Up-skirting ban blocked by Tory, pinno in clear!

darkhairedlord

I see Chis Chope has blocked the Up-skirting ban.
I also note his wikipedia page has been hacked....
"Sir Christopher Robert Chope OBE MP (born 19 May 1947) is an utter twat and absolute muppet with no conscience whatsoever. His best friend is Neil S Walker. He is the Member of Parliament for Christchurch. A Brexit advocate, he has been supportive of Leave Means Leave, a Eurosceptic pressure group."

darkhairedlord

Looks like his page has been fixed and then re-hacked:

"On 15 June 2018 Chope blocked the passage of a private member's bill that would have made upskirting a specific offence by crying "object" in the House of Commons, which drew immediate criticism from fellow MPs.[23]. He was, however, too busy trying to get an angle up PM Teresa May's skirt to care much about his colleague's ire."

pblakeney

My guess is that he will be stepping down sometime between now and the next by election.

imafatman

Without knowing why he blocked it I can't really criticise him.

It might be a technicality with the wording of the law for example. We don't want to just bang legislation through because it's for a good cause. It needs to be legally sound too.

darkhairedlord

here he is, just checking his email, honest..

surrey_commuter

it seems so out of character for him

rjsterry

Just read his biography. He really does tick all the reactionary boxes. Pretty much opposed to everything that has happened since WW2. Almost a caricature.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Just read his biography. He really does tick all the reactionary boxes. Pretty much opposed to everything that has happened since WW2. Almost a caricature.

it does feel like he objected to this just to reinforce his reputation as a complete pr1ck

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

Just read his biography. He really does tick all the reactionary boxes. Pretty much opposed to everything that has happened since WW2. Almost a caricature.

Not at all. Without his hard work we would never have had the poll tax. And then where would we be?

mrb123

imafatman wrote:

Without knowing why he blocked it I can't really criticise him.

It might be a technicality with the wording of the law for example. We don't want to just bang legislation through because it's for a good cause. It needs to be legally sound too.

From BBC News website...

Why did Sir Christopher object?

Image copyright
UK Parliament
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 was forcing a delay to the final debate on the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill, or Seni's Law, which also had strong support from the government.
The upskirting bill is not dead - there will be other opportunities to get it a formal second reading debate - but they will only succeed if Sir Christopher and his allies can be persuaded not to object again.
The only other alternative is for the government to provide debating time for it, or, far more likely, to add the proposals to a bill of their own.

imafatman

That seems eminently sensible to me. It's a shame all the idiots can't stop jumping up and down crying foul as if this guy hates all women.

I'm sure it will go through eventually, perhaps worded slightly differently.

Matthewfalle

must admit - if the wording of the legislation is sloppy and will allow weirdo scum who should be put away to get off then is it a bad thing to have everything tightened up so there are no loopholes/discrepancies?

darkhairedlord

imafatman wrote:

That seems eminently sensible to me. It's a shame all the idiots can't stop jumping up and down crying foul as if this guy hates all women.

I'm sure it will go through eventually, perhaps worded slightly differently.

Yeah, he's a really nice bloke.

Matthewfalle

darkhairedlord wrote:

imafatman wrote:

That seems eminently sensible to me. It's a shame all the idiots can't stop jumping up and down crying foul as if this guy hates all women.

I'm sure it will go through eventually, perhaps worded slightly differently.

Yeah, he's a really nice bloke.

so is your beef with him as a person or the fact that he stopped (possibly, we don't know) poorly worded legislation before it was made law?

imafatman

darkhairedlord wrote:

imafatman wrote:

That seems eminently sensible to me. It's a shame all the idiots can't stop jumping up and down crying foul as if this guy hates all women.

I'm sure it will go through eventually, perhaps worded slightly differently.

Yeah, he's a really nice bloke.

I find that unlikely as there aren't many nice people in politics.....

However it still seems sensible to ensure that the legislation that goes through is properly scrutinised.

As has been pointed out, this is for both suspects and victims, it works both ways. Badly worded legislation could result in worse outcomes for victims for example.

rjsterry

Matthewfalle wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

imafatman wrote:

That seems eminently sensible to me. It's a shame all the idiots can't stop jumping up and down crying foul as if this guy hates all women.

I'm sure it will go through eventually, perhaps worded slightly differently.

Yeah, he's a really nice bloke.

so is your beef with him as a person or the fact that he stopped (possibly, we don't know) poorly worded legislation before it was made law?

Bit of an assumption that it was poorly worded, no? There's a bit of a pattern to the bills to which he's objected.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... 4_en_1.htm

darkhairedlord

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

imafatman wrote:

That seems eminently sensible to me. It's a shame all the idiots can't stop jumping up and down crying foul as if this guy hates all women.

I'm sure it will go through eventually, perhaps worded slightly differently.

Yeah, he's a really nice bloke.

so is your beef with him as a person or the fact that he stopped (possibly, we don't know) poorly worded legislation before it was made law?

