Up-skirting ban blocked by Tory, pinno in clear!
Comments
-
rjsterry wrote: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.
The poor drafting comment wasn't a reference to this bill but it is a general problem with Private Members' bills generally. His objections are about what he believes are good principles not about this particular bill. He even said in his interview that he thinks upskirting should be a criminal offence.0 -
nickice wrote:rjsterry wrote: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.
The poor drafting comment wasn't a reference to this bill but it is a general problem with Private Members' bills generally. His objections are about what he believes are good principles not about this particular bill. He even said in his interview that he thinks upskirting should be a criminal offence.
What are you, taking a leaf from Adolf Eichmann's lawyer?
The guy has had plenty of private members' bills to protest over; he could pick one that's obviously a no brainer.
In the context of the tories rolling back the years and being the nasty party, this kind of stunt doesn't help.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:rjsterry wrote: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.
The poor drafting comment wasn't a reference to this bill but it is a general problem with Private Members' bills generally. His objections are about what he believes are good principles not about this particular bill. He even said in his interview that he thinks upskirting should be a criminal offence.
What are you, taking a leaf from Adolf Eichmann's lawyer?
The guy has had plenty of private members' bills to protest over; he could pick one that's obviously a no brainer.
In the context of the tories rolling back the years and being the nasty party, this kind of stunt doesn't help.
It's not much of a principled stand against procedure if you let bills you like pass without objection. It's not the first time he's done it and wasn't even the only time that day he did it.0 -
He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.
The bill hasn't been blocked indefinitely. It will be reintroduced as a Government Bill and will be passed. I'd rather MPs stuck to their principles.0 -
Clear evidence of his real crime - Failure to Virtue-SignalRick Chasey wrote:He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.0 -
If the issue is with the Government using Private Members Bills as a sort of Trojan Horse then why not simply get the MP to state what their proposed Bill is when they go into the ballot in the first place?0
-
bompington wrote:
Clear evidence of his real crime - Failure to Virtue-SignalRick Chasey wrote:He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.
No not really.
I see the quality of governance as highly important.
It's not about virtue signalling. It's about taking everything into context.
Slowing this bill in the commons won't do anything to do with private members' bills, but instead will mean there are more perpetrators that go unpunished as a result.
There are better ways to go about it that reduce the collateral damage.0 -
nickice wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.
The bill hasn't been blocked indefinitely. It will be reintroduced as a Government Bill and will be passed. I'd rather MPs stuck to their principles.
No you wouldn't.
MPs ought to change their minds when the facts change and govern appropriately. They ought to be able to take things into context, rather than making a point of principle without looking at the practical implications.
That's a definition of poor governance.0 -
nickice wrote:I'd rather MPs stuck to their principles.
In which case, presumably you would rather that Theresa May should be speaking out against Brexit?0 -
-
If anything it's a sign the system needs a refresh. Good bills get slowed down on a principle. A principle about good governance. The bill should have gone through and out should have been honestly done within the system. It was a government bill done on private member's time. Now that's irrelevant compared to the victims created by the delay but why should it have been like this? Should the government not have taken it up directly to prevent delays? I certain a government could get a bill that all seem to agree on through a lot quicker than leaving it to a private member's ballot winner. Leaving it to that mechanism is creating a delay.
Question is simply, if laws are needed quickly to prevent further victims what is the best way of doing it? I would bet government sponsored Bill with sufficient allocated time. Assuming there's universal support and it's a well written law of course.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:He ought to put the principle of punishing men who sexually harass women with their camera phones higher than his principles about parliamentary procedure.
The bill hasn't been blocked indefinitely. It will be reintroduced as a Government Bill and will be passed. I'd rather MPs stuck to their principles.
No you wouldn't.
MPs ought to change their minds when the facts change and govern appropriately. They ought to be able to take things into context, rather than making a point of principle without looking at the practical implications.
That's a definition of poor governance.
Apparently you know my preferences better than I do. The facts haven't changed in this case.0 -
Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:I'd rather MPs stuck to their principles.
In which case, presumably you would rather that Theresa May should be speaking out against Brexit?
She's the PM. You don't reach that position by sticking to your principles (if you have any). But you are, inadvertently, making a case for the Government being completely separate to the legislative branch.0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:If anything it's a sign the system needs a refresh. Good bills get slowed down on a principle. A principle about good governance. The bill should have gone through and out should have been honestly done within the system. It was a government bill done on private member's time. Now that's irrelevant compared to the victims created by the delay but why should it have been like this? Should the government not have taken it up directly to prevent delays? I certain a government could get a bill that all seem to agree on through a lot quicker than leaving it to a private member's ballot winner. Leaving it to that mechanism is creating a delay.
Question is simply, if laws are needed quickly to prevent further victims what is the best way of doing it? I would bet government sponsored Bill with sufficient allocated time. Assuming there's universal support and it's a well written law of course.
