Upskirting bill fails because of one chop!

[bluewolf]

Has anyone on here read the actual private members bill thats been blocked? No? Thought not - l havent either ...

However it easy to understand that suggested legislation frequently a) won't achieve what it is intended to do, or b) will have unintended consequences or ç) both. The system needs the ability to address this. As far as I've read, Chope has not killed this off, but has merely ensured that it gets more proper consideration.

I know nothing about the man but he's been an MP for 20 years or so. So l doubt he would be unaware of the likely public reaction to him objecting. Yet he still did so. I find that interesting rather than reprehensible.

But then again, since when has the voice of reason ever had its day ...

And yet he admitted to not knowing what Upskirting was after voting against it. I find that interesting. I also found it interesting to do a bit of research on the man.

 

[rudebhoy]

He’s not the voice of reason, a quick google will show you what a scum bag he is.

Voted against a minimum wage.
Voted against same sex marriage repeatedly.
Objected to over turning the prosecution of Alan Turing for being gay.
Blocked a bill that was to outlaw the use of animals in circus acts.
Derailed a bill that was set to restrict the parking charges on carers at hospitals.

A contemptible human being.

 

[Fish]

Voted against a minimum wage.
Voted against same sex marriage repeatedly.
Objected to over turning the prosecution of Alan Turing for being gay.
Blocked a bill that was to outlaw the use of animals in circus acts.
Derailed a bill that was set to restrict the parking charges on carers at hospitals.

A contemptible human being.

I can't comment on all those specific objections, but I've read that he's one of, and the leader of a group of back-benchers who make a practice to ensure that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily put on the statute book by a few MPs on a poorly-attended Friday sitting and is debated correctly.

This bill will create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail. so, however worthy the cause, he simply insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that.

This might explain the list you've posted, because if he was as vile as some suggest, I doubt he'd keep getting elected by his constituents, would he?

But hey, let’s not let facts get in the way of good old witch hunt!

#InComing......

 

[Hobbit]

The guy is an idiot, and earning a fortune doing it. Just goes to show you can pin a blue/red etc rosette on a donkey and get it elected in some constituencies.

As an aside, is this crime already covered by the Voyeurism Act 2003, which includes the capturing of images of a sexual nature? Sentencing guidelines include fines, prison terms and signing on the Sex Offender's Register....

 

[SteveJay]

The guy is an idiot, and earning a fortune doing it. Just goes to show you can pin a blue/red etc rosette on a donkey and get it elected in some constituencies.

As an aside, is this crime already covered by the Voyeurism Act 2003, which includes the capturing of images of a sexual nature? Sentencing guidelines include fines, prison terms and signing on the Sex Offender's Register....

No, heard that this act is only applicable when people are in private, not public places.

 

[Fish]

The guy is an idiot, and earning a fortune doing it. Just goes to show you can pin a blue/red etc rosette on a donkey and get it elected in some constituencies.

As an aside, is this crime already covered by the Voyeurism Act 2003, which includes the capturing of images of a sexual nature? Sentencing guidelines include fines, prison terms and signing on the Sex Offender's Register....

No, heard that this act is only applicable when people are in private, not public places.

No, as apparently that only relates to filming/videoing, not static photo's, which is why Scotland had to change/make the new law.

This is why it needs to be debated fully and worded correctly, not just chucked in leaving holes and grey areas to still be exploited, and as per you own questioning of that, believing that there are laws that should/could cover this already, they simply don't, so it needs to be written up and presented better than it was, hence his objection.

 

[Hobbit]

No, as apparently that only relates to filming/videoing, not static photo's, which is why Scotland had to change/make the new law.

This is why it needs to be debated fully and worded correctly, not just chucked in leaving holes and grey areas to still be exploited, and as per you own questioning of that, believing that there are laws that should/could cover this already, they simply don't, so it needs to be written up and presented better than it was, hence his objection.

You’re right it needs to be done properly, but he didn’t even know what he was objecting to. For all he knew, it might have been perfectly worded.

 

[rudebhoy]

I can't comment on all those specific objections, but I've read that he's one of, and the leader of a group of back-benchers who make a practice to ensure that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily put on the statute book by a few MPs on a poorly-attended Friday sitting and is debated correctly.

This bill will create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail. so, however worthy the cause, he simply insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that.

This might explain the list you've posted, because if he was as vile as some suggest, I doubt he'd keep getting elected by his constituents, would he?

But hey, let’s not let facts get in the way of good old witch hunt!

#InComing......

the minimum wage and same sex marriage bills certainly weren't "Friday' bills, both were very high profile and well attended. The guy is a nasty piece of work. Just read he also objected to the Commons having a debate about Hillsborough after more than 100,000 signed an e-petition calling for one.

 

[Fish]

You’re right it needs to be done properly, but he didn’t even know what he was objecting to. For all he knew, it might have been perfectly worded.

No doubt why he wanted it to be fully debated, to get a better understanding of it?

 

[andycap]

sounds like he wants a mass debate

 

[Hacker Khan]

Sounds like you have a perfect storm of an obnoxious MP who just blocks private members bills for the sake of it and a hot button topic.

If we were being generous you could say he probably does not think that upskirting is something that should still be legal. Also why has the practice of one person being able to block a private members bill just for the sake of it (and nothing to do with the content of the bill) not been highlighted before as something that needs looking at? I am sure him and his cronies have done much the same to many other perfectly good private members bills.

I suppose in a way at least he has brought this silly practice of always blocking bills to public notice. Plus it has made the Tories look mean in many peoples eyes which is fine by me. Also it has highlighted a certain type of person we are entrusting our future to which may engage others to get involved in politics as if you don't well that is what you get. Also fair play to TMay who has said the bill will be passed.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

There are a number of practices in the HoC which are outdated and have no place in the modern era. This is just one of them. Old MP's seem to like them as it makes the place different. I just think it makes the place look stupid.