Bit of an assumption that it was poorly worded, no? There's a bit of a pattern to the bills to which he's objected.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... 4_en_1.htm

He's the only one who did think it was poorly worded. I doubt he has even read it, however, if it let's you guys do some mutual hand wringing... Just hope it's not your daughter....

orraloon

He's Taken Back Control. It's the future. Enjoy.

rjsterry

darkhairedlord wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

imafatman wrote:

That seems eminently sensible to me. It's a shame all the idiots can't stop jumping up and down crying foul as if this guy hates all women.

I'm sure it will go through eventually, perhaps worded slightly differently.

Yeah, he's a really nice bloke.

so is your beef with him as a person or the fact that he stopped (possibly, we don't know) poorly worded legislation before it was made law?

Bit of an assumption that it was poorly worded, no? There's a bit of a pattern to the bills to which he's objected.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... 4_en_1.htm

He's the only one who did think it was poorly worded. I doubt he has even read it, however, if it let's you guys do some mutual hand wringing... Just hope it's not your daughter....

It's a half page of A4 amendment to section 67 (Voyeurism) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He was just being a reactionary ****.

surrey_commuter

orraloon wrote:

He's Taken Back Control. It's the future. Enjoy.

When looking at the 650 predominantly deadbeat MPs it does intrigue me that people object so much to Brussels.

Matthewfalle

darkhairedlord wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

imafatman wrote:

That seems eminently sensible to me. It's a shame all the idiots can't stop jumping up and down crying foul as if this guy hates all women.

I'm sure it will go through eventually, perhaps worded slightly differently.

Yeah, he's a really nice bloke.

so is your beef with him as a person or the fact that he stopped (possibly, we don't know) poorly worded legislation before it was made law?

Bit of an assumption that it was poorly worded, no? There's a bit of a pattern to the bills to which he's objected.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... 4_en_1.htm

He's the only one who did think it was poorly worded. I doubt he has even read it, however, if it let's you guys do some mutual hand wringing... Just hope it's not your daughter....

Errrrrrrr - wtaf are you on about?

darkhairedlord

So you think he only blocked it because he believed it was badly worded? He doesn't even claim that as an excuse himself.

Matthewfalle

darkhairedlord wrote:

So you think he only blocked it because he believed it was badly worded? He doesn't even claim that as an excuse himself.

Who knows? I don't. Neither do you. But you're happy chucking out the insults.

rjsterry

I've already posted a link to the Bill text. Have a read. It'll take you about a minute.

Chope has a long history of trying to game the system to frustrate any attempt to bring the world into the 20th century, let alone the 21st.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Just read his biography. He really does tick all the reactionary boxes. Pretty much opposed to everything that has happened since WW2. Almost a caricature.

All hail British democracy.

People will look back at this period and laugh that people can’t see it’s barely different to the rotten boroughs of the century before.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Just read his biography. He really does tick all the reactionary boxes. Pretty much opposed to everything that has happened since WW2. Almost a caricature.

All hail British democracy.

People will look back at this period and laugh that people can’t see it’s barely different to the rotten boroughs of the century before.

I dunno. Some days it seems like that, but watching one of the documentaries about the Suffragettes the other night, and the decades of resistance to votes for women, it was pretty clear we've come a long way, albeit with plenty still to do.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Just read his biography. He really does tick all the reactionary boxes. Pretty much opposed to everything that has happened since WW2. Almost a caricature.

All hail British democracy.

People will look back at this period and laugh that people can’t see it’s barely different to the rotten boroughs of the century before.

As long as we have taken control.
Right? :roll: FFS I despair for the future of this country.

wiznaeme

When looking at the 650 predominantly deadbeat MPs it does intrigue me that people object so much to Brussels.[/quote]


Something like, “They are idiots, but they are our idiots”

FatTed

darkhairedlord wrote:

here he is, just checking his email, honest..

No email in those days

nickice

Wait for him to give his reasons for blocking it. You're always taught when studying law that rushed legislation or legislation that is passed without proper scrutiny often turns out to be bad or ineffective legislation. This is often the case with the kind of legislation (like the Dangerous Dogs Act) that is passed due to public uproar. Some people on this thread should consider that.

pblakeney

nickice wrote:

Wait for him to give his reasons for blocking it. You're always taught when studying law that rushed legislation or legislation that is passed without proper scrutiny often turns out to be bad or ineffective legislation. This is often the case with the kind of legislation (like the Dangerous Dogs Act) that is passed due to public uproar. Some people on this thread should consider that.

"Sir Christopher Chope and Philip Davies, who between them have used disruptive tactics on two new private members' bills, loathe many backbench bids to reform the law and see it their moral crusade to challenge them.

Two of the most prominent figures on the libertarian Right of the Conservative Party, the pair regard many private members' bills as politically correct, nanny state nonsense seeking to meddle in people's lives and curb their personal freedom."

Ah well, that sounds reasonable enough. :roll: