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

nickice

PBlakeney wrote:

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:

Has he spoken about this specific bill? If it's for the above reasons, then he was wrong to oppose it. If he has a legal argument, I'd like to hear it.

pblakeney

nickice wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

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:

Has he spoken about this specific bill? If it's for the above reasons, then he was wrong to oppose it. If he has a legal argument, I'd like to hear it.

I am sure that people have been asking him.
The silence is damning.

Matthewfalle

PBlakeney wrote:

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.

But but but but blue passports!!!!!!! They got you blue passports!!!!!!!

UNGRATEFUL

orraloon

But but Croatia (one of them EU-imprisoned lot) already has blue passports. A proud UK surely cannot be copying that lot?

nickice

PBlakeney wrote:

nickice wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

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:

Has he spoken about this specific bill? If it's for the above reasons, then he was wrong to oppose it. If he has a legal argument, I'd like to hear it.

I am sure that people have been asking him.
The silence is damning.

Perhaps he prefers bills to be properly debated and not just rushed through. It's an important principle and one worth taking a stand on. His objection to private member's bills are shared by many people. The Government can introduce a similar bill if it so desires.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

nickice wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

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:

Has he spoken about this specific bill? If it's for the above reasons, then he was wrong to oppose it. If he has a legal argument, I'd like to hear it.

I am sure that people have been asking him.
The silence is damning.

Perhaps he prefers bills to be properly debated and not just rushed through. It's an important principle and one worth taking a stand on. His objection to private member's bills are shared by many people. The Government can introduce a similar bill if it so desires.

If it was some complex piece of legislation you might have a point. Read the wording of the Bill. It's inserting one additional definition into the existing Sexual Offences Act 2003. That's it. The government do support the Bill and it is coming back round for a second reading on 6th July so all he's achieved is a delay and making himself look like a fool.

He's quite selective about what Bills he supposedly thinks need more scrutiny. And more than happy to propose tens of Private Members Bills himself.

nickice

It would hardly be a point of principle if he didn't block Private members' bills (I'm not talking about Government bills) he liked and blocked those he didn't like. I'm not going to look through his voting record, though.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

It would hardly be a point of principle if he didn't block Private members' bills (I'm not talking about Government bills) he liked and blocked those he didn't like. I'm not going to look through his voting record, though.

So which is it? Principle of fully debating all proposed new legislation or objection to the specific proposal?

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

It would hardly be a point of principle if he didn't block Private members' bills (I'm not talking about Government bills) he liked and blocked those he didn't like. I'm not going to look through his voting record, though.

So which is it? Principle of fully debating all proposed new legislation or objection to the specific proposal?

He seems to have a general objection to Private Members' bills. I'd be very surprised if, on principle, he thought upskirting shouldn't be a crime. Only he knows. He should clarify his position.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

It would hardly be a point of principle if he didn't block Private members' bills (I'm not talking about Government bills) he liked and blocked those he didn't like. I'm not going to look through his voting record, though.

So which is it? Principle of fully debating all proposed new legislation or objection to the specific proposal?

He seems to have a general objection to Private Members' bills. I'd be very surprised if, on principle, he thought upskirting shouldn't be a crime. Only he knows. He should clarify his position.

Except that he likes proposing them himself and goes to quite extreme lengths - camping out in the HoP for three nights to be first in the queue - to get them on the list for consideration. It would be nice to think he had principles but his actions say otherwise.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

It would hardly be a point of principle if he didn't block Private members' bills (I'm not talking about Government bills) he liked and blocked those he didn't like. I'm not going to look through his voting record, though.

So which is it? Principle of fully debating all proposed new legislation or objection to the specific proposal?

He seems to have a general objection to Private Members' bills. I'd be very surprised if, on principle, he thought upskirting shouldn't be a crime. Only he knows. He should clarify his position.

Except that he likes proposing them himself and goes to quite extreme lengths - camping out in the HoP for three nights to be first in the queue - to get them on the list for consideration. It would be nice to think he had principles but his actions say otherwise.

I think he did that to block other private members' bills.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

It would hardly be a point of principle if he didn't block Private members' bills (I'm not talking about Government bills) he liked and blocked those he didn't like. I'm not going to look through his voting record, though.

So which is it? Principle of fully debating all proposed new legislation or objection to the specific proposal?

He seems to have a general objection to Private Members' bills. I'd be very surprised if, on principle, he thought upskirting shouldn't be a crime. Only he knows. He should clarify his position.

Except that he likes proposing them himself and goes to quite extreme lengths - camping out in the HoP for three nights to be first in the queue - to get them on the list for consideration. It would be nice to think he had principles but his actions say otherwise.

I think he did that to block other private members' bills.

Kind of missing the point of Parliament, don't you think. He professes to fully believe in the issues on which he's proposed Bills. And if he really thinks PMBs are such a bad thing, surely he should campaign to change the Parliamentary rules, rather than just abusing the system.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

It would hardly be a point of principle if he didn't block Private members' bills (I'm not talking about Government bills) he liked and blocked those he didn't like. I'm not going to look through his voting record, though.

