Well generally speaking when you prevent bills that you actually support from being fast tracked through without proper scrutiny then yeah that would be a textbook matter of principle.
Upskirting bill blocked by single Tory mp
- Thread starter Tefal
- Start date
As long as he seemingly isn't a hypocrite in having tried/currently trying to push through tens of his own private member's bills.
His voting record alone says a lot. Loves banks/rich & wealthy, hates the poor or anything that is a threat to his status quo.
To be honest, I think there should be others who should shoot down anything he presents without proper scrutiny. Someone to watch the watchmen.
Different scenario.
The bill in question would have created a criminal offense, I.E somebody caught doing it could be sent to prison as a result. That's what the guy objects too, not the bills themselves (of which he is supportive) or the use of private members bills, but the process of using one to create new criminal law without proper oversight/debate or due process.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I despise Chope even more than yer run-of-the-mill Tory. However, I believe that dozens of amendments were "objected to" yesterday on the basis that legislation should not be passed "on the nod"; I don't know whether Tory Chope objected to more than one but I can understand that MPs may not be happy about amendments not being debated in the House.
Incidentally, ALL unnecessary genital mutilation of children of either gender should be outlawed, regardless of whether the excuse for it is based on tradition or belief in some celestial all-powerful entity.
I believe part of Chope's objection was that there is already legislation in place to tackle FGM (in the UK), yet there hasn't been a single prosecution. However, if he'd actually bothered to read Penny Mordaunt's proposal maybe he'd understand why this barbaric practice needs to be stopped.
But then how would Kate Beckinsale obtain the special foreskin stem cells she uses in facials to maintain her youthful looks?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 2,568
If it's foreskin and facials she wants then I don't think she has to resort to genital mutilation.
I love how people look at voting records and make loads of assumptions for it. You have no idea why an MP chooses to vote against the legislation, it may not be because an MP disagrees with the sentiment it may be that they disagree with the way the law is written. If laws were written purely on sentiment then we should just have a law that says "Be nice" and be done with it, but we don't because law is all about specificity and the implications that can be inferred from them.
But of course that doesn't sell papers, I'm sure he's just a misogynist who hates the poor and only cares about his own pockets.
But of course that doesn't sell papers, I'm sure he's just a misogynist who hates the poor and only cares about his own pockets.
He's an old rich white conservative male, are you seriously suggesting he may actually just be doing his job properly and not objecting because he considers women second class citizens like in the good old days?
I'm trying not to make any assumptions, it's a rule I generally try to live by. I also generally believe what people say, until I'm proven otherwise or I know they have a track record of lying. Trying to get parliament to follow proper procedure for a bill is not the same as opposing the sentiment of the bill. And trying to imply otherwise is insidious. I also don't see the relevance of him being rich, white, old, conservative or male to the subject unless you prejudice people on these qualities.
The key word there is "seems". It seems that way because it's reported that way in a deliberately biased manner. He does the same thing for numerous bills but that doesn't get reported. What he does is only reported when it can be used against him and to promote sexism, racism and ageism.
I suspect the most common motive in most of the reporting is simply clickbaiting rather than deliberate irrational prejudice, but the result is the same.
No I totally agree with you, I was being ironic.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 13,374
- Location
- London
Fair enough if you dont want to make any assumptions, but looking through all those votes Chope only seems to have issues with votes that promote equality.
I mean he did vote against the initial tuition fee rise, but then proceeded to support the next two increases.
Any examples that don't involve some aspect of equality?
I mean he did vote against the initial tuition fee rise, but then proceeded to support the next two increases.
Any examples that don't involve some aspect of equality?
I think that since you're claiming that he (and the other MPs in the group) are constantly lying, the onus is on you to provide evidence for your position.
Do you have a list of how he has voted on private member's bills with less than 100 MPs in attendance? The bold part is the key, since his stated position is to block bills from passing without due process, without debate and without a meaningful vote. Explicitly including bills he supports. He has this unfashionable idea that Parliament should have at least some degree of democracy in it.
Sir Christopher Chope objected to a bill that would criminalise taking picture sup women's skirts in public.
1) how is this not illegal in the first place?
2) why on earth can one no object without giving a reason to block stuff?
3) good Lord how much of a perve does this dude look
Surely this should fall under some sort of sexual harassment or indecency law... If so then I would probably block this bill too.