That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebags
They are in all parties Malc, sadly
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainer
he's done the right thing Doesn't need a new law. Christ, upskirting. WTF!
So which existing law adequately prohibits it?
Voyeurism didn't cover it entirely, that was the whole point of the bill
lots of laws. Are Police so dim they can't work it out.
Not the issue apparently. Apparently those 'lots of laws' simply don't cover this specific action appropriately. I see nothing controversial in that - I don't want new laws being introduced willy nilly, but sometimes scenarios will not be adequately covered and people will be escaping punishment by legal technicality. This is an issue which simply didn't exist when other laws were written, it just wasn't possible to attempt it with such ease as now.
. Have there been more murders than upskirting? first world problem.
With respect, what a terrible and lazy argument that is. Because even more serious problems exist that means nothing should even be attempted to address other problems?
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebags
They are in all parties Malc, sadly
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainer
he's done the right thing Doesn't need a new law. Christ, upskirting. WTF!
So which existing law adequately prohibits it?
Voyeurism didn't cover it entirely, that was the whole point of the bill
lots of laws. Are Police so dim they can't work it out. Have there been more murders than upskirting? first world problem.
In the past, I have said that there are some Labour MPs - for example Jeremy Corbyn - who have not grown up emotionally or intellectually since their years emulating (or foreshadowing) Rick at university.
There are also some Conservative MPs who have not grown up emotionally or intellectually since they were in the common room at school, sniggering as they work out their next wizard wheeze.
Chope is stupid. He may be well-spoken; he may believe he is intelligent, but what he did today shows massive political naivety. And yet he has been an MP for decades ...
Agreed. Doesn't look like he has ever had to strive much to make his way in life. Great advert for abolishing private schools imo.
I note Chope may have scuppered the bill to toughen up people stabbing police animals, so he's on the side of animal abuse as well.
I bet he also likes pineapple on pizza.
As an aside Gove is showing very good media skills which is why he's the favourite to replace May, I'm sure the timing of the tweet is mere happenstance.
twitter.com/DefraGovUK/status/1007685289660346369
How will Gove overcome his unique ability to be able to start an argument in an empty lift ?
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebags
They are in all parties Malc, sadly
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainer
he's done the right thing Doesn't need a new law. Christ, upskirting. WTF!
So which existing law adequately prohibits it?
Voyeurism didn't cover it entirely, that was the whole point of the bill
lots of laws. Are Police so dim they can't work it out.
Not the issue apparently. Apparently those 'lots of laws' simply don't cover this specific action appropriately. I see nothing controversial in that - I don't want new laws being introduced willy nilly, but sometimes scenarios will not be adequately covered and people will be escaping punishment by legal technicality. This is an issue which simply didn't exist when other laws were written, it just wasn't possible to attempt it with such ease as now.
. Have there been more murders than upskirting? first world problem.
With respect, what a terrible and lazy argument that is. Because even more serious problems exist that means nothing should even be attempted to address other problems?
In the past, I have said that there are some Labour MPs - for example Jeremy Corbyn - who have not grown up emotionally or intellectually since their years emulating (or foreshadowing) Rick at university.
There are also some Conservative MPs who have not grown up emotionally or intellectually since they were in the common room at school, sniggering as they work out their next wizard wheeze.
Chope is stupid. He may be well-spoken; he may believe he is intelligent, but what he did today shows massive political naivety. And yet he has been an MP for decades ...
Agreed. Doesn't look like he has ever had to strive much to make his way in life. Great advert for abolishing private schools imo.
One chap being an arse is a great advert for abolishing private schools? Will you do a 180 when you see a private school alumnus who spends his days rescuing injured puppies?
Would he have had to strive that much more if private schools did not exist?
Note: I did not attend a private school. I should hope better arguments exist for their abolition than Sir Christopher Chope (who may, in other respects, be a decent parliamentarian for all I know)
In the past, I have said that there are some Labour MPs - for example Jeremy Corbyn - who have not grown up emotionally or intellectually since their years emulating (or foreshadowing) Rick at university.
There are also some Conservative MPs who have not grown up emotionally or intellectually since they were in the common room at school, sniggering as they work out their next wizard wheeze.
Chope is stupid. He may be well-spoken; he may believe he is intelligent, but what he did today shows massive political naivety. And yet he has been an MP for decades ...
Agreed. Doesn't look like he has ever had to strive much to make his way in life. Great advert for abolishing private schools imo.
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebags
They are in all parties Malc, sadly
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainer
he's done the right thing Doesn't need a new law. Christ, upskirting. WTF!
So which existing law adequately prohibits it?
Voyeurism didn't cover it entirely, that was the whole point of the bill
lots of laws. Are Police so dim they can't work it out. Have there been more murders than upskirting? first world problem.
If by a technicality a type of murder turns out not to be illegal then the politicians absolutely should fix that.
By a technicality this isn't covered appropriately by voyeurism or public indecency or other laws. The politicians absolutely should fix it.
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebags
They are in all parties Malc, sadly
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainer
he's done the right thing Doesn't need a new law. Christ, upskirting. WTF!
So which existing law adequately prohibits it?
Voyeurism didn't cover it entirely, that was the whole point of the bill
lots of laws. Are Police so dim they can't work it out.
Not the issue apparently. Apparently those 'lots of laws' simply don't cover this specific action appropriately. I see nothing controversial in that - I don't want new laws being introduced willy nilly, but sometimes scenarios will not be adequately covered and people will be escaping punishment by legal technicality. This is an issue which simply didn't exist when other laws were written, it just wasn't possible to attempt it with such ease as now.
. Have there been more murders than upskirting? first world problem.
With respect, what a terrible and lazy argument that is. Because even more serious problems exist that means nothing should even be attempted to address other problems?
Bot alert?
Regular with an alt account as they are too scared to put what they really think under their own name I'd say.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
That's what the committee stage is there to amend it for. It wouldn't be the law if it went through today it would just provide an opportunity to debate it further.
In the past, I have said that there are some Labour MPs - for example Jeremy Corbyn - who have not grown up emotionally or intellectually since their years emulating (or foreshadowing) Rick at university.
There are also some Conservative MPs who have not grown up emotionally or intellectually since they were in the common room at school, sniggering as they work out their next wizard wheeze.
Chope is stupid. He may be well-spoken; he may believe he is intelligent, but what he did today shows massive political naivety. And yet he has been an MP for decades ...
Agreed. Doesn't look like he has ever had to strive much to make his way in life. Great advert for abolishing private schools imo.
One chap being an arse is a great advert for abolishing private schools? Will you do a 180 when you see a private school alumnus who spends his days rescuing injured puppies?
Would he have had to strive that much more if private schools did not exist?
