[Politics] Sir Christopher Chope

[Pretty Plnk Fairy]

Out of interest, what are the actual stats on women having cameras pointed up their skirts for the purpose of photographing their bits and bobs?

I normaly pay thems £60 an hour

regards
DR

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Sure, but he's not helping the passage of any law. He's doing it as a matter of principle alone, and has done for 20 years, rather than any specific comment on the bill he's objecting on - which might be the perfectly written bill for all he knows. These are private members bills that only have limited time for debate and will die a death unless they can be passed in the limited time available. Other than in this high-profile case, by objecting he is basically ensuring they will inevitably vanish and never be debated or passed. The link I posted showed a similar case where there was time for debate, and he and his colleague used it all up in order to block its passage, again to make a point of principle.

Thats the limit of my understanding on parliamentary procedure, which seems totally arcane and ripe for updating

There was already cross party agreement on this being changed from a public or act, to a sexual offence, but his delaying tactics, as in previous Private Member's bills, stopped it.
He has a lot of previous, like protecting police dogs & horses (just criminal damage at present) and parking for carers at hospitals, all blocked by this buffoon, just because he can.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Surprised people still sifting the tea leaves on this. Chope is a nobber, and has been exposed. Uptrouser, like. As Arnold J Rimmer might have almost said 'he's finished!'.

 

[pastafarian]

Sure, but he's not helping the passage of any law. He's doing it as a matter of principle alone, and has done for 20 years, rather than any specific comment on the bill he's objecting on - which might be the perfectly written bill for all he knows. These are private members bills that only have limited time for debate and will die a death unless they can be passed in the limited time available. Other than in this high-profile case, by objecting he is basically ensuring they will inevitably vanish and never be debated or passed. The link I posted showed a similar case where there was time for debate, and he and his colleague used it all up in order to block its passage, again to make a point of principle.

Thats the limit of my understanding on parliamentary procedure, which seems totally arcane and ripe for updating

There does seem to be some confusion as to his motives. Contrary to myth he is not against private members bills, he is against private members bills being used as government business for legislation. His beef is if you are going to pass legislation make it go through full parliamentary procedural scrutiny as government business, no matter what law it is, rather than sneek it through on a Friday when most members are away from the house in their constituencies. The upskirt bill will now be returned as a government bill and receive the full treatment. I tend to admire what he is doing,

There is a feeling amongst some in parliament that the private member bill instrument is being abused for processes that are not intended.
If you want to be bored to tears, the house of commons procedural committee had a number of sittings trying to address the issue. If you cant sleep the report might help.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmproced/188/188.pdf

 

[clapham_gull]

There was already cross party agreement on this being changed from a public or act, to a sexual offence, but his delaying tactics, as in previous Private Member's bills, stopped it.
He has a lot of previous, like protecting police dogs & horses (just criminal damage at present) and parking for carers at hospitals, all blocked by this buffoon, just because he can.

Oddly, the fact he can may be one of the things he is protesting about....

 

[The Clamp]

I normaly pay thems £60 an hour

regards
DR

Yes, I thought you'd have to pay for it.

 

[rippleman]

Because our Parliament seems incapable of working a normal week, and because they have so many, lengthy holidays, debating time is limited. There are probably more important things for parliament to be debating so if it takes a Private Members Bill to pass into law something that all but the perverts would support (or at least, at worst, feel ambivalent about), why waste the limited time debating it? Just get on with it!

How we can let one out of touch nutter thwart the introduction of a clause to amend the sexual offences act is baffling.

Chope has been doing similar for years. "Oh, look at me. I want attention. I don't care if it makes me look like I'm supporting the perverts. I want to be in the media"

He is an embarrassment to his party and our country. If May had the balls she would withdraw the whip from the cretin. But we all know she won't.

 

[The Large One]

You missed the bit.....

*white noise*

You can try and smear if you wish, but you are effectively siding with the perverts. You've smeared yourself.

As I said, you're making it up as you go along. Laws don't need 'beefing up'. There needs to be an entirely new statute. The fact is so obvious, it's tragic it needs explaining to you over and over again.

