views, even in the Conservative Party, is astonishing!ydoethur said:He is of course right that lots of parliamentary bills are badly worded and shouldn't be on the statute book for that reason, and or need more scrutiny.
His argument would have more force by far if it wasn't mostly government bills that DID have parliamentary scrutiny that suffer from this flaw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope
0 -
He's amazing.Pulpstar said:Ronaldo has looked worth every penny of his €100 million earnings or whatever he makes this evening
0 -
Casino is correct to say that there's no reason to think that Chope objects to this particular Bill, just that he believes that backbenchers have no business putting forward Bills.Alistair said:
He co-ordinated with Phillip David's to ensure there was no time for a debate on this bill.Sandpit said:
It appears he objects to pretty much every PM Bill being passed on the nod, without scrutiny, as opposed to any objection regarding this specific measure.David_Evershed said:Why did Chope object to the private members bill?
Then objected because there was no debate. Hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe him.
I think it's reasonable to say that even with that general view (neutering backbenchers even more than they are already), he should pick and choose a bit - perhaps only object to Bills where there is a degree of opposition from ANY quarter? And certainly he shouldn't make fun of the whole thing, as he and Davies did on this occasion with their double act.0 -
Get Bale.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sign him up Jose
0 -
I think that seems a reasonable view. Even objecting to the principles of how these bills are put forward he should accept it is a valid legislative procedure and at least exercise a bit more scrutiny himself of their potential worthiness, if the reports of how scattershot he is about it are accurate.NickPalmer said:
Casino is correct to say that there's no reason to think that Chope objects to this particular Bill, just that he believes that backbenchers have no business putting forward Bills.Alistair said:
He co-ordinated with Phillip David's to ensure there was no time for a debate on this bill.Sandpit said:
It appears he objects to pretty much every PM Bill being passed on the nod, without scrutiny, as opposed to any objection regarding this specific measure.David_Evershed said:Why did Chope object to the private members bill?
Then objected because there was no debate. Hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe him.
I think it's reasonable to say that even with that general view (neutering backbenchers even more than they are already), he should pick and choose a bit - perhaps only object to Bills where there is a degree of opposition from ANY quarter? And certainly he shouldn't make fun of the whole thing, as he and Davies did on this occasion with their double act.
It's one of those situations where the purported reasoning for the action - wanting better legislation - seems solid, but is his approach really the best way to manage it? With all the people is is building up grievances with?0 -
As wellralphmalph said:
Get Bale.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sign him up Jose
0 -
A classic tbh0
-
They've double acted several times before sometimes with JRM in tow before he turned into the Brexiteer's darling. For example they killed off a daylight saving bill back in 2012 presented by Rebecca Harris. Neanderthals all.NickPalmer said:
Casino is correct to say that there's no reason to think that Chope objects to this particular Bill, just that he believes that backbenchers have no business putting forward Bills.Alistair said:
He co-ordinated with Phillip David's to ensure there was no time for a debate on this bill.Sandpit said:
It appears he objects to pretty much every PM Bill being passed on the nod, without scrutiny, as opposed to any objection regarding this specific measure.David_Evershed said:Why did Chope object to the private members bill?
Then objected because there was no debate. Hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe him.
I think it's reasonable to say that even with that general view (neutering backbenchers even more than they are already), he should pick and choose a bit - perhaps only object to Bills where there is a degree of opposition from ANY quarter? And certainly he shouldn't make fun of the whole thing, as he and Davies did on this occasion with their double act.0 -
You are a greedy chap!Big_G_NorthWales said:
As wellralphmalph said:
Get Bale.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sign him up Jose
0 -
I don't see how insulting people rather than trying to understand their motives advances us very far.RobC said:
They've double acted several times before sometimes with JRM in tow before he turned into the Brexiteer's darling. For example they killed off a daylight saving bill back in 2012 presented by Rebecca Harris. Neanderthals all.NickPalmer said:
Casino is correct to say that there's no reason to think that Chope objects to this particular Bill, just that he believes that backbenchers have no business putting forward Bills.Alistair said:
He co-ordinated with Phillip David's to ensure there was no time for a debate on this bill.Sandpit said:
It appears he objects to pretty much every PM Bill being passed on the nod, without scrutiny, as opposed to any objection regarding this specific measure.David_Evershed said:Why did Chope object to the private members bill?