Note: I did not attend a private school. I should hope better arguments exist for their abolition than Sir Christopher Chope (who may, in other respects, be a decent parliamentarian for all I know)
My point is: private education gives a small wealthy minority of the country the chance to ensure their offspring have much better opportunities (on average) than the population at large... One consequence is that nonentities end up in jobs that their natural talents don't really deserve.
(PS I don't doubt that many extremely talented people go through private education and deservedly end up in high-powered, well-paid jobs - but I also know that some numpties go through it too and end up in jobs way beyond their true capabilities... to the detriment of the country.)
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
Perhaps so, but he didn't know that, it was on principle, and it is not as though it would have become law tomorrow or anything. That's why there are other stages before it would become law, to fix those problems.
I note the kerfuffle about Chope and observe an irony.
During the Brexit campaign some of ypu may remember the "right of legislative initiative" being discussed. This is the ability to initiate legislation, and it was held up as an example of how the UK Parliament was superior to the European one. This concept was based on the usual popular confusion between the UK Government (based in Whitehall) and the UK Parliament (based in Westminster), and was cheerfully wrong: the UK Government initiates legislation not the UK Parliament. The exception is Private Member's Bills, a UK quirk which I quite like, which enables some MPs to initiate legislation on a matter of interest to them.
I understand Chope objects to this concept because he feels it leads to poor legislation, and wishes law to be initiated by the Government. If so, we have a piquant irony: a bluff, Conservative MP and no doubt a perfervid Leaver is, deliberately and determinedly, trying to make Parliament more...European.
In the past, I have said that there are some Labour MPs - for example Jeremy Corbyn - who have not grown up emotionally or intellectually since their years emulating (or foreshadowing) Rick at university.
There are also some Conservative MPs who have not grown up emotionally or intellectually since they were in the common room at school, sniggering as they work out their next wizard wheeze.
Chope is stupid. He may be well-spoken; he may believe he is intelligent, but what he did today shows massive political naivety. And yet he has been an MP for decades ...
Agreed. Doesn't look like he has ever had to strive much to make his way in life. Great advert for abolishing private schools imo.
One chap being an arse is a great advert for abolishing private schools? Will you do a 180 when you see a private school alumnus who spends his days rescuing injured puppies?
Would he have had to strive that much more if private schools did not exist?
Note: I did not attend a private school. I should hope better arguments exist for their abolition than Sir Christopher Chope (who may, in other respects, be a decent parliamentarian for all I know)
My point is: private education gives a small wealthy minority of the country the chance to ensure their offspring have much better opportunities (on average) than the population at large... One consequence is that nonentities end up in jobs that their natural talents don't really deserve.
(PS I don't doubt that many extremely talented people go through private education and deservedly end up in high-powered, well-paid jobs - but I also know that some numpties go through it too and end up in jobs way beyond their true capabilities... to the detriment of the country.)
You evidently don't know much about private schools!
That's your Tories for you , cretins and sleazebags
They are in all parties Malc, sadly
G , I should have qualified , but Tories seem to have more than their fair share of real bad uns. They have far too many who have no compassion for anything other than themselves and lining their own pockets. I am naturally right wing but could never ever support Tories.
Chope has shamed our party today and needs to be called out. As you know I do not like excessive abuse between posters nor do I like fellow conservatives bringing shame on us especially over something that is a no brainer
he's done the right thing Doesn't need a new law. Christ, upskirting. WTF!
So which existing law adequately prohibits it?
Voyeurism didn't cover it entirely, that was the whole point of the bill
lots of laws. Are Police so dim they can't work it out.
Not the issue apparently. Apparently those 'lots of laws' simply don't cover this specific action appropriately. I see nothing controversial in that - I don't want new laws being introduced willy nilly, but sometimes scenarios will not be adequately covered and people will be escaping punishment by legal technicality. This is an issue which simply didn't exist when other laws were written, it just wasn't possible to attempt it with such ease as now.
. Have there been more murders than upskirting? first world problem.
With respect, what a terrible and lazy argument that is. Because even more serious problems exist that means nothing should even be attempted to address other problems?
Bot alert?
Regular with an alt account as they are too scared to put what they really think under their own name I'd say.
Could be I guess. Pretty incoherent though - most posters on here are reasonably articulate (even if I don't always agree with what they articulate! )
I find it hard to believe that taking a picture of someone's intimate body parts is not already covered by legislation.
Not my area of expertise, in any sense. But if legislation is needed, Chope is an idiot for preventing it being debated.
Perhaps I've lived a sheltered life. But there does seem to be more of this sleazy, pervy behaviour directed at women, no? Or am I being nostalgic?
It is more easily detected, now that most people feel you haven't really committed a crime properly unless you have videoed it and uploaded to social media.
I am just mystified. Surely this is already illegal, and if not why hasn't a government minister piped up this afternoon and said it will be sorted with a proper bill, and why hasn't the opposition asked why a government minister hasn't piped up this afternoon...
Because they probably looked in to it and concluded it is too difficult to legislate for something like this. I've not read it, but the proposed legislation is probably deeply flawed and will unintentionally criminalise all sorts of innocent activity. Its probably easier for the government to just let it happen this way, rather than have to defend something that that falls apart under scrutiny.
So an activity carried out exclusively by men which deeply humiliates and invades the privacy and personal space of (exclusively) women must be allowed to continue because it is "probably" (twice) quite difficult to prohibit, because there are "all sorts of things" which are closely cognate enough to sticking a camera up a woman's skirt to be caught by any potential legislation but are nonetheless "innocent activity."
I don't often succumb to bouts of neo-liberal feminist outrage, but: are you sure about all that?
Having now looked at the legislation, I think the problem on this occasion is not that it inadvertently criminalises innocent activity, but that it wouldn't actually be very effective in solving the problem. You can read the legislation yourself, and come to your own view.
I definetly think that it should be criminalised, and I am surprised that the government has not done anything about it. There have been many news stories about it over the years.
In the past, I have said that there are some Labour MPs - for example Jeremy Corbyn - who have not grown up emotionally or intellectually since their years emulating (or foreshadowing) Rick at university.
There are also some Conservative MPs who have not grown up emotionally or intellectually since they were in the common room at school, sniggering as they work out their next wizard wheeze.
Chope is stupid. He may be well-spoken; he may believe he is intelligent, but what he did today shows massive political naivety. And yet he has been an MP for decades ...
Agreed. Doesn't look like he has ever had to strive much to make his way in life. Great advert for abolishing private schools imo.
One chap being an arse is a great advert for abolishing private schools? Will you do a 180 when you see a private school alumnus who spends his days rescuing injured puppies?
Would he have had to strive that much more if private schools did not exist?
