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

bendertherobot

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?

Yes, I've also read the news item where it was clear last Friday he didn't know the content of the bill or what upskirting was about. The one that had first reading on 6th March and available to read.

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

That's not his principle but, yes, a principle of blocking something due to bad procedure is more important than a bill that can be reintroduced as a government bill. Once you let bad procedure happen once, you'll have trouble objecting again.

nickice

bendertherobot 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?

Yes, I've also read the news item where it was clear last Friday he didn't know the content of the bill or what upskirting was about. The one that had first reading on 6th March and available to read.

But he said he objected to it being nodded through without proper debate. So, it doesn't matter what it was about.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

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.

Oh they were involved. Oh well that's completely different. So it's not enough that the Bill be put forward independently by a backbencher; they must reject any cooperation from anyone else because then the purity of its 'private-ness' is compromised. That's even more absurd than I first realised.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

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.

Oh they were involved. Oh well that's completely different. So it's not enough that the Bill be put forward independently by a backbencher; they must reject any cooperation from anyone else because then the purity of its 'private-ness' is compromised. That's even more absurd than I first realised.

It means taking time from real backbencher bills. There isn't enough time for everything to be presented or pass. There is nothing absurd about it.

bendertherobot

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

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.

Oh they were involved. Oh well that's completely different. So it's not enough that the Bill be put forward independently by a backbencher; they must reject any cooperation from anyone else because then the purity of its 'private-ness' is compromised. That's even more absurd than I first realised.

It means taking time from real backbencher bills. There isn't enough time for everything to be presented or pass. There is nothing absurd about it.

Real bills like this one?
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... /18077.pdf

rolf_f

Tangled Metal wrote:

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?

Another bit of tabloid hypocrisy I guess - I presume they are all getting upset about the "pervs" activities whilst conveniently forgetting that it is they themselves that made it seem apparently acceptable in the first place.

But there is a difference between photographs being taken of desperate flesh flashing pseudo celebrities who have no other means to get a bit of cheap publicity and those taken of "normal" women just wanting to live their lives and expecting people around them to be vaguely respectful of them as human beings.

tangled_metal

So the options are moving forwards a PMB which is also a government bill using private members allocation of Parliament time. Or keep private members allocation of Parliament time just for PMB at the expense of a delay in the bill until the government decides to allocate some of its own time to it. Courtesy of one private member the latter option has been forced in the government I mean the bill.

BTW one more question, if it had got through as a PMB it would have gone to another stage that requires a time being allocated to its progress. Would that happen quickly or do PMBs get put to the back of the queue? I wonder whether the time such a bill would take to become law is quicker through the PMB route or whether government sponsored Bill is quicker? It would not surprise me one bit that this law, even now, would become law quicker by government proposed route. If you believe this law is so important (as I do and it seems TM does and a lot posting on here) then as well as being angry at this chope bloke you should be angry at the tory government for not proposing it themselves with more priority.

Of course the reason is Brexit. Non - Brexit laws are very much taking a back stage. Anyone know the proportion of parliament time being taken up by Brexit matters? Isn't this another case of it's Brexit's fault?

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

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.

Oh they were involved. Oh well that's completely different. So it's not enough that the Bill be put forward independently by a backbencher; they must reject any cooperation from anyone else because then the purity of its 'private-ness' is compromised. That's even more absurd than I first realised.

It means taking time from real backbencher bills. There isn't enough time for everything to be presented or pass. There is nothing absurd about it.

So in your world, Gina Martin starts her campaign, Wera Hobhouse sees that campaign and decides to introduce a PMB to add upskirting to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. But in her efforts to get the PMB passed, she must not solicit the support of the Government in any way because that would render it not a 'real' PMB. And you're saying that isn't absurd?

tangled_metal

If the celebrity is complicit in the photographs such that they're posing for them then I agree it's different. If the celebrity is snapped in their private life in a compromised way then it's an invasion of privacy. I don't hold with the view that because they're courting publicity they can't have privacy or their bodies are free for all. Sitting on a boat a long way offshore with a big lens snapping unsuspecting celebrity topless bathing or sunbathing on a private beach, private swimming pool / terrace just to get a picture of an off duty celeb female showing a bit more flab or saggy breasts for the entertainment of their readers. Well that's wrong too.