Then objected because there was no debate. Hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe him.
I think it's reasonable to say that even with that general view (neutering backbenchers even more than they are already), he should pick and choose a bit - perhaps only object to Bills where there is a degree of opposition from ANY quarter? And certainly he shouldn't make fun of the whole thing, as he and Davies did on this occasion with their double act.0 -
Neanderthal seems an odd insult to use in this context, particularly given the example of a daylight saving bill. They seem to be disproportionately tanking bills on technical grounds, whatever the worthiness of those bills, which would seem to be silly, but neanderthal?RobC said:
They've double acted several times before sometimes with JRM in tow before he turned into the Brexiteer's darling. For example they killed off a daylight saving bill back in 2012 presented by Rebecca Harris. Neanderthals all.NickPalmer said:
Casino is correct to say that there's no reason to think that Chope objects to this particular Bill, just that he believes that backbenchers have no business putting forward Bills.Alistair said:
He co-ordinated with Phillip David's to ensure there was no time for a debate on this bill.Sandpit said:
It appears he objects to pretty much every PM Bill being passed on the nod, without scrutiny, as opposed to any objection regarding this specific measure.David_Evershed said:Why did Chope object to the private members bill?
Then objected because there was no debate. Hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe him.
I think it's reasonable to say that even with that general view (neutering backbenchers even more than they are already), he should pick and choose a bit - perhaps only object to Bills where there is a degree of opposition from ANY quarter? And certainly he shouldn't make fun of the whole thing, as he and Davies did on this occasion with their double act.0 -
Need lots of talent to take on Cityralphmalph said:
You are a greedy chap!Big_G_NorthWales said:
As wellralphmalph said:
Get Bale.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sign him up Jose
0 -
Well after an afternoon games akin to Radiohead live at Glastonbury, that was much more like it! Remind me why do we need 48 teams in the world cup again?0
-
minus the £15 million for the tax dodging fine.Pulpstar said:Ronaldo has looked worth every penny of his €100 million earnings or whatever he makes this evening
0 -
Great game, first one I actually watched. Doesn't seem to have been a bad point to start watching the tournament.
0 -
Wow - what a game! There was me thinking this had 0-0 written all over it!0
-
Evening all
Just watched Portugal vs Spain - a tremendous game and worthy of a World Cup Final or at the very least semi-final and if one of those two teams isn't there at the very end I'll be surprised.
More entertaining than a District Council by-election, more exciting than a Vince Cable speech and that's saying something !!0 -
So with two goals direct from free kicks so far I wonder if a team will put a defender on the goal line at free kicks.0
-
Because they probably looked in to it and concluded it is too difficult to legislate for something like this. I've not read it, but the proposed legislation is probably deeply flawed and will unintentionally criminalise all sorts of innocent activity. Its probably easier for the government to just let it happen this way, rather than have to defend something that that falls apart under scrutiny.Ishmael_Z said:
It is more easily detected, now that most people feel you haven't really committed a crime properly unless you have videoed it and uploaded to social media.Cyclefree said:I find it hard to believe that taking a picture of someone's intimate body parts is not already covered by legislation.
Not my area of expertise, in any sense. But if legislation is needed, Chope is an idiot for preventing it being debated.
Perhaps I've lived a sheltered life. But there does seem to be more of this sleazy, pervy behaviour directed at women, no? Or am I being nostalgic?
I am just mystified. Surely this is already illegal, and if not why hasn't a government minister piped up this afternoon and said it will be sorted with a proper bill, and why hasn't the opposition asked why a government minister hasn't piped up this afternoon...0 -
you don't need a new bill, new law. shows how poor politicians are to need to do this. Honestly Tories are like New Labour! LosersRobC said:
They've double acted several times before sometimes with JRM in tow before he turned into the Brexiteer's darling. For example they killed off a daylight saving bill back in 2012 presented by Rebecca Harris. Neanderthals all.NickPalmer said:
Casino is correct to say that there's no reason to think that Chope objects to this particular Bill, just that he believes that backbenchers have no business putting forward Bills.Alistair said:
He co-ordinated with Phillip David's to ensure there was no time for a debate on this bill.Sandpit said:
It appears he objects to pretty much every PM Bill being passed on the nod, without scrutiny, as opposed to any objection regarding this specific measure.David_Evershed said:Why did Chope object to the private members bill?