So which is it? Principle of fully debating all proposed new legislation or objection to the specific proposal?

He seems to have a general objection to Private Members' bills. I'd be very surprised if, on principle, he thought upskirting shouldn't be a crime. Only he knows. He should clarify his position.

Except that he likes proposing them himself and goes to quite extreme lengths - camping out in the HoP for three nights to be first in the queue - to get them on the list for consideration. It would be nice to think he had principles but his actions say otherwise.

I think he did that to block other private members' bills.

Kind of missing the point of Parliament, don't you think. He professes to fully believe in the issues on which he's proposed Bills. And if he really thinks PMBs are such a bad thing, surely he should campaign to change the Parliamentary rules, rather than just abusing the system.

It may not have been a wise move but his objecting to a bill that is passed without proper debate is a perfectly valid move and within parliamentary rules.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

It would hardly be a point of principle if he didn't block Private members' bills (I'm not talking about Government bills) he liked and blocked those he didn't like. I'm not going to look through his voting record, though.

So which is it? Principle of fully debating all proposed new legislation or objection to the specific proposal?

He seems to have a general objection to Private Members' bills. I'd be very surprised if, on principle, he thought upskirting shouldn't be a crime. Only he knows. He should clarify his position.

Except that he likes proposing them himself and goes to quite extreme lengths - camping out in the HoP for three nights to be first in the queue - to get them on the list for consideration. It would be nice to think he had principles but his actions say otherwise.

I think he did that to block other private members' bills.

Kind of missing the point of Parliament, don't you think. He professes to fully believe in the issues on which he's proposed Bills. And if he really thinks PMBs are such a bad thing, surely he should campaign to change the Parliamentary rules, rather than just abusing the system.

It may not have been a wise move but his objecting to a bill that is passed without proper debate is a perfectly valid move and within parliamentary rules.

If that's what he did. Having read the Bill, there's really very little to debate.

tailwindhome

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

It would hardly be a point of principle if he didn't block Private members' bills (I'm not talking about Government bills) he liked and blocked those he didn't like. I'm not going to look through his voting record, though.

So which is it? Principle of fully debating all proposed new legislation or objection to the specific proposal?

He seems to have a general objection to Private Members' bills. I'd be very surprised if, on principle, he thought upskirting shouldn't be a crime. Only he knows. He should clarify his position.

Except that he likes proposing them himself and goes to quite extreme lengths - camping out in the HoP for three nights to be first in the queue - to get them on the list for consideration. It would be nice to think he had principles but his actions say otherwise.

I think he did that to block other private members' bills.

Kind of missing the point of Parliament, don't you think. He professes to fully believe in the issues on which he's proposed Bills. And if he really thinks PMBs are such a bad thing, surely he should campaign to change the Parliamentary rules, rather than just abusing the system.

It may not have been a wise move but his objecting to a bill that is passed without proper debate is a perfectly valid move and within parliamentary rules.

That sounds reasonable, but he seems to be one of a cohort who filibuster in order to ensure that there is no time for proper debate.

bendertherobot

It's hard to get a handle on this one. It appeared to be first reading (there is no debate) but it looks like second reading, where there is. It still has to be considered in committee, scrutinised, have third reading, be amended, go to Lords, be ping ponged, so the opportunity for debate is there at every stage. Chope also admitted he had no idea what it even was before objecting.

bendertherobot

It may be of interest to see:

Existing section 67

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67

Proposed addition 67A

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... /18174.pdf

and the Scottish Equivalent (form which the drafting seems to have been inspired)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/section/9

morstar

bendertherobot wrote:

It's hard to get a handle on this one. It appeared to be first reading (there is no debate) but it looks like second reading, where there is. It still has to be considered in committee, scrutinised, have third reading, be amended, go to Lords, be ping ponged, so the opportunity for debate is there at every stage. Chope also admitted he had no idea what it even was before objecting.

So potentially we have an MP stopping progression of a bill solely because he hasn't bothered to read it. Therefore he is of the opinion that it shouldn't progress.
Not sure if that is pomposity and self importance or laziness. If poorly worded fair enough. That doesn't appear to be the issue.

bendertherobot

morstar wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

It's hard to get a handle on this one. It appeared to be first reading (there is no debate) but it looks like second reading, where there is. It still has to be considered in committee, scrutinised, have third reading, be amended, go to Lords, be ping ponged, so the opportunity for debate is there at every stage. Chope also admitted he had no idea what it even was before objecting.

So potentially we have an MP stopping progression of a bill solely because he hasn't bothered to read it. Therefore he is of the opinion that it shouldn't progress.
Not sure if that is pomposity and self importance or laziness. If poorly worded fair enough. That doesn't appear to be the issue.

He's quite clear that he does these thing in principle. It's been available, it seems, in draft since 6th March (which appears to have been the actual first reading).

It's also the case that he's a Barrister so, had he taken 5 minutes to look at it, he would have been able to consider what it contained.

