FGM 'increasingly performed on UK babies' (shocker)
- Thread starter G-MAN2004
- Start date
Why? Why should the Private Members Bill procedure be usurped by the government to retroactively apply changes in laws to grant a posthumous pardon to one person only, solely because that person is famous? In fact, why should the Private Members Bill procedure be usurped for retroactively applying changes in laws to grant pardons at all? That's not what it's supposed to be for, obviously.
Also, if it was to be done then it would be far more important to grant pardons to people who are still alive because that would serve a useful purpose. But hey, to hell with them. They're not famous.
Are you kidding me? I really don't think you're that dim but my word that post was dumb as hell. You do realise after Brexit we'll have 100% control over of our borders, the the beauty is that if the government in charge start letting in people on mass we can vote them out. The key thing it'll be totally up to the UK who we let in.
Last edited:
The Commons focuses on the purpose of a Bill at the second reading, not the wording of the clauses. That - and any amendments - come at the committee stage or later. Chope is talking nonsense when he says that he is objecting because he does not want legislation to pass into law without scrutiny. It's impossible for a Bill to skip all of the routine scrutiny that takes place between the second reading and Royal Assent.
If he has a problem with any particular wording, he could attend the later debates and argue for an amendment. But it's probably easier to sit on his arse and shout 'Object'.
And Chope was never a judge and you did not have to be a genius to work as a barrister for a few years in the 70s if you could afford the education (particularly if your father was a judge, like Chope's).
Yet the numbers went up and you still voted them in, regardless so the actions speak louder than empty ******* words.
But not as dumb as your understanding of the RU, immigration and Brexit.
We already have 100% control of our borders.
The EY provides far increased powers for tracking criminals and makes deportation far simpler and quicker.
Since the referendum, the number of non-EU immigrants has sky-rocketed, yet people still voted for the Tories
Rules and procedures (and laws) are not always right or fit for purpose. To say that Turing was pardoned "because he was famous" is belittling the incredible contribution he made during the war. Punishing people under law for their sexual orientation should never have happened and pardoning Turing was the very least that could be done, albeit too little too late.
I don't doubt for one minute that there are people still alive who are deserving of pardons, but how many have been convicted under laws that should never have existed in the first place?
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I believe that Chope was the genius behind Thatcher's Poll Tax which may explain why he is so concerned about ill-considered legislation
As a matter of interest, I do wonder if he ever actually practiced as a Barrister?
I think the fact he opposes FGM bills would be the more logical explanation.
That depends on which laws you think shouldn't exist, which will vary from person to person.
Pardoning one person for such a law while not pardoning others for the same law is doing it just because that person is famous. Why they're famous isn't relevant to that.
Obviously not, since it's not just that bill. Cherry-picking and bias aren't logical. They're just clickbait. Also, you have no evidence that he does oppose "FGM bills" or even just this particular FGM bill. He frequently objects to bills he agrees with.
Irrelevant. You are making assertions that there is some political conspiracy to demonise him, when the simple fact he gets in the way of bills like this would be an understandable reason he is despised by many people. Even if we were to believe he has legitimate, just intentions, the potential negative consequences of blocking such bills makes it easy to see why many would oppose him.
1) I am not making any assertions of any conspiracy. A conspiracy requires an attempt to conceal what is being done and that isn't happening here. There is no attempt to conceal the cherry-picking and bias. You are the only person talking about a conspiracy.
2) He can't block a bill.
3) Why aren't you criticising Theresa May, who has done a lot more to delay the bill by not using due process?
Well, for starters the law that criminalised homosexuality, which included acts committed in private between consenting adults.
And plenty of others have been pardoned: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38814338
1. You are suggesting a conspiratorial motive and an organised plan which doesn't appear to be happening here.
2. Semantics.
3. I'm not criticising anyone, should I be?