Then objected because there was no debate. Hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe him.
I think it's reasonable to say that even with that general view (neutering backbenchers even more than they are already), he should pick and choose a bit - perhaps only object to Bills where there is a degree of opposition from ANY quarter? And certainly he shouldn't make fun of the whole thing, as he and Davies did on this occasion with their double act.0 -
I guess he wanted to send the Spanish tax authorities a message xDFrancisUrquhart said:
minus the £15 million for the tax dodging fine.Pulpstar said:Ronaldo has looked worth every penny of his €100 million earnings or whatever he makes this evening
0 -
Most finals are shite in any case.MarqueeMark said:The Final is already packing its bags and slinking off home "Can't compete with this....."
0 -
he's done the right thing Doesn't need a new law. Christ, upskirting. WTF!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainermalcolmg said:
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They are in all parties Malc, sadlymalcolmg said:
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebagsBig_G_NorthWales said:
Shocked by Chope's stupidity - just crassScott_P said:0 -
This is the Santorum surge all over again.
https://twitter.com/caitlinmoran/status/10077022357389312010 -
Perhaps we should revisit one of that thread a few months ago when people were saying we should boycott the WC and I pointed out that when it took place there would be plenty of match commentary in the PB threads.0
-
I note Chope may have scuppered the bill to toughen up people stabbing police animals, so he's on the side of animal abuse as well.0
-
Is upskirting the new 'happy slapping' ?
And surely it would be already illegal ?
How prevalent is it anyway ?0 -
Why was he knighted by May btw ?0
-
OT the biased BBC has changed its headline and the story to lead on Theresa May and Conservative MPs in general criticising Chope, who is no longer identified as a Tory.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-444964270 -
So which existing law adequately prohibits it?Deano said:
he's done the right thing Doesn't need a new law. Christ, upskirting. WTF!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainermalcolmg said:
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They are in all parties Malc, sadlymalcolmg said:
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebagsBig_G_NorthWales said:
Shocked by Chope's stupidity - just crassScott_P said:0 -
Several things:Deano said:
he's done the right thing Doesn't need a new law. Christ, upskirting. WTF!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainermalcolmg said:
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They are in all parties Malc, sadlymalcolmg said:
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebagsBig_G_NorthWales said:
Shocked by Chope's stupidity - just crassScott_P said:
1) If he rejects all such bills on principles then even if he had done the right thing here it would be by accident, and he should still pay more attention because he will have undoubtedly blocked worthy bills based on his overly harsh principle
2) What exactly provokes your 'WTF' about upskirting? There may be an argument that the laws we already have are sufficient to address the issues here, IDK, I am not an expert on the law but many people including the government appear to believe the present law is inadequate in this area. There is nothing inherently shocking about the idea legislation may not be presently sufficient for the offence, even if you are right that it is not needed (which, again, was not his reason for blocking it anyway so he can gain no credit for doing so on that basis - indeed, the very unthinking nature of what he apparently does is the problem, in that weeding out bad bills requires it not be an automatic thing he does)0 -
His sentence might no longer be suspended.Pulpstar said:
I guess he wanted to send the Spanish tax authorities a message xDFrancisUrquhart said:
minus the £15 million for the tax dodging fine.Pulpstar said:Ronaldo has looked worth every penny of his €100 million earnings or whatever he makes this evening
0 -
Voyeurism didn't cover it entirely, that was the whole point of the billIshmael_Z said:
So which existing law adequately prohibits it?Deano said:
he's done the right thing Doesn't need a new law. Christ, upskirting. WTF!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainermalcolmg said:
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They are in all parties Malc, sadlymalcolmg said:
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebagsBig_G_NorthWales said:
Shocked by Chope's stupidity - just crassScott_P said:0 -
Chris Chope is lucky I'm not editing PB now.
I'd have gone full Mark Reckless on him.
https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/10077174252809666560 -
I bet he also likes pineapple on pizza.Pulpstar said:I note Chope may have scuppered the bill to toughen up people stabbing police animals, so he's on the side of animal abuse as well.