 

[bhafc99]

Because our Parliament seems incapable of working a normal week, and because they have so many, lengthy holidays, debating time is limited. There are probably more important things for parliament to be debating so if it takes a Private Members Bill to pass into law something that all but the perverts would support (or at least, at worst, feel ambivalent about), why waste the limited time debating it? Just get on with it!

Agree – I concede I'm not an expert, but logic would tell you that it's not realistic or feasible for Parliament to debate every single measure to the nth degree, and that sometimes things just need to be actioned – especially if the whips etc have all agreed beforehand that all parties are in support of it. Chope seems to be intent on blocking this process, which is there to make things effective, in favour of a pointless and unrealistic 'principle' that every single thing is going to get full Chamber time.

 

[The Large One]

Agree – I concede I'm not an expert, but logic would tell you that it's not realistic or feasible for Parliament to debate every single measure to the nth degree, and that sometimes things just need to be actioned – especially if the whips etc have all agreed beforehand that all parties are in support of it. Chope seems to be intent on blocking this process, which is there to make things effective, in favour of a pointless and unrealistic 'principle' that every single thing is going to get full Chamber time.

Him and a couple of others - notably Philiip Davies and Jacob Ress-Mogg - have an annoying, tedious habit of 'filibustering'.

In other words, knowing what is coming on the agenda, they will talk incessantly and about nothing at all on the preceding item on the Commons agenda so that there is no time to debate the next (and usually far more important) item. Funnily enough, they don't have a problem with Parliamentary procedure on that score.

 

[AK74]

My wife was at a party recently, and spotted some pervert with a camera brazenly taking pictures of ladies' breasts. He was also being a bit too familiar with various guests, which was clearly making them uncomfortable. Quite what gave him the right to this is anyone's guess.

 

[looney]

I am Groot.

Im with the side that wants laws scrutinized and doesn't want to give unessasary power to the Police, you missed all that in your virtue signalling.

 

[looney]

My wife was at a party recently, and spotted some pervert with a camera brazenly taking pictures of ladies' breasts. He was also being a bit too familiar with various guests, which was clearly making them uncomfortable. Quite what gave him the right to this is anyone's guess.

I think the issue is the right already exists, we haven't had a world before where every idiot has a camera all the time. The issue is how to deal with this abuse of Technology.

 

[el punal]

Because our Parliament seems incapable of working a normal week, and because they have so many, lengthy holidays, debating time is limited. There are probably more important things for parliament to be debating so if it takes a Private Members Bill to pass into law something that all but the perverts would support (or at least, at worst, feel ambivalent about), why waste the limited time debating it? Just get on with it!

How we can let one out of touch nutter thwart the introduction of a clause to amend the sexual offences act is baffling.

Chope has been doing similar for years. "Oh, look at me. I want attention. I don't care if it makes me look like I'm supporting the perverts. I want to be in the media"

He is an embarrassment to his party and our country. If May had the balls she would withdraw the whip from the cretin. But we all know she won't.

Cue the Sun headline : “That Chap Chope Chopped!”

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Im with the side that wants laws scrutinized and doesn't want to give unessasary power to the Police, you missed all that in your virtue signalling.

The police already have the power to arrest someone for upskirting, but as a public order action, it merely means a slap on the wrist and a fine.
This law was meant to change it to a sexual charge with harsher resulting punishments.

Either way, the police could seize the phone/camera involved. No further powers were needed.
Accusing someone of virtue signalling is weak debate.

 

[looney]

The police already have the power to arrest someone for upskirting, but as a public order action, it merely means a slap on the wrist and a fine.
This law was meant to change it to a sexual charge with harsher resulting punishments.

Either way, the police could seize the phone/camera involved. No further powers were needed.
Accusing someone of virtue signalling is weak debate.

But accusing someone of siding with perverts is stong debate? Nah its virtue signalling, its the binary world view that if someone objects to a political position that they beleive is morally held then the desenter must be in some way imoral.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

I have heared that Mr Chope still wants 'bitty'.