Note: I did not attend a private school. I should hope better arguments exist for their abolition than Sir Christopher Chope (who may, in other respects, be a decent parliamentarian for all I know)
My point is: private education gives a small wealthy minority of the country the chance to ensure their offspring have much better opportunities (on average) than the population at large... One consequence is that nonentities end up in jobs that their natural talents don't really deserve.
(PS I don't doubt that many extremely talented people go through private education and deservedly end up in high-powered, well-paid jobs - but I also know that some numpties go through it too and end up in jobs way beyond their true capabilities... to the detriment of the country.)
You evidently don't know much about private schools!
That's fair... but I have worked with plenty of their output!
Very prevalent now that most phones come with a very decent camera/video.
It's one of those things when the law was written such things didn't exist.
Still proud that when Abu Hamza was convicted that it was mostly under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
Dear me, there must be some creepy weirdos about.
Are they the sort of people who used to steal underwear from washing lines ?
As someone who does a lot of safeguarding work, there are a depressing number of creepy weirdos about - and the advent of smartphones/social media has made their sad lives a lot easier.
I find it hard to believe that taking a picture of someone's intimate body parts is not already covered by legislation.
Not my area of expertise, in any sense. But if legislation is needed, Chope is an idiot for preventing it being debated.
Perhaps I've lived a sheltered life. But there does seem to be more of this sleazy, pervy behaviour directed at women, no? Or am I being nostalgic?
It is more easily detected, now that most people feel you haven't really committed a crime properly unless you have videoed it and uploaded to social media.
I am just mystified. Surely this is already illegal, and if not why hasn't a government minister piped up this afternoon and said it will be sorted with a proper bill, and why hasn't the opposition asked why a government minister hasn't piped up this afternoon...
Because they probably looked in to it and concluded it is too difficult to legislate for something like this. I've not read it, but the proposed legislation is probably deeply flawed and will unintentionally criminalise all sorts of innocent activity. Its probably easier for the government to just let it happen this way, rather than have to defend something that that falls apart under scrutiny.
So an activity carried out exclusively by men which deeply humiliates and invades the privacy and personal space of (exclusively) women must be allowed to continue because it is "probably" (twice) quite difficult to prohibit, because there are "all sorts of things" which are closely cognate enough to sticking a camera up a woman's skirt to be caught by any potential legislation but are nonetheless "innocent activity."
I don't often succumb to bouts of neo-liberal feminist outrage, but: are you sure about all that?
Having now looked at the legislation, I think the problem on this occasion is not that it inadvertently criminalises innocent activity, but that it wouldn't actually be very effective in solving the problem. You can read the legislation yourself, and come to your own view.
I definetly think that it should be criminalised, and I am surprised that the government has not done anything about it. There have been many news stories about it over the years.
By causing a furore which will ensure this now moves forward in government time, Chope has probably done more to get this made law than anyone else.
Just watched Portugal vs Spain - a tremendous game and worthy of a World Cup Final or at the very least semi-final and if one of those two teams isn't there at the very end I'll be surprised.
More entertaining than a District Council by-election, more exciting than a Vince Cable speech and that's saying something !!
I find it hard to believe that taking a picture of someone's intimate body parts is not already covered by legislation.
Not my area of expertise, in any sense. But if legislation is needed, Chope is an idiot for preventing it being debated.
Perhaps I've lived a sheltered life. But there does seem to be more of this sleazy, pervy behaviour directed at women, no? Or am I being nostalgic?
It is more easily detected, now that most people feel you haven't really committed a crime properly unless you have videoed it and uploaded to social media.
I am just mystified. Surely this is already illegal, and if not why hasn't a government minister piped up this afternoon and said it will be sorted with a proper bill, and why hasn't the opposition asked why a government minister hasn't piped up this afternoon...
Because they probably looked in to it and concluded it is too difficult to legislate for something like this. I've not read it, but the proposed legislation is probably deeply flawed and will unintentionally criminalise all sorts of innocent activity. Its probably easier for the government to just let it happen this way, rather than have to defend something that that falls apart under scrutiny.
So an activity carried out exclusively by men which deeply humiliates and invades the privacy and personal space of (exclusively) women must be allowed to continue because it is "probably" (twice) quite difficult to prohibit, because there are "all sorts of things" which are closely cognate enough to sticking a camera up a woman's skirt to be caught by any potential legislation but are nonetheless "innocent activity."
I don't often succumb to bouts of neo-liberal feminist outrage, but: are you sure about all that?
Having now looked at the legislation, I think the problem on this occasion is not that it inadvertently criminalises innocent activity, but that it wouldn't actually be very effective in solving the problem. You can read the legislation yourself, and come to your own view.
I definetly think that it should be criminalised, and I am surprised that the government has not done anything about it. There have been many news stories about it over the years.
I find it hard to believe that taking a picture of someone's intimate body parts is not already covered by legislation.
Not my area of expertise, in any sense. But if legislation is needed, Chope is an idiot for preventing it being debated.
Perhaps I've lived a sheltered life. But there does seem to be more of this sleazy, pervy behaviour directed at women, no? Or am I being nostalgic?
It is more easily detected, now that most people feel you haven't really committed a crime properly unless you have videoed it and uploaded to social media.
I am just mystified. Surely this is already illegal, and if not why hasn't a government minister piped up this afternoon and said it will be sorted with a proper bill, and why hasn't the opposition asked why a government minister hasn't piped up this afternoon...
Because they probably looked in to it and concluded it is too difficult to legislate for something like this. I've not read it, but the proposed legislation is probably deeply flawed and will unintentionally criminalise all sorts of innocent activity. Its probably easier for the government to just let it happen this way, rather than have to defend something that that falls apart under scrutiny.
So an activity carried out exclusively by men which deeply humiliates and invades the privacy and personal space of (exclusively) women must be allowed to continue because it is "probably" (twice) quite difficult to prohibit, because there are "all sorts of things" which are closely cognate enough to sticking a camera up a woman's skirt to be caught by any potential legislation but are nonetheless "innocent activity."
I don't often succumb to bouts of neo-liberal feminist outrage, but: are you sure about all that?
Having now looked at the legislation, I think the problem on this occasion is not that it inadvertently criminalises innocent activity, but that it wouldn't actually be very effective in solving the problem. You can read the legislation yourself, and come to your own view.
I definetly think that it should be criminalised, and I am surprised that the government has not done anything about it. There have been many news stories about it over the years.
By causing a furore which will ensure this now moves forward in government time, Chope has probably done more to get this made law than anyone else.
Will you be presenting Ken Livingstone the Yad Vashem prize too ?
Just watched Portugal vs Spain - a tremendous game and worthy of a World Cup Final or at the very least semi-final and if one of those two teams isn't there at the very end I'll be surprised.
More entertaining than a District Council by-election, more exciting than a Vince Cable speech and that's saying something !!