As an aside Gove is showing very good media skills which is why he's the favourite to replace May, I'm sure the timing of the tweet is mere happenstance.
https://twitter.com/DefraGovUK/status/10076852896603463690 -
Noanother_richard said:Is upskirting the new 'happy slapping' ?
And surely it would be already illegal ?
How prevalent is it anyway ?
Yes, but not as a specific offence and the argument is that the only avenues of prosecution under existing offences make it unreasonably hard to convict people (the key word being unreasonably). And that wasn't his objection in any case it seems, since this is about principle.
What does that matter?0 -
At least when I load the link it does,DecrepitJohnL said:OT the biased BBC has changed its headline and the story to lead on Theresa May and Conservative MPs in general criticising Chope, who is no longer identified as a Tory.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427
"Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives"
I don't really understand why we don't follow the US convention of when mentioning a politician where they simply put (D) or (R) after their name. Takes no real space, but makes it clear which party they are from.
0 -
Theresa May says she is "disappointed" an attempt to make upskirting a criminal offence in England and Wales did not progress through Parliament after one of her own MPs blocked it.DecrepitJohnL said:OT the biased BBC has changed its headline and the story to lead on Theresa May and Conservative MPs in general criticising Chope, who is no longer identified as a Tory.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427
Seems like pretty clear identification so long as people can figure out May is a Conservative.0 -
Also supporting Tory Mp's in marginal seats.TheScreamingEagles said:
I bet he also likes pineapple on pizza.Pulpstar said:I note Chope may have scuppered the bill to toughen up people stabbing police animals, so he's on the side of animal abuse as well.
As an aside Gove is showing very good media skills which is why he's the favourite to replace May, I'm sure the timing of the tweet is mere happenstance.
https://twitter.com/DefraGovUK/status/10076852896603463690 -
So an activity carried out exclusively by men which deeply humiliates and invades the privacy and personal space of (exclusively) women must be allowed to continue because it is "probably" (twice) quite difficult to prohibit, because there are "all sorts of things" which are closely cognate enough to sticking a camera up a woman's skirt to be caught by any potential legislation but are nonetheless "innocent activity."nielh said:
Because they probably looked in to it and concluded it is too difficult to legislate for something like this. I've not read it, but the proposed legislation is probably deeply flawed and will unintentionally criminalise all sorts of innocent activity. Its probably easier for the government to just let it happen this way, rather than have to defend something that that falls apart under scrutiny.Ishmael_Z said:
It is more easily detected, now that most people feel you haven't really committed a crime properly unless you have videoed it and uploaded to social media.Cyclefree said:I find it hard to believe that taking a picture of someone's intimate body parts is not already covered by legislation.
Not my area of expertise, in any sense. But if legislation is needed, Chope is an idiot for preventing it being debated.
Perhaps I've lived a sheltered life. But there does seem to be more of this sleazy, pervy behaviour directed at women, no? Or am I being nostalgic?
I am just mystified. Surely this is already illegal, and if not why hasn't a government minister piped up this afternoon and said it will be sorted with a proper bill, and why hasn't the opposition asked why a government minister hasn't piped up this afternoon...
I don't often succumb to bouts of neo-liberal feminist outrage, but: are you sure about all that?0 -
We don't want to get to the situation that South Korea has. Ban it now.kle4 said:
Several things:Deano said:
he's done the right thing Doesn't need a new law. Christ, upskirting. WTF!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainermalcolmg said:
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They are in all parties Malc, sadlymalcolmg said:
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebagsBig_G_NorthWales said:
Shocked by Chope's stupidity - just crassScott_P said:
1) If he rejects all such bills on principles then even if he had done the right thing here it would be by accident, and he should still pay more attention because he will have undoubtedly blocked worthy bills based on his overly harsh principle
2) What exactly provokes your 'WTF' about upskirting? There may be an argument that the laws we already have are sufficient to address the issues here, IDK, I am not an expert on the law but many people including the government appear to believe the present law is inadequate in this area. There is nothing inherently shocking about the idea legislation may not be presently sufficient for the offence, even if you are right that it is not needed (which, again, was not his reason for blocking it anyway so he can gain no credit for doing so on that basis - indeed, the very unthinking nature of what he apparently does is the problem, in that weeding out bad bills requires it not be an automatic thing he does)
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/1007702211877588992?s=19
Between Brexit and other business, Parliament should sit through the summer.