At what point does a celebrity lose control over when and where their body gets exploited?

nickice

Tangled Metal wrote:

If the celebrity is complicit in the photographs such that they're posing for them then I agree it's different. If the celebrity is snapped in their private life in a compromised way then it's an invasion of privacy. I don't hold with the view that because they're courting publicity they can't have privacy or their bodies are free for all. Sitting on a boat a long way offshore with a big lens snapping unsuspecting celebrity topless bathing or sunbathing on a private beach, private swimming pool / terrace just to get a picture of an off duty celeb female showing a bit more flab or saggy breasts for the entertainment of their readers. Well that's wrong too.

At what point does a celebrity lose control over when and where their body gets exploited?

There is no law of privacy in England and Wales (though it has been developing in some cases as "misuse of private information" if I remember correctly). I always find it interesting that some celebrities seem to be generally left alone (look at U2, for example) and others are constantly followed. And I think, to an extent, those that court publicity are partly to blame themselves (though it depends how they court publicity).

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

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?

Another bit of tabloid hypocrisy I guess - I presume they are all getting upset about the "pervs" activities whilst conveniently forgetting that it is they themselves that made it seem apparently acceptable in the first place.

But there is a difference between photographs being taken of desperate flesh flashing pseudo celebrities who have no other means to get a bit of cheap publicity and those taken of "normal" women just wanting to live their lives and expecting people around them to be vaguely respectful of them as human beings.

Is there? When one becomes famous is there some sort of release form you sign? Some celebrity attends a film premier or awards ceremony and - perish the thought - has a drink or two to celebrate the evening. Is that deemed to be consenting to some scrote trying to photograph her knickers as she gets into a taxi at the end of the night?

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

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.

Oh they were involved. Oh well that's completely different. So it's not enough that the Bill be put forward independently by a backbencher; they must reject any cooperation from anyone else because then the purity of its 'private-ness' is compromised. That's even more absurd than I first realised.

It means taking time from real backbencher bills. There isn't enough time for everything to be presented or pass. There is nothing absurd about it.

So in your world, Gina Martin starts her campaign, Wera Hobhouse sees that campaign and decides to introduce a PMB to add upskirting to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. But in her efforts to get the PMB passed, she must not solicit the support of the Government in any way because that would render it not a 'real' PMB. And you're saying that isn't absurd?

No, it's not absurd. There is no good reason why it wasn't presented as a government bill (and indeed according to reports this morning it soon will be). This is not what the Private Members' system is about.

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

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?

Another bit of tabloid hypocrisy I guess - I presume they are all getting upset about the "pervs" activities whilst conveniently forgetting that it is they themselves that made it seem apparently acceptable in the first place.

But there is a difference between photographs being taken of desperate flesh flashing pseudo celebrities who have no other means to get a bit of cheap publicity and those taken of "normal" women just wanting to live their lives and expecting people around them to be vaguely respectful of them as human beings.

Is there?

Yes, there is.

rick_chasey

nickice wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

If the celebrity is complicit in the photographs such that they're posing for them then I agree it's different. If the celebrity is snapped in their private life in a compromised way then it's an invasion of privacy. I don't hold with the view that because they're courting publicity they can't have privacy or their bodies are free for all. Sitting on a boat a long way offshore with a big lens snapping unsuspecting celebrity topless bathing or sunbathing on a private beach, private swimming pool / terrace just to get a picture of an off duty celeb female showing a bit more flab or saggy breasts for the entertainment of their readers. Well that's wrong too.

At what point does a celebrity lose control over when and where their body gets exploited?

There is no law of privacy in England and Wales (though it has been developing in some cases as "misuse of private information" if I remember correctly). I always find it interesting that some celebrities seem to be generally left alone (look at U2, for example) and others are constantly followed. And I think, to an extent, those that court publicity are partly to blame themselves (though it depends how they court publicity).

In which case, how did Max Mosely win his case against NOTW?

(hint, something to do with article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights).

rjsterry

The Bill was proposed by Wera Hobhouse. She isn't in the Government. You could argue that they should have thought of the idea first. Again, is she not supposed to solicit support from the Government for her idea?