You have already seen the champion of WC 2018.
Way, way too soon to say that. Lots of talent to come, lots of twists and turns ahead.
If only someone, anyone, had said UC was going to be a disaster. If only there had been some natural stopping point, after, say a botched attempt or even a second botched attempt at implementing the IT systems for this had occured that would have allowed the government to walk away from it.
But no, this was all completely and utterly unforeseeable. No one could possibly have seen it coming.
I note the kerfuffle about Chope and observe an irony.
During the Brexit campaign some of ypu may remember the "right of legislative initiative" being discussed. This is the ability to initiate legislation, and it was held up as an example of how the UK Parliament was superior to the European one. This concept was based on the usual popular confusion between the UK Government (based in Whitehall) and the UK Parliament (based in Westminster), and was cheerfully wrong: the UK Government initiates legislation not the UK Parliament. The exception is Private Member's Bills, a UK quirk which I quite like, which enables some MPs to initiate legislation on a matter of interest to them.
I understand Chope objects to this concept because he feels it leads to poor legislation, and wishes law to be initiated by the Government. If so, we have a piquant irony: a bluff, Conservative MP and no doubt a perfervid Leaver is, deliberately and determinedly, trying to make Parliament more...European.
Honestly, you couldn't make it up...
The Dail has private members bills - last time I looked the Irish Republic was in Europe and is staying in the EU? So it seems a slightly spurious point.
While they are quaint how many private members bills become law. And why does this need separate legislation anyway with a proposed sentence as well?
Still it's good that our police have so much spare time on their hands to try and police all these new crimes with separate legislation we have had imposed in recent decades!
I note the kerfuffle about Chope and observe an irony.
During the Brexit campaign some of ypu may remember the "right of legislative initiative" being discussed. This is the ability to initiate legislation, and it was held up as an example of how the UK Parliament was superior to the European one. This concept was based on the usual popular confusion between the UK Government (based in Whitehall) and the UK Parliament (based in Westminster), and was cheerfully wrong: the UK Government initiates legislation not the UK Parliament. The exception is Private Member's Bills, a UK quirk which I quite like, which enables some MPs to initiate legislation on a matter of interest to them.
I understand Chope objects to this concept because he feels it leads to poor legislation, and wishes law to be initiated by the Government. If so, we have a piquant irony: a bluff, Conservative MP and no doubt a perfervid Leaver is, deliberately and determinedly, trying to make Parliament more...European.
Honestly, you couldn't make it up...
The Dail has private members bills - last time I looked the Irish Republic was in Europe and is staying in the EU? So it seems a slightly spurious point.
While they are quaint how many private members bills become law. And why does this need separate legislation anyway with a proposed sentence as well?
Still it's good that our police have so much spare time on their hands to try and police all these new crimes with separate legislation we have had imposed in recent decades!
This wouldn't simply be separate legislation it would be amending existing legislation.
Its needed because its to close a gap in the law for what should be a crime but isn't.
Are you suggesting people should be able to film up women's skirts and get away with it as the Police are too busy dealing with more important stuff?
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Just watched Portugal vs Spain - a tremendous game and worthy of a World Cup Final or at the very least semi-final and if one of those two teams isn't there at the very end I'll be surprised.
More entertaining than a District Council by-election, more exciting than a Vince Cable speech and that's saying something !!
You have already seen the champion of WC 2018.
For once I agree with you. It will take an exceptional team to stop Spain winning the World Cup.
I note the kerfuffle about Chope and observe an irony.
During the Brexit campaign some of ypu may remember the "right of legislative initiative" being discussed. This is the ability to initiate legislation, and it was held up as an example of how the UK Parliament was superior to the European one. This concept was based on the usual popular confusion between the UK Government (based in Whitehall) and the UK Parliament (based in Westminster), and was cheerfully wrong: the UK Government initiates legislation not the UK Parliament. The exception is Private Member's Bills, a UK quirk which I quite like, which enables some MPs to initiate legislation on a matter of interest to them.
I understand Chope objects to this concept because he feels it leads to poor legislation, and wishes law to be initiated by the Government. If so, we have a piquant irony: a bluff, Conservative MP and no doubt a perfervid Leaver is, deliberately and determinedly, trying to make Parliament more...European.
Honestly, you couldn't make it up...
While they are quaint how many private members bills become law. And why does this need separate legislation anyway with a proposed sentence as well?
That's because Chope and Davies and JRM and their ilk talk them out.
Wasn't there a private members bill that sought to repeal the FTPA, but made no provision for the reinstatement of the Septennial Act 1716 meaning that there would have been no limit on the duration of a Parliament?
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Burden of the proof should be on the prosecution.
I think the recording would show whether it was accidental or another reason - if the whole footage is perving up a skirt unlikely to be an accident. If a cyclists helmet camera as he's passing by happens to catch some footage of up a woman's short skirt while she's sat down its unlikely to be deliberate.
I thought part of our common law legal system is not everything has to be defined. We don't need the politicians to define equipment (which could quite quickly make the law outdated if they did) a jury of peers can determine that.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Harumph... I said exactly the same thing earlier today.
If only someone, anyone, had said UC was going to be a disaster. If only there had been some natural stopping point, after, say a botched attempt or even a second botched attempt at implementing the IT systems for this had occured that would have allowed the government to walk away from it.
But no, this was all completely and utterly unforeseeable. No one could possibly have seen it coming.
I don't see why it is so difficult to do though, it simply replaces 6 seperate benefits into one payment. It should have been no more difficult to do than noting what benefits people are on and simply paying them all in the same payment.
Just watched Portugal vs Spain - a tremendous game and worthy of a World Cup Final or at the very least semi-final and if one of those two teams isn't there at the very end I'll be surprised.
More entertaining than a District Council by-election, more exciting than a Vince Cable speech and that's saying something !!
You have already seen the champion of WC 2018.
I can't believe it's 20 years since France 1998. I still remember the Beeb using Faure's Pavane for their World Cup theme, Michael Owen's wonder goal against Argentina, Beckham's red card in the same match, and Brazilian Ronaldo not turning up to the final, which France won 3-0.
Off Topic. Catching up on Mrs Merkel's coalition troubles - coming hard after the election of the new Italian coalition and Brexit, what would the effect be on Brexit if the EU were to suddenly change their stance on FOM?
How much more likely would it make a a second referendum? I'd be interested to hear what the PB leavers think the consequences would be. Some sort of changes can't be entirely ruled now I wouldn't have thought.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Just watched Portugal vs Spain - a tremendous game and worthy of a World Cup Final or at the very least semi-final and if one of those two teams isn't there at the very end I'll be surprised.
More entertaining than a District Council by-election, more exciting than a Vince Cable speech and that's saying something !!
You have already seen the champion of WC 2018.
