Christoper Chope MP

O

oxymoron

Club Champion
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
335
Visit site
Following on the Peter Hain thread, i find it hard to believe no-one has mentioned anything about this odious , outdated pompus old fart (have to be a bit careful what i say ) he stop 2 bits of legislation that will protect women and young girls (upskirting and FGM) by objecting to how the bill was presented\read in parliament . Seems like he has a problem with women to me .

What really wound me up was one MP saying its funny how he stopped those 2 motions but has never stopped any of his friends bills no matter how they were presented to the house .

Time he was put out to pasture (probably end up in the Lords anyway)
 
He stops an awful lot of bills in the house, we only hear about certain ones as they create controversy. He objects to bills being rushed through the house that are badly worded or do not give time for mp's to scrutinise them to make sure they stand up. Bad legislation can be as bad as no legislation.

I don't condone what he has done on these two occasions but there is more to what he does than plain sexism. The upskirting bill has since returned, with govt backing, and has now passed. Hopefully the same will happen with this latest one and hopefully the bill will protect young girls properly.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
He stops an awful lot of bills in the house, we only hear about certain ones as they create controversy. He objects to bills being rushed through the house that are badly worded or do not give time for mp's to scrutinise them to make sure they stand up. Bad legislation can be as bad as no legislation.

I don't condone what he has done on these two occasions but there is more to what he does than plain sexism. The upskirting bill has since returned, with govt backing, and has now passed. Hopefully the same will happen with this latest one and hopefully the bill will protect young girls properly.
Click to expand...

These are worthwhile comments on a difficult subject. In fact there are two subjects really. One is the vile practice of mutulating young girls. Rightly it should be stopped and the presenter of the Bill was attempting that. And is therefore to be applauded.
But are these Bills well presented, watertight, pieces of legislation able to withstand the attack of lawyers who inevitably will try anything to attack the prosecution of offenders. As stated above , bad legislation is as useful as a chocolate teapot.
The reason laws are written in such long winded, and not- so-simple language, is not so that they can be understood- but so that they cannot be misunderstood.
Looking at the history of Chope it does fit the explanation of his motive to be against this particular method of creating legislation, fearing not enough scrutiny thus allowing bad legislation through- I understand that when the upskirting legislation (Government promoted) was passed , that he voted for it-.
I cannot imagine that Chope supports this vile mutulating practice and would want it to continue. Are his critics really thinking that he does?

It could be that he is pleased that now ( I understand) the Government is going to sponsor and present to Parliament a Bill to achieve the banning of this practice.
However, I think he should state openly , when he does make these interventions to stop Bills, what his view is on the proposed legislation, his motive for his action, and how he would vote on the issue if a Government Bill was presented. He owes that to his fellow MPs.
 
SocketRocket said:
I find it hard to believe that anyone in parliament can not feel abhorrence about FGM
Click to expand...

Your missed the point by playing the guy not the ball. He wants the law to be powerful and effective. He is NOT supporting FGM.

It is a good thing that we have some politicians who want to do their jobs properly even if they get fried publically
 
drdel said:
Your missed the point by playing the guy not the ball. He wants the law to be powerful and effective. He is NOT supporting FGM.

It is a good thing that we have some politicians who want to do their jobs properly even if they get fried publically
Click to expand...
I'm guessing then that he doesn't believe that the PMB's put forward by his good friend Peter Bone deserve proper debate? There are lots of PMB's that he doesn't appear to have an issue with.
 
He is the local MP where we have moved to, a petition to get him sacked after this latest shouting down has been started as people only see the sensationalist headline. He clearly has a reason for what he does (and wasnt the only one who shouted down a bill Friday, just the only one reported on) but it appears along with this he has varying double standards and according to some who have met him not the nicest of blokes either. That said he also has a 25k majority and feels pretty untouchable it seems
 
fundy said:
He is the local MP where we have moved to, a petition to get him sacked after this latest shouting down has been started as people only see the sensationalist headline. He clearly has a reason for what he does (and wasnt the only one who shouted down a bill Friday, just the only one reported on) but it appears along with this he has varying double standards and according to some who have met him not the nicest of blokes either. That said he also has a 25k majority and feels pretty untouchable it seems
Click to expand...
FWIW, I seriously doubt that he thinks that FGM is in any way acceptable. He's a publicity seeking dinosaur, not a monster.. My personal opinion is that he picks bills that will be controversial and then objects so that the Backbenches can discuss them. Unfortunately, this approach risks the future of the Bill (as it now has to be Government backed) and furthermore it can be delayed for several months..
 
