Darren Grimes
Comments
-
He's got a strange voting record over the last month for someone who is so keen on procedure and principle. A lot of abstentions on the coronavirus restrictions and the internal market bill.0
-
Any evidence he likes to take sneaky camera shots?kingstongraham said:He's got a strange voting record over the last month for someone who is so keen on procedure and principle. A lot of abstentions on the coronavirus restrictions and the internal market bill.
0 -
I find it unlikely he has the technical know how.ballysmate said:
Any evidence he likes to take sneaky camera shots?kingstongraham said:He's got a strange voting record over the last month for someone who is so keen on procedure and principle. A lot of abstentions on the coronavirus restrictions and the internal market bill.
0 -
Wasn't the issue, reported on at the time, that he only seemed to have these semi-regular issues with procedure on certain laws and that they all seemed to be what an old relic like him would probably consider a bit liberal?nickice said:
You object to the procédure if you think in the long-term.surrey_commuter said:
If you were an MP who liked photographing upskirts would you oppose making it illegal or would you oppose the process?spatt77 said:
If you look into it it wasn't the bill itself that was the problem but the process he was objecting too.surrey_commuter said:nickice said:
I seem to remember a conversation about a bill banning upskirting here being objected to, on procedural grounds, by a Conservative MP. I think someone even suggested that he should put his principles aside for that particular bill.surrey_commuter said:
Surely the same principle as the people who cheered on Boris to seize power from Parliament to drive Brexit through are the same people who now moan that he shuts pubs early using the same tactics. More importantly they are incapable of seeing that they are setting a precedent for the likes of Corbyn.rjsterry said:
Wasn't intending to single anyone out on here. We all lapse into tribalism from time to time. I was more thinking, "now you see what others have been complaining about."shortfall said:
Do you have any individuals in mind when you say "the same people"?rjsterry said:
There's no new law here. This is someone within the police choosing to interview Grimes. I don't think procedure is that rigidly set. I think it's notable that the same people are happy with the police 'just following procedure' when it is someone whose politics they disagree with being stopped/questioned in debatable circumstances, but when it's someone with whom they agree, it's an attack on civil liberties/police harassment.nickice said:
I don't know enough about the above to agree or disagree (though I'm totally against it if any covert action is to protect the police's reputation). This, for me, is not really the police's fault rather than the lawmaker's.rjsterry said:nickice said:
It's terrible and a far greater threat to society than anything David Starkey said. I'm sure nothing will come of it, though. If it's not illegal to hate then 'stirring up hatred' (or I suppose, "incitement to hate") shouldn't be a crime.shortfall said:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/www
I haven't seen any discussion around this story in Cakestop which feeds into some of the themes I've raised in the Corona thread about our slow motion surrender of all the things that make us free men. As I type this I can already hear the replies of "but nobody has been arrested, the police are just following protocol," and yet the very fact that he has been asked by the police to give an interview under caution sends shivers down my spine.
Is this not just the latest example of the kind of thing that has always been going on? Being interviewed under caution seems pretty small beer compared with covert surveillance of various elected leftwing politicians, the Lawrence family, and environmental campaigners. The outrage over this feels a little partial.
That would be the bloke who is always first in line to get their name down for private members bills. If he did the same for every such bill then you would have a point. The old perve just saw no reason to make it illegal to photograph up people’s skirts.
There seems to be lack of understanding from some posters here: if you object to correct procedures not being used or object to something being illegal ( i do support upskirting being an offence)it doesn't mean you support the action they're trying to prohibit.