Way, way too soon to say that. Lots of talent to come, lots of twists and turns ahead.
Agreed. It only takes one bad game or one bit of bad luck for a team that previously looked unbeatable to go out. Happens almost every WC.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Harumph... I said exactly the same thing earlier today.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
+1
I'm actually quite an admirer of scrutiny of PMBs, but opposing this one, supported by the Govt, was pretty much indefensible. Shame was the apt heckle.
Off Topic. Catching up on Mrs Merkel's coalition troubles - coming hard after the election of the new Italian coalition and Brexit, what would the effect be on Brexit if the EU were to suddenly change their stance on FOM?
How much more likely would it make a a second referendum? I'd be interested to hear what the PB leavers think the consequences would be. Some sort of changes can't be entirely ruled now I wouldn't have thought.
Freedom of movement applies to EU citizens - not migrants who cross in boats illegally from North Africa or Turkey? So I don't really see the connection.
Hungary, Poland and Slovakia et al are very happy with freedom of movement for their citizens across the EU. They just don't want forced freedom of movement into their countries for non EU citizens who came into Europe illegally and who Merkel and others allowed to settle in their countries originally but have now decided they don't want the burden of looking after them. They of course now expect other EU member states to do so which many don't wish to.
It isn't just Germany's decision - eastern and Central Europe want to keep FOM big time.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Burden of the proof should be on the prosecution.
I think the recording would show whether it was accidental or another reason - if the whole footage is perving up a skirt unlikely to be an accident. If a cyclists helmet camera as he's passing by happens to catch some footage of up a woman's short skirt while she's sat down its unlikely to be deliberate.
I thought part of our common law legal system is not everything has to be defined. We don't need the politicians to define equipment (which could quite quickly make the law outdated if they did) a jury of peers can determine that.
In my view, it would be very difficult to prosecute, given that you would have to prove both the (narrowly defined) act took place, and the (narrowly defined) intention behind it.
People would probably be arrested - whereas they aren't at the moment - so it would act as a deterrent in this regard, but they wouldn't then be prosecuted because it is too difficult.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Quite so. Criticising Chope without finding out why he objected would indeed be wrong, but that doesn't mean his actions were reasonable, with this and other bills, given the long path that would have been taken for the bill to become law in any case. He wasn't taking so heroic stand here, and might be advised to apply a little more focus. The point he apparently wants to make would be much better made if he bothered to check if laws were unworthy (or indeed unsalvagable by committee) before he seeks to block them.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Which part are you struggling with?
If Chope hadn't objected the proposed bill was just at the first stage of the process to become law. It could have been amended at committee, in the Lords etc - there was no need to object on those grounds.
Just watched Portugal vs Spain - a tremendous game and worthy of a World Cup Final or at the very least semi-final and if one of those two teams isn't there at the very end I'll be surprised.
More entertaining than a District Council by-election, more exciting than a Vince Cable speech and that's saying something !!
You have already seen the champion of WC 2018.
I can't believe it's 20 years since France 1998. I still remember the Beeb using Faure's Pavane for their World Cup theme, Michael Owen's wonder goal against Argentina, Beckham's red card in the same match, and Brazilian Ronaldo not turning up to the final, which France won 3-0.
Pah! 1998? 1990 and 1970 were both much better WCs.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Burden of the proof should be on the prosecution.
I think the recording would show whether it was accidental or another reason - if the whole footage is perving up a skirt unlikely to be an accident. If a cyclists helmet camera as he's passing by happens to catch some footage of up a woman's short skirt while she's sat down its unlikely to be deliberate.
I thought part of our common law legal system is not everything has to be defined. We don't need the politicians to define equipment (which could quite quickly make the law outdated if they did) a jury of peers can determine that.
In my view, it would be very difficult to prosecute, given that you would have to prove both the (narrowly defined) act took place, and the (narrowly defined) intention behind it.
People would probably be arrested - whereas they aren't at the moment - so it would act as a deterrent in this regard, but they wouldn't then be prosecuted because it is too difficult.
It's a criminal offence it should be difficult. Though I don't think you're right that it would be too difficult as the video itself would go a long way as evidence of intent. If the video is clearly and deliberately filming up a skirt then guilty. If the video isn't deliberately filming up the skirt but happens to record that then not guilty.
Just watched Portugal vs Spain - a tremendous game and worthy of a World Cup Final or at the very least semi-final and if one of those two teams isn't there at the very end I'll be surprised.
More entertaining than a District Council by-election, more exciting than a Vince Cable speech and that's saying something !!
You have already seen the champion of WC 2018.
Way, way too soon to say that. Lots of talent to come, lots of twists and turns ahead.
There's been quite a few teams who didn't look impressive in their first match who went on to win the EC - England 1966. Italy 1982 and Spain 2010 for example.
The list of teams who did look brilliant in their first game but didn't win the WC is even longer.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Which part are you struggling with?
If Chope hadn't objected the proposed bill was just at the first stage of the process to become law. It could have been amended at committee, in the Lords etc - there was no need to object on those grounds.
I'm struggling with all of it including this last effort. Your English Teacher was a fraud.
I'm actually quite an admirer of scrutiny of PMBs, but opposing this one, supported by the Govt, was pretty much indefensible. Shame was the apt heckle.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
I believe the point is that if the bill is poorly worded in its current form that doesn't mean it should be prevented from proceeding, since poor wording would be fixed in the other stages of its eventual passing. Chope's so called principle would make sense if he didn't apparently block bills without even knowing what they are about, meaning he hasn't assessed if they are good law in potential at all, but he does just block them it seems, without assessing if it is a bill which might be able to be salvaged.
Therefore, there is plenty to criticise him for. Not criticism of him for being dismissive of the specifics of the bill in question, there doesn't seem much to suggest that is the case, but criticism that his approach does not in fact aid him in what he apparently wants.
Furthermore that the bill being a bit of a mess does not mean it had to be junked, and even if it did, he didn't know it was a mess since he rejected it on a principle.
Blocking things automatically, without assessing their individual merits, would seem to be poor legislating. If only he did not do it automatically a lot of the time, as is reported to be the case, he would have a much better defence of his actions - after all, we don't want poor legislation.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Honestly? Seems perfectly clear to me.
Ok. Well what does it mean then?
It means Chope stopped the bill being debated, reviewed and if necessary improved before becoming law. How hard was that?
It is normal for bills to be debated and reviewed to improve them before they become law (see also the EU Withdrawal Bill)
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Chope blocked debate and scrutiny of the bill despite saying he wants more debate and scrutiny of Private Member Bills.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Which part are you struggling with?
If Chope hadn't objected the proposed bill was just at the first stage of the process to become law. It could have been amended at committee, in the Lords etc - there was no need to object on those grounds.