It wasn't a Government sponsored Bill disguised as a Private Members Bill. The Government have belatedly realised it's a no-brainer and decided to bag an easy win. Frankly it doesn't matter which way it makes it on to the statute books; it is a necessary update to legislation first drafted when digital cameras and image sharing were not as ubiquitous. I tend to agree with RC: while procedural issues have their place, they shouldn't take precedence over actually getting things done.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:I'd rather MPs stuck to their principles.
In which case, presumably you would rather that Theresa May should be speaking out against Brexit?
She's the PM. You don't reach that position by sticking to your principles (if you have any). But you are, inadvertently, making a case for the Government being completely separate to the legislative branch.
We didn't get where we are today by separating the executive, legislature and judiciary. :roll:
Err.. just remind me, where are we today?0 -
nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:I'd rather MPs stuck to their principles.
In which case, presumably you would rather that Theresa May should be speaking out against Brexit?
She's the PM. You don't reach that position by sticking to your principles (if you have any). But you are, inadvertently, making a case for the Government being completely separate to the legislative branch.
Depends what your principles are doesn't it - eg it's very easy to stick to your principles if they are "to gain or remain in power at whatever cost" ...
On this subject - I gather the opposing MP does this out of principle - which I could understand if he objected to ALL PMBills coming through - or specifically looked at poorly written ones (there are plenty) and ones that duplicate existing laws (again, plenty to chose from) - but that doesn't seem to be the case - he seems to have picked it out because the Government support it so it should be "debated on Government time" - excuse me - but, unless you have any real objections to it - which you say you don't - then let it through - and STOP WASTING TIME! ...0 -
I am sure somebody can dig out the stats but I am sure I read the non-Brexit Govt business has all but ground to a halt other than essential stuff. This could explain why it is before them as a private members bill.
Amusingly the cvnt in in question is horrified that people think he is a pervert0 -
Heh heh. Pants protests for a pants politico.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44518706
Maybe might jolt him to get his head out of his arris, but somehow I doubt it.0 -
Slowbike wrote:nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:I'd rather MPs stuck to their principles.
In which case, presumably you would rather that Theresa May should be speaking out against Brexit?
She's the PM. You don't reach that position by sticking to your principles (if you have any). But you are, inadvertently, making a case for the Government being completely separate to the legislative branch.
Depends what your principles are doesn't it - eg it's very easy to stick to your principles if they are "to gain or remain in power at whatever cost" ...
On this subject - I gather the opposing MP does this out of principle - which I could understand if he objected to ALL PMBills coming through - or specifically looked at poorly written ones (there are plenty) and ones that duplicate existing laws (again, plenty to chose from) - but that doesn't seem to be the case - he seems to have picked it out because the Government support it so it should be "debated on Government time" - excuse me - but, unless you have any real objections to it - which you say you don't - then let it through - and STOP WASTING TIME! ...
That it should be done on government time is a real objection or, at least, there's an arguable case for it. It's all about the balance of power between the Government and the legislature. Procedure is very important (as it is in law in general) . His objection doesn't seem to be to private members' bills per se rather than objecting to what he thinks should be government bills being presented as private members' bills.0 -
nickice wrote:Slowbike wrote:nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:I'd rather MPs stuck to their principles.
In which case, presumably you would rather that Theresa May should be speaking out against Brexit?
She's the PM. You don't reach that position by sticking to your principles (if you have any). But you are, inadvertently, making a case for the Government being completely separate to the legislative branch.
Depends what your principles are doesn't it - eg it's very easy to stick to your principles if they are "to gain or remain in power at whatever cost" ...
On this subject - I gather the opposing MP does this out of principle - which I could understand if he objected to ALL PMBills coming through - or specifically looked at poorly written ones (there are plenty) and ones that duplicate existing laws (again, plenty to chose from) - but that doesn't seem to be the case - he seems to have picked it out because the Government support it so it should be "debated on Government time" - excuse me - but, unless you have any real objections to it - which you say you don't - then let it through - and STOP WASTING TIME! ...
That it should be done on government time is a real objection or, at least, there's an arguable case for it. It's all about the balance of power between the Government and the legislature. Procedure is very important (as it is in law in general) . His objection doesn't seem to be to private members' bills per se rather than objecting to what he thinks should be government bills being presented as private members' bills.
You’re ignoring the wider point that has already been made, and now just repeating yourself in the hope people will give up when they realise you’re trying to make it circular.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Slowbike wrote:nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:I'd rather MPs stuck to their principles.
In which case, presumably you would rather that Theresa May should be speaking out against Brexit?
She's the PM. You don't reach that position by sticking to your principles (if you have any). But you are, inadvertently, making a case for the Government being completely separate to the legislative branch.
Depends what your principles are doesn't it - eg it's very easy to stick to your principles if they are "to gain or remain in power at whatever cost" ...
On this subject - I gather the opposing MP does this out of principle - which I could understand if he objected to ALL PMBills coming through - or specifically looked at poorly written ones (there are plenty) and ones that duplicate existing laws (again, plenty to chose from) - but that doesn't seem to be the case - he seems to have picked it out because the Government support it so it should be "debated on Government time" - excuse me - but, unless you have any real objections to it - which you say you don't - then let it through - and STOP WASTING TIME! ...