It's the équivalent of saying that anyone who doesn't support criminalising adultery thinks cheating on your wife is OK.0 -
Can we agree that he didn't object because he wants to upskirt? To say that's the reason is just silly.Pross said:
Wasn't the issue, reported on at the time, that he only seemed to have these semi-regular issues with procedure on certain laws and that they all seemed to be what an old relic like him would probably consider a bit liberal?nickice said:
You object to the procédure if you think in the long-term.surrey_commuter said:
If you were an MP who liked photographing upskirts would you oppose making it illegal or would you oppose the process?spatt77 said:
If you look into it it wasn't the bill itself that was the problem but the process he was objecting too.surrey_commuter said:nickice said:
I seem to remember a conversation about a bill banning upskirting here being objected to, on procedural grounds, by a Conservative MP. I think someone even suggested that he should put his principles aside for that particular bill.surrey_commuter said:
Surely the same principle as the people who cheered on Boris to seize power from Parliament to drive Brexit through are the same people who now moan that he shuts pubs early using the same tactics. More importantly they are incapable of seeing that they are setting a precedent for the likes of Corbyn.rjsterry said:
Wasn't intending to single anyone out on here. We all lapse into tribalism from time to time. I was more thinking, "now you see what others have been complaining about."shortfall said:
Do you have any individuals in mind when you say "the same people"?rjsterry said:
There's no new law here. This is someone within the police choosing to interview Grimes. I don't think procedure is that rigidly set. I think it's notable that the same people are happy with the police 'just following procedure' when it is someone whose politics they disagree with being stopped/questioned in debatable circumstances, but when it's someone with whom they agree, it's an attack on civil liberties/police harassment.nickice said:
I don't know enough about the above to agree or disagree (though I'm totally against it if any covert action is to protect the police's reputation). This, for me, is not really the police's fault rather than the lawmaker's.rjsterry said:nickice said:
It's terrible and a far greater threat to society than anything David Starkey said. I'm sure nothing will come of it, though. If it's not illegal to hate then 'stirring up hatred' (or I suppose, "incitement to hate") shouldn't be a crime.shortfall said:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/www
I haven't seen any discussion around this story in Cakestop which feeds into some of the themes I've raised in the Corona thread about our slow motion surrender of all the things that make us free men. As I type this I can already hear the replies of "but nobody has been arrested, the police are just following protocol," and yet the very fact that he has been asked by the police to give an interview under caution sends shivers down my spine.
Is this not just the latest example of the kind of thing that has always been going on? Being interviewed under caution seems pretty small beer compared with covert surveillance of various elected leftwing politicians, the Lawrence family, and environmental campaigners. The outrage over this feels a little partial.
That would be the bloke who is always first in line to get their name down for private members bills. If he did the same for every such bill then you would have a point. The old perve just saw no reason to make it illegal to photograph up people’s skirts.
There seems to be lack of understanding from some posters here: if you object to correct procedures not being used or object to something being illegal ( i do support upskirting being an offence)it doesn't mean you support the action they're trying to prohibit.
It's the équivalent of saying that anyone who doesn't support criminalising adultery thinks cheating on your wife is OK.
He, if I remember correctly, objected to bills getting through a reading with no debate and also objected to what should be government bills taking up time allocate to private members.
We all know who Darren Grimes is now, though!0 -
Yes we agree on the first point. On the second, as I was saying, it was reported at the time that he tended to raise these objections only when the proposed legislation was of a type that didn't really suit his politics so it didn't seem to be very much done on principle. I suppose the objection to him is that he seemed to find trying to ban upskirting to be a trivial matter not worth 'wasting time' on discussing.nickice said:
Can we agree that he didn't object because he wants to upskirt? To say that's the reason is just silly.Pross said:
Wasn't the issue, reported on at the time, that he only seemed to have these semi-regular issues with procedure on certain laws and that they all seemed to be what an old relic like him would probably consider a bit liberal?nickice said:
You object to the procédure if you think in the long-term.surrey_commuter said:
If you were an MP who liked photographing upskirts would you oppose making it illegal or would you oppose the process?spatt77 said:
If you look into it it wasn't the bill itself that was the problem but the process he was objecting too.surrey_commuter said:nickice said:
I seem to remember a conversation about a bill banning upskirting here being objected to, on procedural grounds, by a Conservative MP. I think someone even suggested that he should put his principles aside for that particular bill.surrey_commuter said:
Surely the same principle as the people who cheered on Boris to seize power from Parliament to drive Brexit through are the same people who now moan that he shuts pubs early using the same tactics. More importantly they are incapable of seeing that they are setting a precedent for the likes of Corbyn.rjsterry said:
Wasn't intending to single anyone out on here. We all lapse into tribalism from time to time. I was more thinking, "now you see what others have been complaining about."shortfall said:
Do you have any individuals in mind when you say "the same people"?rjsterry said:
There's no new law here. This is someone within the police choosing to interview Grimes. I don't think procedure is that rigidly set. I think it's notable that the same people are happy with the police 'just following procedure' when it is someone whose politics they disagree with being stopped/questioned in debatable circumstances, but when it's someone with whom they agree, it's an attack on civil liberties/police harassment.nickice said:
I don't know enough about the above to agree or disagree (though I'm totally against it if any covert action is to protect the police's reputation). This, for me, is not really the police's fault rather than the lawmaker's.rjsterry said:nickice said:
It's terrible and a far greater threat to society than anything David Starkey said. I'm sure nothing will come of it, though. If it's not illegal to hate then 'stirring up hatred' (or I suppose, "incitement to hate") shouldn't be a crime.shortfall said:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/www
I haven't seen any discussion around this story in Cakestop which feeds into some of the themes I've raised in the Corona thread about our slow motion surrender of all the things that make us free men. As I type this I can already hear the replies of "but nobody has been arrested, the police are just following protocol," and yet the very fact that he has been asked by the police to give an interview under caution sends shivers down my spine.
Is this not just the latest example of the kind of thing that has always been going on? Being interviewed under caution seems pretty small beer compared with covert surveillance of various elected leftwing politicians, the Lawrence family, and environmental campaigners. The outrage over this feels a little partial.
That would be the bloke who is always first in line to get their name down for private members bills. If he did the same for every such bill then you would have a point. The old perve just saw no reason to make it illegal to photograph up people’s skirts.
There seems to be lack of understanding from some posters here: if you object to correct procedures not being used or object to something being illegal ( i do support upskirting being an offence)it doesn't mean you support the action they're trying to prohibit.
It's the équivalent of saying that anyone who doesn't support criminalising adultery thinks cheating on your wife is OK.
He, if I remember correctly, objected to bills getting through a reading with no debate and also objected to what should be government bills taking up time allocate to private members.
We all know who Darren Grimes is now, though!0 -
This has been so impossibly, unbelievably good for his grift I find it really hard to believe it wasn't all his idea in the first place...rjsterry said:Turns out he's not going to be interviewed now. Still felt the need to post a long string of tweets about how awfully he's suffered from not actually being interviewed under caution.
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver2 -
Errm. Gyms are closed and that's the first thought that occurs?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Terrible news again for the burglary community though. Where's Rishi with a handout for them?0
-
How about the Romanian pickpockets? During the past 8 months, social distancing made it hard to ply their trade. That 2 metre gap was a killer.kingstongraham said:Terrible news again for the burglary community though. Where's Rishi with a handout for them?