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

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?

Another bit of tabloid hypocrisy I guess - I presume they are all getting upset about the "pervs" activities whilst conveniently forgetting that it is they themselves that made it seem apparently acceptable in the first place.

But there is a difference between photographs being taken of desperate flesh flashing pseudo celebrities who have no other means to get a bit of cheap publicity and those taken of "normal" women just wanting to live their lives and expecting people around them to be vaguely respectful of them as human beings.

Is there?

Yes, there is.

Not really.

Upskirting is non-consenting.

If the photographer wishes to take a photo like that, they ought to get consent first. If they do, then it's not upskirting.

If they don't, then it is.

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

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?

Another bit of tabloid hypocrisy I guess - I presume they are all getting upset about the "pervs" activities whilst conveniently forgetting that it is they themselves that made it seem apparently acceptable in the first place.

But there is a difference between photographs being taken of desperate flesh flashing pseudo celebrities who have no other means to get a bit of cheap publicity and those taken of "normal" women just wanting to live their lives and expecting people around them to be vaguely respectful of them as human beings.

Is there?

Yes, there is.

Sailing a bit close to "they're asking for it", aren't you?

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

If the celebrity is complicit in the photographs such that they're posing for them then I agree it's different. If the celebrity is snapped in their private life in a compromised way then it's an invasion of privacy. I don't hold with the view that because they're courting publicity they can't have privacy or their bodies are free for all. Sitting on a boat a long way offshore with a big lens snapping unsuspecting celebrity topless bathing or sunbathing on a private beach, private swimming pool / terrace just to get a picture of an off duty celeb female showing a bit more flab or saggy breasts for the entertainment of their readers. Well that's wrong too.

At what point does a celebrity lose control over when and where their body gets exploited?

There is no law of privacy in England and Wales (though it has been developing in some cases as "misuse of private information" if I remember correctly). I always find it interesting that some celebrities seem to be generally left alone (look at U2, for example) and others are constantly followed. And I think, to an extent, those that court publicity are partly to blame themselves (though it depends how they court publicity).

In which case, how did Max Mosely win his case against NOTW?

(hint, something to do with article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights).

It depends on the context. And that case has been widely criticised.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

The Bill was proposed by Wera Hobhouse. She isn't in the Government. You could argue that they should have thought of the idea first. Again, is she not supposed to solicit support from the Government for her idea?

She can do whatever she wants but she runs the risk of the bill failing because of one objection.

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

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?

Another bit of tabloid hypocrisy I guess - I presume they are all getting upset about the "pervs" activities whilst conveniently forgetting that it is they themselves that made it seem apparently acceptable in the first place.

But there is a difference between photographs being taken of desperate flesh flashing pseudo celebrities who have no other means to get a bit of cheap publicity and those taken of "normal" women just wanting to live their lives and expecting people around them to be vaguely respectful of them as human beings.

Is there?

Yes, there is.

Sailing a bit close to "they're asking for it", aren't you?

Nope - and just because I say that there is a difference doesn't mean I condone either circumstance. But there is a difference. There is a difference in going out knowing that half a dozen trash photographers are going to point big lensed cameras in your face and elsewhere when you are leaving the club than someone shoving an iphone up your skirt whilst you are looking the other way on your way in to work. One you have control over, the other you don't.

Sorry, I can understand why you might disagree but I'm not a millennial so I just can't get angry about absolutely everything!

(But I do agree with Ricks point re permissions - but my response isn't specifically about the upskirting issue but the idea that the legislation should in someway be modified for specific celebrity circumstances which is, as I said, different (IMO!).....)

Maybe the solution is to ban all photography of people without permission. Would pretty much end all photography of people and people inhabited places but it eliminates the ambiguity and avoids anyone needing to worry about taking responsibility for themselves.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

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?

Another bit of tabloid hypocrisy I guess - I presume they are all getting upset about the "pervs" activities whilst conveniently forgetting that it is they themselves that made it seem apparently acceptable in the first place.

