FGM 'increasingly performed on UK babies' (shocker)
- Thread starter G-MAN2004
- Start date
I don't think anyone is complaining about a male adult choosing to have a circumcision, aside from perhaps Stockhausen.
Adult body modification and child circumcisions are obviously not the same thing.
And that utter **** Conservative Christopher Chope does it again...
https://news.sky.com/story/appalling-mp-blocks-bill-that-would-protect-girls-at-risk-of-fgm-11631472
https://news.sky.com/story/appalling-mp-blocks-bill-that-would-protect-girls-at-risk-of-fgm-11631472
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,086
And apparently he lets his mates bills through, so this stuff about doing it for parliamentary oversight is complete ****.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,766
- Location
- Welling, London
Chope is a vile man. Surely the Tories can do something about him?
Go on then, what other reason did he block this bill for? I'm interested to know your thoughts on his actual motives.
I highly suspect he's just a ****. Even other Conservative MP's don't believe him when he says it's so they can be debated properly.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,086
Because he's a ****?
He was a barrister and a judge and he objects to badly written knee jerk laws that often have unintended consequences in their poor drafting that would become law through this process with out the usual commons and lords scrutiny. That's the role he is SUPPOSED to play in parliament, to object to badly worded or rushed laws to prevent problems arising from their use at a later date so I fail to see why some people object to this.
He did it for the "Upskirt" law and the people who had helped write the law went back to the drawing board and said "yes, our first draft was poorly written and needed clearing up" so rewrote it as shown below -
After the re-write they had it debated and Chope had no problem allowing it to pass unhindered saying "he would 'wholeheartedly' support a government bill that outlawed upskirting".
Will anyone else bother to actually research WHY he says "No" in the general public - Nope, the vast majority will read the headlines and act without thinking, calling for his resignation etc.
He did it for the "Upskirt" law and the people who had helped write the law went back to the drawing board and said "yes, our first draft was poorly written and needed clearing up" so rewrote it as shown below -
After the re-write they had it debated and Chope had no problem allowing it to pass unhindered saying "he would 'wholeheartedly' support a government bill that outlawed upskirting".
Will anyone else bother to actually research WHY he says "No" in the general public - Nope, the vast majority will read the headlines and act without thinking, calling for his resignation etc.
Zac Goldsmith disagrees:
Before the reading session, Mr Goldsmith tweeted: "Today Chris Chope MP will once again use arcane procedure to block a bill that would amend the 1989 Children Act to include FGM on the list of things (like forced marriage or domestic violence) for which the courts can issue protection orders if they think a child is at risk.
The Bill has been scrutinised fully in the Lords, and is supported now by Government. Chope has been begged not to block it by FGM campaigners.
"People ask why he would do such a thing (and indeed why he has similarly blocked motions to debate Hillsborough, pardon Alan Turing, ban the use of wild animals in circuses, target 'upskirting' and much much more besides.
"His argument is that he simply wants bills properly debated. But it is a pretence. If today's bill goes through, we will have committee stage, report stage and third reading - all of which involve scrutiny and debate. If it is blocked, there is no debate.
"And if he is acting on principle, as he wants people to believe, why does he often allow bills put forward by his friends to pass through unchallenged?"
Before the reading session, Mr Goldsmith tweeted: "Today Chris Chope MP will once again use arcane procedure to block a bill that would amend the 1989 Children Act to include FGM on the list of things (like forced marriage or domestic violence) for which the courts can issue protection orders if they think a child is at risk.
The Bill has been scrutinised fully in the Lords, and is supported now by Government. Chope has been begged not to block it by FGM campaigners.
"People ask why he would do such a thing (and indeed why he has similarly blocked motions to debate Hillsborough, pardon Alan Turing, ban the use of wild animals in circuses, target 'upskirting' and much much more besides.
"His argument is that he simply wants bills properly debated. But it is a pretence. If today's bill goes through, we will have committee stage, report stage and third reading - all of which involve scrutiny and debate. If it is blocked, there is no debate.
"And if he is acting on principle, as he wants people to believe, why does he often allow bills put forward by his friends to pass through unchallenged?"
That's the duplicity. Our entire political and apolitical world is full of it ..
He didn't object to 2 of Peter Bone's bills today?
As you see, him and Bone have previous of doing this together.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/two-tory-mps-accused-abusing-10873972
Maybe because he (and not me) considered them to be well written and therefore not needing additional time/debate to correct them unlike the other bills.
I know this is GD but please let's no try to defend the indefensible, he's a **** that's found a way to find a pathetic piece of notoriety for himself.
I know this is GD but please let's get the whole story rather than reacting emotionally without knowing and understanding all the details, you know "innocent before being proven guilty", a rare concept nowadays I know!
Or he's a principled MP who wants the parliamentary system to work the way it was supposed to, rather than moving ever more power to the PM (who already has too much).
Given that he formally objects to private member's bills that he publically supports, I think it's the latter. It would certainly explain why he's demonised so much - those who seek ever more power often demonise those who seek more balance of power.
Can you tell me why you think it's a good idea to allow the PM to strip MPs of even more of the very limited time they're allowed to function as MPs (as opposed to party drones doing only what the PM orders them to do, a complete mockery of the whole idea of representative democracy) and to have laws passed by the PM's decree without even a pretence of debate in a parliament where almost all MPs are almost always ordered to vote a particular way by the party leader who controls them?
Zac Goldsmith's claims are simply wrong, for these reasons:
1) The House of Lords does not have anywhere near enough power to be a counter to the ever-increasing concentration of power in the hands of the two party leaders and the PM in particular.
2) Scrutiny by a committee of selected people is not the same as debate by scrutiny and debate in parliament.
3) The idea that a bill should become law because it's supported by the PM is not in any way a counter to the ever-increasing concentration of power in the hands of the PM. That's the problem, not the solution.
As you can see if you read the story you link to, it refers to a different thing. It also contains a quote from Bone saying that the system should be changed.