I'm struggling with all of it including this last effort. Your English Teacher was a fraud.
Yet others seem able to understand it quite clearly. Maybe my teacher wasn't the problem here. Are there some words or principles I can dumb down for you? Do you understand the legislative process that a bill takes to become law?
Just watched Portugal vs Spain - a tremendous game and worthy of a World Cup Final or at the very least semi-final and if one of those two teams isn't there at the very end I'll be surprised.
More entertaining than a District Council by-election, more exciting than a Vince Cable speech and that's saying something !!
You have already seen the champion of WC 2018.
I can't believe it's 20 years since France 1998. I still remember the Beeb using Faure's Pavane for their World Cup theme, Michael Owen's wonder goal against Argentina, Beckham's red card in the same match, and Brazilian Ronaldo not turning up to the final, which France won 3-0.
Its as long from now to the WC of Owen and Zidane as it was from them to the WC of Archie Gemmill and Mario Kempes.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Which part are you struggling with?
If Chope hadn't objected the proposed bill was just at the first stage of the process to become law. It could have been amended at committee, in the Lords etc - there was no need to object on those grounds.
I'm struggling with all of it including this last effort. Your English Teacher was a fraud.
If you can't understand Philip's post it's your English teacher that is suspect pal.
Just watched Portugal vs Spain - a tremendous game and worthy of a World Cup Final or at the very least semi-final and if one of those two teams isn't there at the very end I'll be surprised.
More entertaining than a District Council by-election, more exciting than a Vince Cable speech and that's saying something !!
You have already seen the champion of WC 2018.
I can't believe it's 20 years since France 1998. I still remember the Beeb using Faure's Pavane for their World Cup theme, Michael Owen's wonder goal against Argentina, Beckham's red card in the same match, and Brazilian Ronaldo not turning up to the final, which France won 3-0.
Pah! 1998? 1990 and 1970 were both much better WCs.
I'm just commenting on the 20 years bit! I do remember 1990: Roger Milla, England v Germany and all that, but I wasn't around in 1970 BTW
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Honestly? Seems perfectly clear to me.
Ok. Well what does it mean then?
It means Chope stopped the bill being debated, reviewed and if necessary improved before becoming law. How hard was that?
It is normal for bills to be debated and reviewed to improve them before they become law (see also the EU Withdrawal Bill)
Thank you, that I understand. It's not hard at all when what's written comprises intelligible sentences with punctuation.
Just watched Portugal vs Spain - a tremendous game and worthy of a World Cup Final or at the very least semi-final and if one of those two teams isn't there at the very end I'll be surprised.
More entertaining than a District Council by-election, more exciting than a Vince Cable speech and that's saying something !!
You have already seen the champion of WC 2018.
Way, way too soon to say that. Lots of talent to come, lots of twists and turns ahead.
There's been quite a few teams who didn't look impressive in their first match who went on to win the EC - England 1966. Italy 1982 and Spain 2010 for example.
The list of teams who did look brilliant in their first game but didn't win the WC is even longer.
Very true on both scores. I am almost hoping England scrape a 0-0 against Tunisia to give themselves a shot at glory later on (not really!).
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Ok guys. Who thinks Philip Thompson's comment would have earned a pass mark in a GCSE English exam?
Off Topic. Catching up on Mrs Merkel's coalition troubles - coming hard after the election of the new Italian coalition and Brexit, what would the effect be on Brexit if the EU were to suddenly change their stance on FOM?
How much more likely would it make a a second referendum? I'd be interested to hear what the PB leavers think the consequences would be. Some sort of changes can't be entirely ruled now I wouldn't have thought.
Freedom of movement applies to EU citizens - not migrants who cross in boats illegally from North Africa or Turkey? So I don't really see the connection.
Hungary, Poland and Slovakia et al are very happy with freedom of movement for their citizens across the EU. They just don't want forced freedom of movement into their countries for non EU citizens who came into Europe illegally and who Merkel and others allowed to settle in their countries originally but have now decided they don't want the burden of looking after them. They of course now expect other EU member states to do so which many don't wish to.
It isn't just Germany's decision - eastern and Central Europe want to keep FOM big time.
I get that the connection isn't direct and FOM won't be simply stopped. But immigration in general is becoming problematic for the EU and I guess I was thinking more of what if, in light, of that the EU tightened up on FOM in some way Would it throw a spoke in the heels of the Brexit debate here or are we too far down the road for it to matter?.
Just watched Portugal vs Spain - a tremendous game and worthy of a World Cup Final or at the very least semi-final and if one of those two teams isn't there at the very end I'll be surprised.
More entertaining than a District Council by-election, more exciting than a Vince Cable speech and that's saying something !!
You have already seen the champion of WC 2018.
I can't believe it's 20 years since France 1998. I still remember the Beeb using Faure's Pavane for their World Cup theme, Michael Owen's wonder goal against Argentina, Beckham's red card in the same match, and Brazilian Ronaldo not turning up to the final, which France won 3-0.
Pah! 1998? 1990 and 1970 were both much better WCs.
I'm just commenting on the 20 years bit! I do remember 1990: Roger Milla, England v Germany and all that, but I wasn't around in 1970 BTW
Ok sorry - missed your point. Got it now Tempus bloody fugit, eh?
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Ok guys. Who thinks Philip Thompson's comment would have earned a pass mark in a GCSE English exam?
Just watched Portugal vs Spain - a tremendous game and worthy of a World Cup Final or at the very least semi-final and if one of those two teams isn't there at the very end I'll be surprised.
More entertaining than a District Council by-election, more exciting than a Vince Cable speech and that's saying something !!
You have already seen the champion of WC 2018.
Way, way too soon to say that. Lots of talent to come, lots of twists and turns ahead.
There's been quite a few teams who didn't look impressive in their first match who went on to win the EC - England 1966. Italy 1982 and Spain 2010 for example.
The list of teams who did look brilliant in their first game but didn't win the WC is even longer.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Ok guys. Who thinks Philip Thompson's comment would have earned a pass mark in a GCSE English exam?
I do.
Well |I suggest you read it again, and then again, and then think about it again.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Chope blocked debate and scrutiny of the bill despite saying he wants more debate and scrutiny of Private Member Bills.
Nicely summarised.
Am I the only one left with the feeling that Chope would really prefer to leave perverts free to take and distribute upstart photos as they wish?
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
I don't know what his motivations were, I can just see that the legislation is a mess and very poorly thought through from the outset. I doubt that its (now inevitable) passage through parliament will make it any better. No single MP will vote against it, there will just be a load of grandstanding. And, then, when it becomes law, it won't be very effective, and the same problems will prevail. My point is that this isn't a good way of making legislation. It would be better that government take the idea away and do some proper work on it, and come up with workable laws. They've had years to do this in full knowledge of the problem, and they haven't come up with anything, which leads me to the view expressed earlier that they are happy to just go along with this in the absence of any workable proposals.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Chope blocked debate and scrutiny of the bill despite saying he wants more debate and scrutiny of Private Member Bills.