But there is a difference between photographs being taken of desperate flesh flashing pseudo celebrities who have no other means to get a bit of cheap publicity and those taken of "normal" women just wanting to live their lives and expecting people around them to be vaguely respectful of them as human beings.

Is there?

Yes, there is.

Sailing a bit close to "they're asking for it", aren't you?

you do know that "their people" phone the photographers to let them know when and where to be?

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

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?

Another bit of tabloid hypocrisy I guess - I presume they are all getting upset about the "pervs" activities whilst conveniently forgetting that it is they themselves that made it seem apparently acceptable in the first place.

But there is a difference between photographs being taken of desperate flesh flashing pseudo celebrities who have no other means to get a bit of cheap publicity and those taken of "normal" women just wanting to live their lives and expecting people around them to be vaguely respectful of them as human beings.

Is there?

Yes, there is.

Sailing a bit close to "they're asking for it", aren't you?

you do know that "their people" phone the photographers to let them know when and where to be?

I'm sure a small number do. It's the assumption that any and all those who appear in any kind of public capacity do that is wide of the mark. I'm not sure your average pap distinguishes between the two. It's also the prevalence of such published photography that to some extent gives a false legitimacy to upskirting.

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

I'm not a millennial so I just can't get angry about absolutely everything!

Who do you think is a millennial? IIRC you were ranting about the brand of phone your employer provides the other day. I guess we all have our different priorities

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The Bill was proposed by Wera Hobhouse. She isn't in the Government. You could argue that they should have thought of the idea first. Again, is she not supposed to solicit support from the Government for her idea?

She can do whatever she wants but she runs the risk of the bill failing because of one objection.

It didn't fail, it just got delayed. The only thing that's failed is Chope's attempt to make a point about parliamentary procedure.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The Bill was proposed by Wera Hobhouse. She isn't in the Government. You could argue that they should have thought of the idea first. Again, is she not supposed to solicit support from the Government for her idea?

She can do whatever she wants but she runs the risk of the bill failing because of one objection.

It didn't fail, it just got delayed. The only thing that's failed is Chope's attempt to make a point about parliamentary procedure.

No, it failed. It now has to be re-presented. And he entirely succeeded if that was his point.

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

I'm not a millennial so I just can't get angry about absolutely everything!

Who do you think is a millennial? IIRC you were ranting about the brand of phone your employer provides the other day. I guess we all have our different priorities

I'm not sure that being an ethical consumer makes me a millennial. That was simply an objection on a principle that, if everyone took the same approach, would mean that the world would be a much better place; companies like Apple would have to change or cease to exist. There's also a difference between allowing yourself to get angry over things that directly cause yourself irritation and getting angry about things on behalf of others (who may well be perfectly capable of being angry on their own behalf!) - the difference between me and a millennial is whilst I can be angry about Apple I won't be angry at you for choosing to buy one yourself.

And me not getting angry about everything doesn't mean I can't get angry about some things!

Funny how excessive anger as a trait used to be associated with old men and now it has been taken over by the young! I don't envy them.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The Bill was proposed by Wera Hobhouse. She isn't in the Government. You could argue that they should have thought of the idea first. Again, is she not supposed to solicit support from the Government for her idea?

She can do whatever she wants but she runs the risk of the bill failing because of one objection.

It didn't fail, it just got delayed. The only thing that's failed is Chope's attempt to make a point about parliamentary procedure.

No, it failed. It now has to be re-presented. And he entirely succeeded if that was his point.

He seems to find it difficult to articulate his point; a lot of people now rightly or wrongly think he is an embarrassment to his party, and I don't see anything changing regarding Private Member's Bills. The Sexual Offences Act will almost certainly be amended to make upskirting a crime. I guess it depends how you define success and failure.

surrey_commuter

Well it seems that our selfless hero slept in the HoP for 3 nights to be first in the queue to put in a Bill to repeal the working time directive as soon after Brexit day as possible.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Well it seems that our selfless hero slept in the HoP for 3 nights to be first in the queue to put in a Bill to repeal the working time directive as soon after Brexit day as possible.

I mean Christ, what a waste of time.

Pretty much any job that requires you to work more than those hours has an opt out in the contact anyway. And those that don't probably have good reason not to.