That it should be done on government time is a real objection or, at least, there's an arguable case for it. It's all about the balance of power between the Government and the legislature. Procedure is very important (as it is in law in general) . His objection doesn't seem to be to private members' bills per se rather than objecting to what he thinks should be government bills being presented as private members' bills.
You’re ignoring the wider point that has already been made, and now just repeating yourself in the hope people will give up when they realise you’re trying to make it circular.
Repeating my argument because people like you don't understand it. Just look at the above poster who still doesn't understand that the objection was on a procedural issue NOT the subject of the bill. What you want is for him to leave his principles at the door because you think this bill merits being passed so much. But will the next bill merit it? And if he doesn't object to this one how can he object to future ones on the same basis?0 -
rjsterry wrote:while procedural issues have their place, they shouldn't take precedence over actually getting things done.
A lot more things would 'get done' if bills could be introduced and approved by government only. There is a reason the separation of powers exists. It might not give you a result you like this time but you might be thankful for it one day.0 -
I'm guessing his principles will stop him camping in Parliament to table 75 plus Bills himself next year...My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
bendertherobot wrote:I'm guessing his principles will stop him camping in Parliament to table 75 plus Bills himself next year...
Have you read the interview he gave?0 -
nickice wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:nickice wrote:Slowbike wrote:nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:I'd rather MPs stuck to their principles.
In which case, presumably you would rather that Theresa May should be speaking out against Brexit?
She's the PM. You don't reach that position by sticking to your principles (if you have any). But you are, inadvertently, making a case for the Government being completely separate to the legislative branch.
Depends what your principles are doesn't it - eg it's very easy to stick to your principles if they are "to gain or remain in power at whatever cost" ...
On this subject - I gather the opposing MP does this out of principle - which I could understand if he objected to ALL PMBills coming through - or specifically looked at poorly written ones (there are plenty) and ones that duplicate existing laws (again, plenty to chose from) - but that doesn't seem to be the case - he seems to have picked it out because the Government support it so it should be "debated on Government time" - excuse me - but, unless you have any real objections to it - which you say you don't - then let it through - and STOP WASTING TIME! ...
That it should be done on government time is a real objection or, at least, there's an arguable case for it. It's all about the balance of power between the Government and the legislature. Procedure is very important (as it is in law in general) . His objection doesn't seem to be to private members' bills per se rather than objecting to what he thinks should be government bills being presented as private members' bills.
You’re ignoring the wider point that has already been made, and now just repeating yourself in the hope people will give up when they realise you’re trying to make it circular.
Repeating my argument because people like you don't understand it. Just look at the above poster who still doesn't understand that the objection was on a procedural issue NOT the subject of the bill. What you want is for him to leave his principles at the door because you think this bill merits being passed so much. But will the next bill merit it? And if he doesn't object to this one how can he object to future ones on the same basis?
Are you suggesting the principle of not sporting private bills is more important to him that the principle that women ought not be subject to sexual harassment relating to people taking pictures and films up women’s skirts?
You’re focusing on the input, not the output.0 -
nickice wrote:bendertherobot wrote:I'm guessing his principles will stop him camping in Parliament to table 75 plus Bills himself next year...
Have you read the interview he gave?
I've read the report in the Echo if that's the one you mean. All of this would have some weight if the Bill was a really a Government Bill masquerading as a PMB. But it wasn't. The Government is supporting Hobhouse's Bill, as does the Opposition and the smaller parties. The idea that the Government is bouncing this through to avoid debate is absurd. As for Chope feeling scapegoated, you'd think 35 years in Parliament would have made him slightly less naive.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
Didn't a lot of the tabloids do a lot of upskirt photographs in their rags only a few years back? When did they stop showing photographs of female celebrities getting out of cars and showing their underwear (and in some cases lack of underwear with a black rectangle)? Those photographs were fairly common back when those red top rags had very high circulation figures (before circulation dropped with Internet use increase).
Off topic but with online content if such tabloids still showing exploitative photographs of celebrities (IIRC side shots of celebrities in bikinis while off duty on holiday is still on they're sites) does this legislation need extending a bit further than upskirt shots?0 -
rjsterry wrote:nickice wrote:bendertherobot wrote:I'm guessing his principles will stop him camping in Parliament to table 75 plus Bills himself next year...
Have you read the interview he gave?
I've read the report in the Echo if that's the one you mean. All of this would have some weight if the Bill was a really a Government Bill masquerading as a PMB. But it wasn't. The Government is supporting Hobhouse's Bill, as does the Opposition and the smaller parties. The idea that the Government is bouncing this through to avoid debate is absurd. As for Chope feeling scapegoated, you'd think 35 years in Parliament would have made him slightly less naive.
The Ministry of Justice were involved in its drafting. It should have been a Government bill.0
