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

Ben6899

To be fair, a lot of it looks like lines of defence.

surfercyclist

I think those objecting on here are just worried it'll effect their pornhub downloads....

nickice

Ben6899 wrote:

To be fair, a lot of it looks like lines of defence.

If you allow legislation to be rushed through even if you like it, one day legislation will be rushed through that you don't like. And what position will you be in to complain? I think that's basically his stance. Nothing to do with defending him.

awavey

I see everyones favourite lawyer Mr loophole is out making a twitter twatness of himself on it, well more so than usual

he tweeted "if women assumed some responsibility for their attire, they would not be in jeopardy" :roll:

at least it seems even his daughter called him out on that bloody nonsense, if you assume they arent desperately trying to media manage the fallout from it

Ben6899

I totally agree that legislation needs to be watertight so that it protects the people it is intended to protect.

However, if you think this bloke objected to it because he's worried about that, then you're naive. Look at his rap sheet - he's a certified, 100% bona fide self-serving Tory tossbag who likes things how they always were: women knowing their place; home help from the Asian sub-continent etc like in the good old days.

nickice

Ben6899 wrote:

I totally agree that legislation needs to be watertight so that it protects the people it is intended to protect.

However, if you think this bloke objected to it because he's worried about that, then you're naive. Look at his rap sheet - he's a certified, 100% bona fide self-serving Tory tossbag who likes things how they always were: women knowing their place; home help from the Asian sub-continent etc like in the good old days.

His voting record is unsurprisingly, indicative of him being Conservative politician. You've made if pretty clear with your use of the term 'Tory tossbag' and the rest of your diatribe that you're especially partisan. It's a shame you can't look at this objectively.

Ben6899

nickice wrote:

It's a shame you can't look at this objectively.

Ha! Just like you do.

But anyway...

Tory - check

Let's have a look at some of his voting record

Consistently voted against equal gay rights
Consistently voted against allowing marriage between two people of same sex
Generally voted against laws to promote equality and human rights

https://inews.co.uk/news/sir-christophe ... t-hunting/

Looking objectively, as I have believe it or not, I consider the examples cited above make him a tossbag. Check.

rjsterry

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.

She's not joining in; Hobhouse approached her directly for support right from the start. The Bill has the full support of the DoJ, so it effectively is a Government Bill. Chope's voting record is has frequently been against his own party - remember they've been in government for the last 8 years. It's consistent with being a reactionary twit who enjoys the notoriety, rather than being a conservative.

nickice

Ben6899 wrote:

nickice wrote:

It's a shame you can't look at this objectively.

Ha! Just like you do.

But anyway...

Tory - check

Let's have a look at some of his voting record

Consistently voted against equal gay rights
Consistently voted against allowing marriage between two people of same sex
Generally voted against laws to promote equality and human rights

https://inews.co.uk/news/sir-christophe ... t-hunting/

Looking objectively, as I have believe it or not, I consider the examples cited above make him a tossbag. Check.

What have I said that's not objective?


I don't have a huge problem with people voting against gay marriage. I support it but I completely understand that the traditional definition is between a man and a woman. As for Human Rights, gay rights and equality, it's a massive branch of law. You'd have to be more specific about which proposed laws he voted against. The devil is in the detail. I hold an LLM in Human Rights and there are several parts European and UK Human Rights law that I strongly disagree with.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

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.

She's not joining in; Hobhouse approached her directly for support right from the start. The Bill has the full support of the DoJ, so it effectively is a Government Bill. Chope's voting record is has frequently been against his own party - remember they've been in government for the last 8 years. It's consistent with being a reactionary twit who enjoys the notoriety, rather than being a conservative.

Joining in to criticise him. If she wants it so badly, the Government can introduce the bill.

Ben6899

nickice wrote:

I don't have a huge problem with people voting against gay marriage. I support it but I completely understand that the traditional definition is between a man and a woman.

We're going OT a bit here, but I have a huge problem with people voting against gay marriage. I support it and I refuse to accept that tradition - in this case - is anything other than a mask behind which to hide one's prejudice.

I'd be interested to know which Human Rights bills you don't agree with.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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.

She's not joining in; Hobhouse approached her directly for support right from the start. The Bill has the full support of the DoJ, so it effectively is a Government Bill. Chope's voting record is has frequently been against his own party - remember they've been in government for the last 8 years. It's consistent with being a reactionary twit who enjoys the notoriety, rather than being a conservative.

Joining in to criticise him. If she wants it so badly, the Government can introduce the bill.

That's what is so pointless about his 'principled stand': the Bill will be back round for consideration in a few weeks. It has full Government and Opposition support. It will almost certainly become law, but by doing this he gets his name in the headlines, so I suppose a win for him on that front. He's found something he's good at.

Pross

nickice wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

To be fair, a lot of it looks like lines of defence.

If you allow legislation to be rushed through even if you like it, one day legislation will be rushed through that you don't like. And what position will you be in to complain? I think that's basically his stance. Nothing to do with defending him.