Nicely summarised.
Am I the only one left with the feeling that Chope would really prefer to leave perverts free to take and distribute upstart photos as they wish?
Upstart? I suggest you start reading your own posts again too.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Chope blocked debate and scrutiny of the bill despite saying he wants more debate and scrutiny of Private Member Bills.
Nicely summarised.
Am I the only one left with the feeling that Chope would really prefer to leave perverts free to take and distribute upstart photos as they wish?
I know he's got loads of form for objecting/talking out, but this is the first time most people will have heard of him.
And a large number will think 'he must be a sex case'.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Ok guys. Who thinks Philip Thompson's comment would have earned a pass mark in a GCSE English exam?
I do.
Well |I suggest you read it again, and then again, and then think about it again.
What, you think if I read it enough times I might suddenly not understand it?
Just admit it - you're being a prat. At least @neilh had some logic behind his objections to the widespread slating of Chope!
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Chope blocked debate and scrutiny of the bill despite saying he wants more debate and scrutiny of Private Member Bills.
Nicely summarised.
Am I the only one left with the feeling that Chope would really prefer to leave perverts free to take and distribute upstart photos as they wish?
I know he's got loads of form for objecting/talking out, but this is the first time most people will have heard of him.
And a large number will think 'he must be a sex case'.
What a legacy.
If his Wikipedia entry is to be believed, he deserves a heap of opprobrium. He sounds a thoroughly obnoxious person.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Quite so. Criticising Chope without finding out why he objected would indeed be wrong, but that doesn't mean his actions were reasonable, with this and other bills, given the long path that would have been taken for the bill to become law in any case. He wasn't taking so heroic stand here, and might be advised to apply a little more focus. The point he apparently wants to make would be much better made if he bothered to check if laws were unworthy (or indeed unsalvagable by committee) before he seeks to block them.
Point made - the guy is a numpty.
1. PMBs are part of parliamentary procedure. If you are against them try to change the procedure rather than opposing them all 2. Politicians should be aware of the implications of opposing things. It seems like policitcally you support the opposite.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Chope blocked debate and scrutiny of the bill despite saying he wants more debate and scrutiny of Private Member Bills.
Nicely summarised.
Am I the only one left with the feeling that Chope would really prefer to leave perverts free to take and distribute upstart photos as they wish?
Upstart? I suggest you start reading your own posts again too.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Ok guys. Who thinks Philip Thompson's comment would have earned a pass mark in a GCSE English exam?
I do.
Well |I suggest you read it again, and then again, and then think about it again.
What, you think if I read it enough times I might suddenly not understand it?
Just admit it - you're being a prat. At least @neilh had some logic behind his objections to the widespread slating of Chope!
I'm not objecting to people criticising Chope. I'm suggesting people should try to understand what he's objecting to and why before criticising him. I'm also suggesting any such criticisms should be in vaguely understandable English.
Very prevalent now that most phones come with a very decent camera/video.
It's one of those things when the law was written such things didn't exist.
Still proud that when Abu Hamza was convicted that it was mostly under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
I wear skirts and dresses a lot. I am finding it hard to imagine how someone could get a phone under my dress without me noticing. I will probably regret asking this. How does this happen?
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Except if Chope hadn't done what he'd done then that wouldn't make this bill go onto the statute books tomorrow unamended. It would still have to go through committee, the Lords etc and every step of the way it could be amended to fix any language that needs fixing. Today's vote wasn't a vote on making this a law but on the principle with continuing to debate this and he killed it off-handishly without bothering to find out why it was proposed or what it was about.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Chope blocked debate and scrutiny of the bill despite saying he wants more debate and scrutiny of Private Member Bills.
Nicely summarised.
Am I the only one left with the feeling that Chope would really prefer to leave perverts free to take and distribute upstart photos as they wish?
Upstart? I suggest you start reading your own posts again too.
Autocorrect clearly not keen on upskirt.
Indeed, quite right too. No rightminded person would be.
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
So, point one out.
As you ask, I think that the main problem with it is that it puts the onus of proof on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator was doing it for their own (or a third parties) sexual gratification. It would be a valid defence to say that you did it unintentionally or by accident, or for almost any other reason that you care to invent.
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
Well said Neilh. Reading the Bill and then commenting on it puts you in a much better light than the many virtue signallers who criticised Chope without bothering to find out what he'd objected to, why he'd objected or whether what he'd objected to was any good. Respect.
Can we have that in English please? I've no idea what point you are trying to make.
Chope blocked debate and scrutiny of the bill despite saying he wants more debate and scrutiny of Private Member Bills.
Nicely summarised.
Am I the only one left with the feeling that Chope would really prefer to leave perverts free to take and distribute upstart photos as they wish?
I know he's got loads of form for objecting/talking out, but this is the first time most people will have heard of him.
And a large number will think 'he must be a sex case'.
What a legacy.
If his Wikipedia entry is to be believed, he deserves a heap of opprobrium. He sounds a thoroughly obnoxious person.
He's a horror, and so is Davies.
However, all the 'pass the smelling salts, I'm so shocked' tweeting from Tory MPs is pretty galling given the form this pair have between them.
As Rhianna said 'Don't tell me you're sorry, 'cause you're not - you know you're only sorry you got caught'.
Very prevalent now that most phones come with a very decent camera/video.
It's one of those things when the law was written such things didn't exist.
Still proud that when Abu Hamza was convicted that it was mostly under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
I wear skirts and dresses a lot. I am finding it hard to imagine how someone could get a phone under my dress without me noticing. I will probably regret asking this. How does this happen?
When you walk up stairs and the offender is lower than you. PS I am not an offender.
Very prevalent now that most phones come with a very decent camera/video.
It's one of those things when the law was written such things didn't exist.
Still proud that when Abu Hamza was convicted that it was mostly under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
I wear skirts and dresses a lot. I am finding it hard to imagine how someone could get a phone under my dress without me noticing. I will probably regret asking this. How does this happen?
Cameras on the toes of boots or shoes. Cameras under tables. Photos taken of women getting out of cars. It is so common that it even used to make it into mainstream lads mags in the 90s.
Edit: the problem prosecuting is that taken photos of someone with clothes on is not a criminal offence. This is a long overdue adjustment to the law.
I'm not objecting to people criticising Chope. I'm suggesting people should try to understand what he's objecting to and why before criticising him. I'm also suggesting any such criticisms should be in vaguely understandable English.