0 -
Very prevalent now that most phones come with a very decent camera/video.another_richard said:Is upskirting the new 'happy slapping' ?
And surely it would be already illegal ?
How prevalent is it anyway ?
It's one of those things when the law was written such things didn't exist.
Still proud that when Abu Hamza was convicted that it was mostly under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.0 -
If he thinks backbenchers shouldn't put forward bills he should try and change the system rather than stinking the place up to get his rocks off.NickPalmer said:
Casino is correct to say that there's no reason to think that Chope objects to this particular Bill, just that he believes that backbenchers have no business putting forward Bills.Alistair said:
He co-ordinated with Phillip David's to ensure there was no time for a debate on this bill.Sandpit said:
It appears he objects to pretty much every PM Bill being passed on the nod, without scrutiny, as opposed to any objection regarding this specific measure.David_Evershed said:Why did Chope object to the private members bill?
Then objected because there was no debate. Hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe him.
I think it's reasonable to say that even with that general view (neutering backbenchers even more than they are already), he should pick and choose a bit - perhaps only object to Bills where there is a degree of opposition from ANY quarter? And certainly he shouldn't make fun of the whole thing, as he and Davies did on this occasion with their double act.
Him and his mates boast of taking delight in talking out bills and they aren't doing through any sincere conviction. They are doing it for personal pleasure.
They are mendacious, disingenuous, slimy toads.0 -
I'm just asking how prevalent it is - is it one a year or a thousand a day or somewhere in between - I'd never heard of it before today.kle4 said:
Noanother_richard said:Is upskirting the new 'happy slapping' ?
And surely it would be already illegal ?
How prevalent is it anyway ?
Yes, but not as a specific offence and the argument is that the only avenues of prosecution under existing offences make it unreasonably hard to convict people (the key word being unreasonably). And that wasn't his objection in any case it seems, since this is about principle.
What does that matter?
And it reminds me of the 'happy slapping' panic of a decade ago when apparently you couldn't walk near a group of teenagers without being in fear of becoming a victim.0 -
Exclusive Deltapoll polling: Tories are “bad in a crisis”—and don’t stand for ordinary British workers
The results also show that the public view the party as divided, and not supportive of either small businessmen, farmers or working women
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/other/exclusive-polling-tories-are-bad-in-a-crisis-and-dont-stand-for-ordinary-british-workers0 -
Unquestionably. If ever there was a time of peace in which we we need more going on at Westminster, it's now.Foxy said:
Between Brexit and other business, Parliament should sit through the summer.kle4 said:
Several things:Deano said:
he's done the right thing Doesn't need a new law. Christ, upskirting. WTF!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainermalcolmg said:
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They are in all parties Malc, sadlymalcolmg said:
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebagsBig_G_NorthWales said:
Shocked by Chope's stupidity - just crassScott_P said:
1) If he rejects all such bills on principles then even if he had done the right thing here it would be by accident, and he should still pay more attention because he will have undoubtedly blocked worthy bills based on his overly harsh principle
2) What exactly provokes your 'WTF' about upskirting? There may be an argument that the laws we already have are sufficient to address the issues here, IDK, I am not an expert on the law but many people including the government appear to believe the present law is inadequate in this area. There is nothing inherently shocking about the idea legislation may not be presently sufficient for the offence, even if you are right that it is not needed (which, again, was not his reason for blocking it anyway so he can gain no credit for doing so on that basis - indeed, the very unthinking nature of what he apparently does is the problem, in that weeding out bad bills requires it not be an automatic thing he does)
On upskirting the BBC description of the routes by which prosecution can be brought at the moment, and their limitations, do seem at first glance to justify the making of a specific offence.0 -
How will Gove overcome his unique ability to be able to start an argument in an empty lift ?TheScreamingEagles said:
I bet he also likes pineapple on pizza.Pulpstar said:I note Chope may have scuppered the bill to toughen up people stabbing police animals, so he's on the side of animal abuse as well.