Swinglowandslow said:
These are worthwhile comments on a difficult subject. In fact there are two subjects really. One is the vile practice of mutulating young girls. Rightly it should be stopped and the presenter of the Bill was attempting that. And is therefore to be applauded.
But are these Bills well presented, watertight, pieces of legislation able to withstand the attack of lawyers who inevitably will try anything to attack the prosecution of offenders. As stated above , bad legislation is as useful as a chocolate teapot.
The reason laws are written in such long winded, and not- so-simple language, is not so that they can be understood- but so that they cannot be misunderstood.
Looking at the history of Chope it does fit the explanation of his motive to be against this particular method of creating legislation, fearing not enough scrutiny thus allowing bad legislation through- I understand that when the upskirting legislation (Government promoted) was passed , that he voted for it-.
I cannot imagine that Chope supports this vile mutulating practice and would want it to continue. Are his critics really thinking that he does?

It could be that he is pleased that now ( I understand) the Government is going to sponsor and present to Parliament a Bill to achieve the banning of this practice.
However, I think he should state openly , when he does make these interventions to stop Bills, what his view is on the proposed legislation, his motive for his action, and how he would vote on the issue if a Government Bill was presented. He owes that to his fellow MPs.
Click to expand...

If perhaps he made this a bit clearer then fair enough but it does not come across from what i have seen in the past ie the upskirt thing , he says he had no idea what it was so perhaps a few questions first would be in order ? .


drdel said:
Your missed the point by playing the guy not the ball. He wants the law to be powerful and effective. He is NOT supporting FGM.

It is a good thing that we have some politicians who want to do their jobs properly even if they get fried publically
Click to expand...

drdel no one said he was supporting FGM , but as stated above make things clear and cut out any misunderstandings .
Unfortunately we do only hear a lot of the not so good things more often than not so as i said a bit more clarity on his , or indeed any MP's stance on matters would go a long way to stop any ambiguity .
No doubt he has done a lot of worthwhile things but they tend to be overshadowed by events like these.
 
bluewolf said:
FWIW, I seriously doubt that he thinks that FGM is in any way acceptable. He's a publicity seeking dinosaur, not a monster.. My personal opinion is that he picks bills that will be controversial and then objects so that the Backbenches can discuss them. Unfortunately, this approach risks the future of the Bill (as it now has to be Government backed) and furthermore it can be delayed for several months..
Click to expand...
Is the bigger question here not, 'why is the govt not already backing this bill or something equivalent'?
 
Hobbit said:
He needs to go!!!!

Why didn't he let the Bill go through then look for amendments. At least then there'd a be a law, however much it might be flawed, on the statute books.
Click to expand...
Do we know what stage the bill was at? Was it its first reading or was it at the amendment stage and being pushed through untouched? If it was its first reading then I totally agree with you.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
Is the bigger question here not, 'why is the govt not already backing this bill or something equivalent'?
Click to expand...
Technically, the Government did back it by asking that it go through unopposed. This was to allow it to go through faster and become Law quicker. Now it'll have to go through all the regular channels, be debated (at which point he'll no longer be seen) and eventually passed. In the meantime, this barbaric practice is still legal.. Well done CC....
 
Lord Tyrion said:
Do we know what stage the bill was at? Was it its first reading or was it at the amendment stage and being pushed through untouched? If it was its first reading then I totally agree with you.
Click to expand...

If a PMB is passed it then goes to standing committee stage for the detail. There's no reason why a reasonable PMB can't reach this stage, be amended and become law, e.g. the original abortion Bill in the UK.

Occasionally, a govt will ask an MP to propose a PMB, as per the abortion Bill above.
 
Just googled it, it was a one line amendment to an existing law. FGM is illegal already incidentally.

On Friday Lord Berkeley had proposed a one-line amendment to the existing Children Act 1989 in order to strengthen powers that can be used by courts to protect girls at risk of FGM. It would mean that judges and courts have more power to protect children who could be at risk of being “cut”. Under existing laws, judges can make an FGM protection order through the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, but Lord Berkeley noted that such cases were not covered under family law in the UK. This means that family courts can place a child into care if they were at risk of forced marriage, molestation or violence – but not FGM

The amendment would allow a pre-emptive move to safeguard a girl thought at risk.
 
drdel said:
Your missed the point by playing the guy not the ball. He wants the law to be powerful and effective. He is NOT supporting FGM.

It is a good thing that we have some politicians who want to do their jobs properly even if they get fried publically
Click to expand...
Why doesn't he do something to change the law for the better rather than shout objections when others try. Any law or amendment that prevents FGM has to be better than none.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top