Which is the main point. Yes, if Labour were 20% ahead in the polls, it could well be possible that Chope could lose his seat (Christchurch went to the Lib Dems in '97) but they're not. Even if every single woman who voted for Chope didn't vote at the next election, he'd still get in
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Sir Christopher Chope
- Thread starter Dick Swiveller
- Start date
Which is the main point. Yes, if Labour were 20% ahead in the polls, it could well be possible that Chope could lose his seat (Christchurch went to the Lib Dems in '97) but they're not. Even if every single woman who voted for Chope didn't vote at the next election, he'd still get in
The Large One
Who's Next?
Textbook meaningless 'whataboutery'. I fully grasp the issue of 'mass rape of children'. You're not - and never have been - in a position to say otherwise.
Meanwhile, upskirting can fall into the realms of Public Order or breach of the peace, but you have to be caught in the act. Currently, once the photo is taken, and the dirty pervert - the likes of which you evidently approve of - decides to humiliate the victim by showing her that picture, there is nothing in law she can do. You've been told this on this thread over and over again, and it's what you have spectacularly failed to understand, choosing instead to fabricate your own interpretation.
In short, you haven't a clue as to what you're on about.
The Large One
Who's Next?
And it's because you've said that they which means that they definitely aren't.
You're making this up as you go along. The current laws are not sufficient, and every time you keep saying that they are reveals your developing agenda for siding with the perverts.
mikeyjh
Well-known member
I find myself in the slightly disturbing and uncomfortable position of thinking that Chope might have a point. I have no idea whether this bill is any good or not - It's obviously good to clarify ensure that the act of upskirting is illegal - but has it been scrutinised and reviewed so that the sentencing guidelines are good or that they have no unintended consequences. I have absolutely no idea but (and I've only seen this suggested) if it gives the police ANY rights to grab my phone and do whatever then I, for one, would be extremely uncomfortable with that.
Phat Baz 68
Get a ****ing life mate !
- Apr 16, 2011
- 5,026
You can spot him leaving Parliament every day, by the glint in the Sun off the mirrors stuck to the tops of his shoes ! 
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
I think it could have been debated if he and Philip Davies hadn't used up all the debating time earlier the same day on a different bill talking for hours on length to also achieve the goal of delaying a bill's passage.
"A planned new law to avoid the excessive use of force in mental health units has failed to get a third reading in the Commons. The government backs the legislation - dubbed "Seni's law" after a man who died in custody after being restrained by police officers. But it ran out of Commons time, with one Tory MP speaking for 148 minutes. Campaigners are hoping it will make progress when it returns to the Commons on 6 July.
The Bill has been inspired by the case of Olaseni Lewis, who was known as Seni to his friends and family. The 23-year-old, from South Norwood, in London, died in September 2010, days after he fell unconscious while being restrained by 11 Metropolitan Police officers at Bethlem Royal Hospital.
The measures aim to better govern the use of force in relation to patients in mental health units - and make those who use force more accountable. It would require police officers to wear body cameras while carrying out restraint unless there are legitimate operational reasons for not doing so. Any non-natural death in a mental health unit would automatically trigger an independent investigation under the plans.
Labour MP Steve Reed, who brought forward the legislation in a Private Member's Bill, said it was Mr Lewis's legacy and would prevent anyone else going through what he and his family had been through. Health Minister Jackie Doyle-Price paid tribute to Mr Lewis's family - who were watching the debate from the public gallery - for the "dignified" way they have campaigned for justice and for change following his death. She said the bill would bring real change in mental health treatment.
Conservative MP Philip Davies spoke for nearly two-and-a-half hours, addressing more than 100 amendments put to the Mental Health Units (Use of Force Bill) at report stage by MPs, including several of his own. The Shipley MP clashed frequently with his own front bench over the need for some of his amendments, at one stage branding ministers "shameful" after being told one was "unnecessary". Other MPs also voiced their frustration at the length of his speech, which finished after 148 minutes.
Mr Davies argued the government should accept changes to improve the state of the proposed legislation. With less than 10 minutes for debate time on the bill's third reading, time ran out during a speech by another Conservative MP, Sir Christopher Chope, who then went on to block another bill, that would have outlawed "upskirting"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44494263
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
You missed the bit.....
Ive already said existing laws suffice or need beefing up
Well you had to to project your weak fake narrative
Whataboutry is the meaningless trope for when promotiing double standards.
LOLOL please, your not intelligent enough to play identity politics well. Beefing up lewd behaviour laws is the way forward rather than handing Police new powers.
You know it is OK to laugh and mock political oponents right? If you want to play smears all I have to do is then post somethig like, "anyone with any dirt on LI please pm me". See I can do smears as well, but can also bring an arguement.j
spring hall convert
Well-known member
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
spring hall convert
Well-known member
Thank <insert deity of choice here> for that.
True Male sounds like a terrible after-shave.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,330
He'll be disappointed with that life. Nobody ever heard of the mediocre **** until he opposed making up-skirting an offence . His family must be very proud.
spring hall convert
Well-known member
Other news platforms fine,but Twitter is full of stories like the Beckhams divorcing,spread by complete tools,with no reality to their postings.If you enjoy reading crap like that,then you are even sadder than I thought!
Unlike say The Mail online.
(You do realise you only see what you follow on Twitter so you are in control of what you see. I'm sure you do because anyone that didn't know this would just be showing off their ignorance in public and that doesn't sound like you....)
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,265
In a delicious ironic twist, by opposing a Bill designed to keep hidden tw*ts hidden he himself is the hidden tw*t now exposed to all and sundry.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
Whataboutery is diversion. Nothing more. Never mind [the issue in question], whatabout [this other completely unconnected bad thing]. Its bollocks, and utterly tedious. Either debate the issue being discussed, or don't bother commenting. So dull.
Nice
It is a discussion about the rights and wrongs of proposed legal response to a sexually motivated invasion of privacy. It has nothing at all to do with 'identity politics', or any other buzzword that you've picked up in your favourite on-line alt-right echo chamber.
It isn't 'lewd behaviour' though. If you want to tag it onto something existing, then I'd suggest widening the voyeurism legislation, beyond 'private acts' would make more logical sense?
You need to let go of this weird fixation that [MENTION=257]The Large One[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1483]London Irish[/MENTION] are one and the same. Understandable line of thinking, given both have a penchant for overlong pompous posts and both love an argument, but both are well known by many on here in the real world, and are very much two different people.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
I said he was playing Identity politics by deliberately misquoting me to smear based on that I was a male objecting, something he wouldn't be able to do if I was female or gay. that is identity politics.
The rest of your post, good points.
I misunderstood your point then - so apologies.
mikeyjh
Well-known member
I'm sure you're right but (and I say this as a very lefty liberal), there's been a lot of noise and condemnation toward Chope but there is a good point there somewhere. I'm not sure it's wrong to try and scrutinise law, however well intentioned said law is.
To note, they are both, of course, enormous CJTCs but even a broken clock and all that....
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
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
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?