As an aside Gove is showing very good media skills which is why he's the favourite to replace May, I'm sure the timing of the tweet is mere happenstance.
twitter.com/DefraGovUK/status/10076852896603463690 -
Do any of these bills actually ever make it through the full process without government support anyway? Surely 99.9% get timed out anyway? Killing them at source is very visible, but is the whole process anything more than an opportunity for back bench MPs to strike a pose?0
-
It would seem that there are convictions for upskirting
https://tinyurl.com/yadvztom
“ 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. "
Actually, this individual engaged in a whole range of questionable behaviour, such as filming women in short skirts and in shorts without their consent.
I can see that any legislation that goes beyond “outraging public decency” does need careful drafting.
0 -
Who do they stand for enough that they are ahead of level pegging with Labour, 'party of the people' tm?TheScreamingEagles said:Exclusive ICM polling: Tories are “bad in a crisis”—and don’t stand for ordinary British workers
The results also show that the public view the party as divided, and not supportive of either small businessmen, farmers or working women
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/other/exclusive-polling-tories-are-bad-in-a-crisis-and-dont-stand-for-ordinary-british-workers0 -
Dear me, there must be some creepy weirdos about.TheScreamingEagles said:
Very prevalent now that most phones come with a very decent camera/video.another_richard said:Is upskirting the new 'happy slapping' ?
And surely it would be already illegal ?
How prevalent is it anyway ?
It's one of those things when the law was written such things didn't exist.
Still proud that when Abu Hamza was convicted that it was mostly under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
Are they the sort of people who used to steal underwear from washing lines ?0 -
lots of laws. Are Police so dim they can't work it out. Have there been more murders than upskirting? first world problem.Pulpstar said:
Voyeurism didn't cover it entirely, that was the whole point of the billIshmael_Z said:
So which existing law adequately prohibits it?Deano said:
he's done the right thing Doesn't need a new law. Christ, upskirting. WTF!Big_G_NorthWales said:
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainermalcolmg said:
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They are in all parties Malc, sadlymalcolmg said:
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebagsBig_G_NorthWales said:
Shocked by Chope's stupidity - just crassScott_P said:0 -
In the past, I have said that there are some Labour MPs - for example Jeremy Corbyn - who have not grown up emotionally or intellectually since their years emulating (or foreshadowing) Rick at university.
There are also some Conservative MPs who have not grown up emotionally or intellectually since they were in the common room at school, sniggering as they work out their next wizard wheeze.
Chope is stupid. He may be well-spoken; he may believe he is intelligent, but what he did today shows massive political naivety. And yet he has been an MP for decades ...0 -
The Tory WhatsApp conversation seems revealing, with the one comment that Chope thinks the others don't really care about him doing it and they should tell him they do - which would suggest even if he is sincere in that principle (and even if he is his actions seem over the top and demonstrating none of the legislative analysis he wants to occur) the others don't think he is, and think he perceives it as a game.Alistair said:
If he thinks backbenchers shouldn't put forward bills he should try and change the system rather than stinking the place up to get his rocks off.NickPalmer said:
Casino is correct to say that there's no reason to think that Chope objects to this particular Bill, just that he believes that backbenchers have no business putting forward Bills.Alistair said:
He co-ordinated with Phillip David's to ensure there was no time for a debate on this bill.Sandpit said:
It appears he objects to pretty much every PM Bill being passed on the nod, without scrutiny, as opposed to any objection regarding this specific measure.David_Evershed said:Why did Chope object to the private members bill?
Then objected because there was no debate. Hypocrite doesn't even begin to describe him.
I think it's reasonable to say that even with that general view (neutering backbenchers even more than they are already), he should pick and choose a bit - perhaps only object to Bills where there is a degree of opposition from ANY quarter? And certainly he shouldn't make fun of the whole thing, as he and Davies did on this occasion with their double act.
Him and his mates boast of taking delight in talking out bills and they aren't doing through any sincere conviction. They are doing it for personal pleasure.
They are mendacious, disingenuous, slimy toads.0 -
Working men.kle4 said:
Who do they stand for enough that they are ahead of level pegging with Labour, 'party of the people' tm?TheScreamingEagles said:Exclusive ICM polling: Tories are “bad in a crisis”—and don’t stand for ordinary British workers
The results also show that the public view the party as divided, and not supportive of either small businessmen, farmers or working women
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/other/exclusive-polling-tories-are-bad-in-a-crisis-and-dont-stand-for-ordinary-british-workers
Disraeli's goal is finally achieved.0
This discussion has been closed.