That said, his viewpoint is often that debating with so few other MP's present (on this occasion 24 or so) is an affront to democracy, or something like that. But, equally, there will be scrutiny in due course and there should be contributions from various other interested parties such as the MoJ for example. There will also, I assume, be a justice impact test at some point, and associated Gateway clearance.

Essentially, there were few people there to 'debate' yesterday but that doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be full and proper scrutiny.

An interesting slightly OT thing too. Private Members Bills attract £200 max expenses to assist with the drafting so you could see why, for example, "copying" the Scots provision is attractive.

Ben6899

I can't believe anyone is fuck1ng defending him! Those of you who are should give your bloody heads a wobble.

darkhairedlord

Ben6899 wrote:

I can't believe anyone is fuck1ng defending him! Those of you who are should give your bloody heads a wobble.

Hand wringing brexshitting appologists

tailwindhome

A good explanation as to why the law needs changed

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/08/ ... ns-skirts/

BelgianBeerGeek

Thanks for the link, bender. Seems uncontroversial to me. Isn’t this sort of offence covered by the Public Order Act 1986? Apart from any conviction under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 placing the offender on the sex offenders register (if the threshold is met)? Interested in your thoughts.

First.Aspect

Ben6899 wrote:

I can't believe anyone is fuck1ng defending him! Those of you who are should give your bloody heads a wobble.

You can see the point about lack of scrutiny of secondary legislation. This one just hasn't been thought through. If you ban looking up skirts without permission, how are aspiring Tory MPs supposed to learn about ladies while they are at Eton? They can't go straight into the cabinet without a balanced education. Besides, the prefects are allowed to do it to freshers and no one has complained in 600 years.

BelgianBeerGeek

TailWindHome wrote:

A good explanation as to why the law needs changed

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/08/ ... ns-skirts/

Interesting link, thanks TWH. So the aim of the amendment is to prevent issues re public/private areas. Is that right?

bendertherobot

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Thanks for the link, bender. Seems uncontroversial to me. Isn’t this sort of offence covered by the Public Order Act 1986? Apart from any conviction under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 placing the offender on the sex offenders register (if the threshold is met)? Interested in your thoughts.

From recollection it can be charged under the common law (outraging public decency). It's hardly done because it requires the presence of others, if it's just the perv and the victim, that won't work. There are probably other fits for it, but a law is clearly needed, harassment is a bit of a misnomer as that's more about threatening rather than harassing behaviour.

FishFish

bendertherobot wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Thanks for the link, bender. Seems uncontroversial to me. Isn’t this sort of offence covered by the Public Order Act 1986? Apart from any conviction under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 placing the offender on the sex offenders register (if the threshold is met)? Interested in your thoughts.

From recollection it can be charged under the common law (outraging public decency). It's hardly done because it requires the presence of others, if it's just the perv and the victim, that won't work. There are probably other fits for it, but a law is clearly needed, harassment is a bit of a misnomer as that's more about threatening rather than harassing behaviour.

I see that you get your information from the Daily Mail!

You say that harassment is to do with threatening behaviour. Well as usual you are wrong. For threatening behaviour A needs to make a threat to B who feels threatened.
The subtlety of harassment is that B needs to feel harassed - thats it. So that women can persecute men when they feel like it.

Matthewfalle

Ben6899 wrote:

I can't believe anyone is fuck1ng defending him! Those of you who are should give your bloody heads a wobble.

no one is defending him. thats the point you and dhl are missibg ......

nickice

Ben6899 wrote:

I can't believe anyone is fuck1ng defending him! Those of you who are should give your bloody heads a wobble.

Nobody's defending him. I doubt anyone on here thinks it shouldn't be a criminal offence. I doubt he thinks it shouldn't be a criminal offence. He just seems to object (rightly or wrongly) to private members' bills. It is true that they often get through all stages very quickly. Tony Benn once said that he'd rather have a bad parliament than a good king.

I read that even Theresa May was joining in. If she feels so strongly about it, the Government can introduce a bill.

FishFish

nickice wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

I can't believe anyone is fuck1ng defending him! Those of you who are should give your bloody heads a wobble.

Nobody's defending him. I doubt anyone on here thinks it shouldn't be a criminal offence. I doubt he thinks it shouldn't be a criminal offence. He just seems to object (rightly or wrongly) to private members' bills. It is true that they often get through all stages very quickly. Tony Benn once said that he'd rather have a bad parliament than a good king.

I read that even Theresa May was joining in. If she feels so strongly about it, the Government can introduce a bill.

OK I'll rise to it then., It should be illegal to look up a girls skirt. Even your wife / partner. It should be illegal to make porn movies and it should be illegal for a girl to wear a short skirt if she is going to travel up an escalator. Or photograph girls on the beach etc....Or wear any form of provocative clothing - note to the pedant- I've made this a new sentence!

This is not the substance of statute - it can be dealt with in bye laws and extant statute.

Factually I'm not in the slightest bit interested in this legislation whether it exists or not.