Who is rushing anything through though? The process of putting something on the Statute books is a lot more thorough than the first reading of a private members bill which is effectively just a starting point towards it being considered. Blocking something at that stage cannot be reasonably argued to be a fight against ill thought out legislation as it is preventing the debate even starting so there must be another reason for blocking it such as being fundamentally opposed to the principle.

darkhairedlord

Why even have private members bills at all?
Chope appears to object to everything on principle and yet private members bills are part of our democracy. Huh?
What an utter twonk.
Expect to see an upskirt of his daughter appear in a tabloid sometime next week..

rick_chasey

nickice wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

To be fair, a lot of it looks like lines of defence.

If you allow legislation to be rushed through even if you like it, one day legislation will be rushed through that you don't like. And what position will you be in to complain? I think that's basically his stance. Nothing to do with defending him.

The MP has had plenty of chances to make the point.

He could make it on one which will engender more sympathy.

tailwindhome

I don't know how the DUP can associate with these people.

TheBigBean

TailWindHome wrote:

I don't know how the DUP can associate with these people.

They had a price: £2b.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I don't know how the DUP can associate with these people.

They had a price: £2b.

And a whiff of power.

nickice

Ben6899 wrote:

nickice wrote:

I don't have a huge problem with people voting against gay marriage. I support it but I completely understand that the traditional definition is between a man and a woman.

We're going OT a bit here, but I have a huge problem with people voting against gay marriage. I support it and I refuse to accept that tradition - in this case - is anything other than a mask behind which to hide one's prejudice.

I'd be interested to know which Human Rights bills you don't agree with.

So you support the tradition of marriage but not the tradition of it being between a man and a woman. Government has an interest in marriage between men and women as it's regarded as the most stable environment to have and bring up children. I guess that, religious reasons and what some may regard as devaluing traditional marriage are the primary reasons. Like I said, I generally support it but it's not good to dismiss those who don't as bigots.

Regarding human rights, the right to family life is far too broadly interpreted especially when it comes to criminals.

nickice

Pross wrote:

nickice wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

To be fair, a lot of it looks like lines of defence.

If you allow legislation to be rushed through even if you like it, one day legislation will be rushed through that you don't like. And what position will you be in to complain? I think that's basically his stance. Nothing to do with defending him.

Who is rushing anything through though? The process of putting something on the Statute books is a lot more thorough than the first reading of a private members bill which is effectively just a starting point towards it being considered. Blocking something at that stage cannot be reasonably argued to be a fight against ill thought out legislation as it is preventing the debate even starting so there must be another reason for blocking it such as being fundamentally opposed to the principle.

They usually get less time and may have been badly drafted. I'm not saying that was the case here.

First.Aspect

nickice wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

nickice wrote:

I don't have a huge problem with people voting against gay marriage. I support it but I completely understand that the traditional definition is between a man and a woman.

We're going OT a bit here, but I have a huge problem with people voting against gay marriage. I support it and I refuse to accept that tradition - in this case - is anything other than a mask behind which to hide one's prejudice.

I'd be interested to know which Human Rights bills you don't agree with.

So you support the tradition of marriage but not the tradition of it being between a man and a woman. Government has an interest in marriage between men and women as it's regarded as the most stable environment to have and bring up children. I guess that, religious reasons and what some may regard as devaluing traditional marriage are the primary reasons. Like I said, I generally support it but it's not good to dismiss those who don't as bigots.

Regarding human rights, the right to family life is far too broadly interpreted especially when it comes to criminals.

Bigots or ignorant, you chose. Personally I suspect there's a strong correlation.

tailwindhome

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I don't know how the DUP can associate with these people.

They had a price: £2b.

And a whiff of power.

Whoosh!

slowmart

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I don't know how the DUP can associate with these people.

They had a price: £2b.

I hear Arlene has asked for more cash since the Tories are turning into a larger liability than first envisaged

rjsterry

TailWindHome wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I don't know how the DUP can associate with these people.

They had a price: £2b.

And a whiff of power.

Whoosh!

Ha. Should have read that more carefully.

Matthewfalle

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/1 ... /?ref=fbpg

tangled_metal

Am I right in my understanding of his position? He objects to the sneaking in of government business into Parliamentary time that has priority given over to private member's bills. Basically the idea is the government is putting it's legislation through using private members who have been successful in getting an early ranked ballot spot.

IIRC early in a parliamentary session private members put their name into a ballot for presenting their own legislation. The first 7 selected have the best chance of getting their legislation through. Anyone that lucky is generally pounced on by their colleagues who try to pursuade the to learnt their pet subject. This includes whips.

If that's is argument then surely the legislation will end up becoming part of a government sponsored Bill? If the government has tried to get it through this way then they'll probably try to get it through another way.

Part of me thinks more private members bills need to go through, but genuine bills from private members.

BTW I think May has come out with a statement about the bill going forward in government time. Something like this really should be government time with a realistic chance of going through (unlike private members bills such rarely get through). It should have been in government time first time round too.

nickice

Tangled Metal wrote:

Am I right in my understanding of his position? He objects to the sneaking in of government business into Parliamentary time that has priority given over to private member's bills. Basically the idea is the government is putting it's legislation through using private members who have been successful in getting an early ranked ballot spot.