It is what he is objecting to that is idiotic. I would have more sympathy if he were to object to specific PMBs but to claim that they should all be opposed because they might be poorly drafted is basically him circumventing the whole Parliamentary process whose job it is to take bills and craft them into laws worth having. That is why we have committees and Lords scrutiny.
Removing the ability for the committees and the Lords to do that wholesale does not serve the democratic process.
I'm not objecting to people criticising Chope. I'm suggesting people should try to understand what he's objecting to and why before criticising him. I'm also suggesting any such criticisms should be in vaguely understandable English.
It is what he is objecting to that is idiotic. I would have more sympathy if he were to object to specific PMBs but to claim that they should all be opposed because they might be poorly drafted is basically him circumventing the whole Parliamentary process whose job it is to take bills and craft them into laws worth having. That is why we have committees and Lords scrutiny.
Removing the ability for the committees and the Lords to do that wholesale does not serve the democratic process.
Exactly. He could put some effort into improving the Bills that he thought should become law and only opposing those Bills he decided shouldn't become law. Perhaps exercise some political expertise and judgement. Otherwise he's only wasting everyone's time being in the Chamber at all.
Comments
Would he have had to strive that much more if private schools did not exist?
Note: I did not attend a private school. I should hope better arguments exist for their abolition than Sir Christopher Chope (who may, in other respects, be a decent parliamentarian for all I know)
Suspect the Tories are level-pegging only because Labour currently appear equally inept to many people, sadly.
Night all.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0174/cbill_2017-20190174_en_2.htm#l1g1
Its terrible legislation - a total mess. It isn't difficult to spot the flaws in it.
By a technicality this isn't covered appropriately by voyeurism or public indecency or other laws. The politicians absolutely should fix it.
(PS I don't doubt that many extremely talented people go through private education and deservedly end up in high-powered, well-paid jobs - but I also know that some numpties go through it too and end up in jobs way beyond their true capabilities... to the detriment of the country.)
During the Brexit campaign some of ypu may remember the "right of legislative initiative" being discussed. This is the ability to initiate legislation, and it was held up as an example of how the UK Parliament was superior to the European one. This concept was based on the usual popular confusion between the UK Government (based in Whitehall) and the UK Parliament (based in Westminster), and was cheerfully wrong: the UK Government initiates legislation not the UK Parliament. The exception is Private Member's Bills, a UK quirk which I quite like, which enables some MPs to initiate legislation on a matter of interest to them.
I understand Chope objects to this concept because he feels it leads to poor legislation, and wishes law to be initiated by the Government. If so, we have a piquant irony: a bluff, Conservative MP and no doubt a perfervid Leaver is, deliberately and determinedly, trying to make Parliament more...European.
Honestly, you couldn't make it up...
I definetly think that it should be criminalised, and I am surprised that the government has not done anything about it. There have been many news stories about it over the years.
But no, this was all completely and utterly unforeseeable. No one could possibly have seen it coming.
While they are quaint how many private members bills become law. And why does this need separate legislation anyway with a proposed sentence as well?
Still it's good that our police have so much spare time on their hands to try and police all these new crimes with separate legislation we have had imposed in recent decades!
https://twitter.com/KateEMcCann/status/1007733843984601088
Its needed because its to close a gap in the law for what should be a crime but isn't.
Are you suggesting people should be able to film up women's skirts and get away with it as the Police are too busy dealing with more important stuff?
I also think that part 1 is so clumsy to be meaningless. What does 'operating equipment beneath someones clothing' mean? 'equipment' isn't defined anywhere.
To my mind, it demonstrates that it would be better to have parliamentary draughtsmen and civil servants writing legislation, rather than backbench MP's, particularly where it comes to the creation of new criminal offences.
I think the recording would show whether it was accidental or another reason - if the whole footage is perving up a skirt unlikely to be an accident. If a cyclists helmet camera as he's passing by happens to catch some footage of up a woman's short skirt while she's sat down its unlikely to be deliberate.
I thought part of our common law legal system is not everything has to be defined. We don't need the politicians to define equipment (which could quite quickly make the law outdated if they did) a jury of peers can determine that.
How much more likely would it make a a second referendum? I'd be interested to hear what the PB leavers think the consequences would be. Some sort of changes can't be entirely ruled now I wouldn't have thought.
I'm actually quite an admirer of scrutiny of PMBs, but opposing this one, supported by the Govt, was pretty much indefensible. Shame was the apt heckle.
Hungary, Poland and Slovakia et al are very happy with freedom of movement for their citizens across the EU. They just don't want forced freedom of movement into their countries for non EU citizens who came into Europe illegally and who Merkel and others allowed to settle in their countries originally but have now decided they don't want the burden of looking after them. They of course now expect other EU member states to do so which many don't wish to.
It isn't just Germany's decision - eastern and Central Europe want to keep FOM big time.
People would probably be arrested - whereas they aren't at the moment - so it would act as a deterrent in this regard, but they wouldn't then be prosecuted because it is too difficult.
If Chope hadn't objected the proposed bill was just at the first stage of the process to become law. It could have been amended at committee, in the Lords etc - there was no need to object on those grounds.
The list of teams who did look brilliant in their first game but didn't win the WC is even longer.
Therefore, there is plenty to criticise him for. Not criticism of him for being dismissive of the specifics of the bill in question, there doesn't seem much to suggest that is the case, but criticism that his approach does not in fact aid him in what he apparently wants.
Furthermore that the bill being a bit of a mess does not mean it had to be junked, and even if it did, he didn't know it was a mess since he rejected it on a principle.
Blocking things automatically, without assessing their individual merits, would seem to be poor legislating. If only he did not do it automatically a lot of the time, as is reported to be the case, he would have a much better defence of his actions - after all, we don't want poor legislation.
It is normal for bills to be debated and reviewed to improve them before they become law (see also the EU Withdrawal Bill)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5850069/What-Trump-told-stunned-room-world-leaders-G7-summit-Mexican-migrants.html
Am I the only one left with the feeling that Chope would really prefer to leave perverts free to take and distribute upstart photos as they wish?
And a large number will think 'he must be a sex case'.
What a legacy.
Just admit it - you're being a prat. At least @neilh had some logic behind his objections to the widespread slating of Chope!
1. PMBs are part of parliamentary procedure. If you are against them try to change the procedure rather than opposing them all
2. Politicians should be aware of the implications of opposing things. It seems like policitcally you support the opposite.
However, all the 'pass the smelling salts, I'm so shocked' tweeting from Tory MPs is pretty galling given the form this pair have between them.
As Rhianna said 'Don't tell me you're sorry, 'cause you're not - you know you're only sorry you got caught'.
PS I am not an offender.
Edit: the problem prosecuting is that taken photos of someone with clothes on is not a criminal offence. This is a long overdue adjustment to the law.
Removing the ability for the committees and the Lords to do that wholesale does not serve the democratic process.