2 -
Maybe you could list the other times he protested about the procedure and is that list shorter than the times him and his friends got up early to be first in the queue to submit a private members bill?nickice said:
You object to the procédure if you think in the long-term.surrey_commuter said:
If you were an MP who liked photographing upskirts would you oppose making it illegal or would you oppose the process?spatt77 said:
If you look into it it wasn't the bill itself that was the problem but the process he was objecting too.surrey_commuter said:nickice said:
I seem to remember a conversation about a bill banning upskirting here being objected to, on procedural grounds, by a Conservative MP. I think someone even suggested that he should put his principles aside for that particular bill.surrey_commuter said:
Surely the same principle as the people who cheered on Boris to seize power from Parliament to drive Brexit through are the same people who now moan that he shuts pubs early using the same tactics. More importantly they are incapable of seeing that they are setting a precedent for the likes of Corbyn.rjsterry said:
Wasn't intending to single anyone out on here. We all lapse into tribalism from time to time. I was more thinking, "now you see what others have been complaining about."shortfall said:
Do you have any individuals in mind when you say "the same people"?rjsterry said:
There's no new law here. This is someone within the police choosing to interview Grimes. I don't think procedure is that rigidly set. I think it's notable that the same people are happy with the police 'just following procedure' when it is someone whose politics they disagree with being stopped/questioned in debatable circumstances, but when it's someone with whom they agree, it's an attack on civil liberties/police harassment.nickice said:
I don't know enough about the above to agree or disagree (though I'm totally against it if any covert action is to protect the police's reputation). This, for me, is not really the police's fault rather than the lawmaker's.rjsterry said:nickice said:
It's terrible and a far greater threat to society than anything David Starkey said. I'm sure nothing will come of it, though. If it's not illegal to hate then 'stirring up hatred' (or I suppose, "incitement to hate") shouldn't be a crime.shortfall said:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/09/darren-grimes-police-investigation-david-starkey-interview/www
I haven't seen any discussion around this story in Cakestop which feeds into some of the themes I've raised in the Corona thread about our slow motion surrender of all the things that make us free men. As I type this I can already hear the replies of "but nobody has been arrested, the police are just following protocol," and yet the very fact that he has been asked by the police to give an interview under caution sends shivers down my spine.
Is this not just the latest example of the kind of thing that has always been going on? Being interviewed under caution seems pretty small beer compared with covert surveillance of various elected leftwing politicians, the Lawrence family, and environmental campaigners. The outrage over this feels a little partial.
That would be the bloke who is always first in line to get their name down for private members bills. If he did the same for every such bill then you would have a point. The old perve just saw no reason to make it illegal to photograph up people’s skirts.
There seems to be lack of understanding from some posters here: if you object to correct procedures not being used or object to something being illegal ( i do support upskirting being an offence)it doesn't mean you support the action they're trying to prohibit.
It's the équivalent of saying that anyone who doesn't support criminalising adultery thinks cheating on your wife is OK.0 -
Is he saying that he only goes down the gym to perve and that now he has to go to the park to perve at joggersrjsterry said:Errm. Gyms are closed and that's the first thought that occurs?
0 -
I'm not sure he meant to, but it does rather read that way.surrey_commuter said:
Is he saying that he only goes down the gym to perve and that now he has to go to the park to perve at joggersrjsterry said:Errm. Gyms are closed and that's the first thought that occurs?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Still not sure who he is, but he seems to have tweeted this out, thinking it's a real news story.
0 -
Once again the comments are mainly an absolute shower.kingstongraham said:Still not sure who he is, but he seems to have tweeted this out, thinking it's a real news story.
One good one though:
"I was there, when the final boat pulled in to place all the fish cheered."- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono1 -
Just seems like another reason to not go on Twitter for me.1
-
Errrr...so you only object to a specific nationality of pickpocket?ballysmate said:
How about the Romanian pickpockets? During the past 8 months, social distancing made it hard to ply their trade. That 2 metre gap was a killer.kingstongraham said:Terrible news again for the burglary community though. Where's Rishi with a handout for them?
It's just a hill. Get over it.0 -
The dapper Italian pickpockets do it with such panache, you just have to admire them...well you would if you knew they were doing it. They are just so, so good.secretsam said:
Errrr...so you only object to a specific nationality of pickpocket?ballysmate said:
How about the Romanian pickpockets? During the past 8 months, social distancing made it hard to ply their trade. That 2 metre gap was a killer.kingstongraham said:Terrible news again for the burglary community though. Where's Rishi with a handout for them?
1 -
Tbh I had the Italians down as being more renowned for pacca sul sedereelbowloh said:
The dapper Italian pickpockets do it with such panache, you just have to admire them...well you would if you knew they were doing it. They are just so, so good.secretsam said:
Errrr...so you only object to a specific nationality of pickpocket?ballysmate said:
How about the Romanian pickpockets? During the past 8 months, social distancing made it hard to ply their trade. That 2 metre gap was a killer.kingstongraham said:Terrible news again for the burglary community though. Where's Rishi with a handout for them?
0