IIRC early in a parliamentary session private members put their name into a ballot for presenting their own legislation. The first 7 selected have the best chance of getting their legislation through. Anyone that lucky is generally pounced on by their colleagues who try to pursuade the to learnt their pet subject. This includes whips.

If that's is argument then surely the legislation will end up becoming part of a government sponsored Bill? If the government has tried to get it through this way then they'll probably try to get it through another way.

Part of me thinks more private members bills need to go through, but genuine bills from private members.

BTW I think May has come out with a statement about the bill going forward in government time. Something like this really should be government time with a realistic chance of going through (unlike private members bills such rarely get through). It should have been in government time first time round too.

Historically, the Government has tended to lend a hand to certain private members' bills that it doesn't want to introduce itself for political reasons.

tangled_metal

But has it actually kind of taken over a private member's ballot spot? What I mean is a private member (non-front bench mp iirc) wins a low order ballot (gets more chance of making it through the first stages) has his / her own legislation but possibly through the whips gets pursuaded to ditch it for a government side legislation. Legislation the government rather wants on the books but doesn't want to spare their own time. Thus losing the private member's own bill in the process.

I think that's what this mp is about, he's identifying (through whatever means) that a bill isn't really that of the private member who won the ballot. It is being presented in time allocated solely to that of private members and not the government's. However it is the government's bill really. The theft of private member's time if you like.

It's a principle of sorts. I think I'd rather let the up skirt bill through if I was in his position but that's kind of defeating his point. It isn't the legislation but the process behind it that he feels its against the spirit of parliamentary procedures and indeed our version of parliamentary democracy.

Imagine politician x wins a seat based on local campaigning for a locally relevant change to the law. She wins the ballot ranked 2 in order of being pulled out of the hat. Great chance to get legislation through on matter that figured on her election campaign that was possibly what made people vote her in. She gets strong armed to give her Bill up for a government one on restricting the use of widgets in thingummigigs. Stupid example but that's kind of what his action seemed about.

What's your view on the system of lowly MPs getting the opportunity to present bills to parliament that have a chance of getting in? Is it worth defending?

Personally I think the guy is a pr@ who shouldn't be a politician in an enlightened democracy. If we had that he wouldn't stand a chance. We don't so we get dodgy politicians. If his principle on this parliamentary procedure is worthwhile he's truly messed up the argument over objecting to this upskirt bill. Should have let this one slide.

nickice

Tangled Metal wrote:

What's your view on the system of lowly MPs getting the opportunity to present bills to parliament that have a chance of getting in? Is it worth defending?

Personally I think the guy is a pr@ who shouldn't be a politician in an enlightened democracy. If we had that he wouldn't stand a chance. We don't so we get dodgy politicians. If his principle on this parliamentary procedure is worthwhile he's truly messed up the argument over objecting to this upskirt bill. Should have let this one slide.

In many ways I think it's worth defending for one of the reasons he's against them. It can be a politically expedient way of passing legislation that the Government wants to propose but can't for whatever reason. Looking at the history and drafting of this bill, it does appear to have had a lot of government support from the start. I don't know what the reasons were for their not introducing it themselves.

I think if you object to the procedure, it doesn't really matter to you what's in the bill. This makes sense if it's a point of principle.

My main concern with this has been the reaction to it. I can now envisage a badly-drafted bill with good intentions passing as loudmouths like Jess Philips will write diatribes in the Guardian if you don't pass it.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

What's your view on the system of lowly MPs getting the opportunity to present bills to parliament that have a chance of getting in? Is it worth defending?

Personally I think the guy is a pr@ who shouldn't be a politician in an enlightened democracy. If we had that he wouldn't stand a chance. We don't so we get dodgy politicians. If his principle on this parliamentary procedure is worthwhile he's truly messed up the argument over objecting to this upskirt bill. Should have let this one slide.

In many ways I think it's worth defending for one of the reasons he's against them. It can be a politically expedient way of passing legislation that the Government wants to propose but can't for whatever reason. Looking at the history and drafting of this bill, it does appear to have had a lot of government support from the start. I don't know what the reasons were for their not introducing it themselves.

I think if you object to the procedure, it doesn't really matter to you what's in the bill. This makes sense if it's a point of principle.

My main concern with this has been the reaction to it. I can now envisage a badly-drafted bill with good intentions passing as loudmouths like Jess Philips will write diatribes in the Guardian if you don't pass it.

As it is almost a copy and paste of Scottish legislation, amending an existing Act, the risk of poor drafting would (to my inexpert eye) seem fairly low. I don't know the background of how Gina Martin's campaign was picked up by Wera Hobhouse MP, as I don't think she is Martin's local MP, but I get the impression that it has come from the bottom up rather than the Government looking for someone to propose the Bill for them.

I take your point about genuine concerns about getting it right being lost in the noise. Possibly someone bright enough to become a barrister should have thought of that and approached the matter differently.