mudcat.org: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)

DMcG 15 Jun 18 - 10:39 AM
Jack Campin 15 Jun 18 - 10:46 AM
Raedwulf 15 Jun 18 - 10:50 AM
Raedwulf 15 Jun 18 - 11:07 AM
DMcG 15 Jun 18 - 11:28 AM
DMcG 15 Jun 18 - 11:30 AM
Donuel 15 Jun 18 - 11:50 AM
Tattie Bogle 15 Jun 18 - 11:54 AM
Raedwulf 15 Jun 18 - 12:22 PM
Jim Carroll 15 Jun 18 - 01:15 PM
Senoufou 15 Jun 18 - 01:39 PM
David Carter (UK) 15 Jun 18 - 03:36 PM
Raedwulf 15 Jun 18 - 05:01 PM
Dave the Gnome 15 Jun 18 - 05:22 PM
bobad 15 Jun 18 - 05:23 PM
David Carter (UK) 15 Jun 18 - 05:41 PM
DMcG 15 Jun 18 - 05:58 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Jun 18 - 06:11 PM
DMcG 15 Jun 18 - 06:23 PM
punkfolkrocker 16 Jun 18 - 12:58 AM
DMcG 16 Jun 18 - 01:45 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Jun 18 - 03:21 AM
theleveller 16 Jun 18 - 04:51 AM
theleveller 16 Jun 18 - 04:58 AM
Backwoodsman 16 Jun 18 - 04:59 AM
Backwoodsman 16 Jun 18 - 05:05 AM
Senoufou 16 Jun 18 - 05:30 AM
Kenny B (inactive) 16 Jun 18 - 05:45 AM
Mr Red 16 Jun 18 - 07:49 AM
theleveller 16 Jun 18 - 09:25 AM
peteglasgow 16 Jun 18 - 09:59 AM
DMcG 16 Jun 18 - 10:03 AM
punkfolkrocker 16 Jun 18 - 11:56 AM
Dave Hanson 16 Jun 18 - 03:10 PM
Senoufou 16 Jun 18 - 03:37 PM
Dave the Gnome 16 Jun 18 - 03:39 PM
Senoufou 16 Jun 18 - 03:53 PM
DMcG 17 Jun 18 - 02:16 AM
Backwoodsman 17 Jun 18 - 03:05 AM
Backwoodsman 17 Jun 18 - 03:06 AM
Mr Red 17 Jun 18 - 03:17 AM
punkfolkrocker 17 Jun 18 - 03:39 AM
punkfolkrocker 17 Jun 18 - 03:41 AM
DMcG 17 Jun 18 - 03:47 AM
Dave the Gnome 17 Jun 18 - 04:22 AM
David Carter (UK) 17 Jun 18 - 04:30 AM
Dave the Gnome 17 Jun 18 - 04:39 AM
Backwoodsman 17 Jun 18 - 04:45 AM
Tattie Bogle 17 Jun 18 - 09:52 AM
Dave the Gnome 17 Jun 18 - 10:12 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 10:39 AM

Story here!

Thanks to some wonderful rules in the UK Parliamentary system, Sir Christopher Chope has just blocked a proposed law to make illegal taking photos up the skirts of women without their consent. All that is required is to shout 'Object!' at the right time on private members bill. It is not necessary to elaborate on what your objections are.

Makes you proud, doesn't it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 10:46 AM

Let's see his willy on Imgur from a snap in the Commons loos.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Raedwulf
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 10:50 AM

Neither proud nor ashamed. First, " It is outrageous that a single member of Parliament has today been able to derail a much needed and universally supported..." Pardon me for pointing out that, since someone shouted "Object", it quite obviously isn't "universally supported".

Rather more to the point, I would like to know what Chope's objections are before passing judgement. I can't think of a bad reason to object, let alone a good one. But the report contains no information beyond the fact that Ms Martin has already spoken to him and arranged a meeting to discuss the bill further with him. So let's not rush to judgement, eh? If I have to guess, since he is a barrister by profession, I'm presuming that he has concerns about the wording of the bill & its practical application in court.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Raedwulf
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 11:07 AM

Further to my previous, on looking him up (no, not looking up... Sheesh! You people... ;-) ), he may be a complete & utter twat (see his record on blocking & filibustering). But he has also been a barrister for more than 45 years, and an MP for 30 of the last 35. I reckon it's worth waiting to find out what these objections are before forming any conclusions.

I admit to being surprised, D - you're usually one of the more restrained, reasoned, and reasonable members. I guess we all leap sometimes! ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 11:28 AM

Thank you for the compliment.

Indeed, when the full record of what was said is published in Hansard I intend to read it. There are reasons I could think of to object - for example if the penalties were insufficient or the required levels of proof were too high. As someone with no legal training whatsoever the proposed text did not look to me like that. Were I such a lawyer with those objections I would say during debate that these are my objections and that I will be objecting, but I would ask the proposer to work with me to overcome what I see as the shortfall so we can reintroduce it at the earliest opportunity.

If he did anything approaching that I will willingly come back to this thread and eat humble pie. If he didn't, on the other hand, then my opinion (based his previous philibustering) will stand.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 11:30 AM

Filibustering. "Philibustering' was a usage I coined in honour of a previous boss named Phil.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 11:50 AM

IT Beats Fistibustering.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 11:54 AM

In the interests o equality, in Scotland it is to be called "upkilting".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Raedwulf
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 12:22 PM

In Scotland, Tattie, it's already an offence. The (expanded since D originally posted) article says Upskirting has been an offence in Scotland since 2010 when it was listed under the broadened definition of voyeurism.

I doubt Hansard will help, D. It's only a record of what was said in the House, isn't it? I note, from Twitter, that Philip Davies MP was a 'partner in crime', so maybe he said something more than one word? I suspect we will have to wait for Ms Martin's reportage of her planned meeting with Chope, though. I also note that, judging by Chope's Twitter (no I don't Twit, but anyone can look at it, of course), Rebecca Reid (whoever she is) is a complete fucking idiot, however personal her experience.

Final word for now. The expanded article has this to say -

Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statue book by a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting. And after all this is a bill to create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail {my bolding}. So, however worthy the cause, he insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that.

Indeed, a few minutes before he blocked the upskirting bill, he was forcing a delay to the final debate on the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill, or Seni's Law, which also had strong support from the government. The upskirting bill is not dead - there will be other opportunities to get it a formal second reading debate - but they will only succeed if Sir Christopher and his allies can be persuaded not to object again. The only other alternative is for the government to provide debating time for it, or, far more likely, to add the proposals to a bill of their own.


That, on its own, seems reasonable, if somewhat pedantic. But I'd still be interested to know what specific & particular objections Chope has to the bill.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 01:15 PM

"private members bill."
Very apt!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Senoufou
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 01:39 PM

Well I think this chap is a complete and utter knob. How dare he block this very sensible and much-needed Bill? (all on his own, since everyone else across all Parties is for it)

What objection can the silly old fool have against preventing perverts from doing this?

The penalty for the crime can be decided with consultation, and judges/magistrates can adjust it for each miscreant.

I wonder how he'd feel if his wife or daughter had had the experience of some pervy toe-rag taking a pic of them in this way and either distributing it on the Net for other perverts to drool over (!!!!!) or for his own unsavoury purposes.

Absolutely disgusted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 03:36 PM

He is a tory, of course he is a knob.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Raedwulf
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 05:01 PM

He is a tory, of course he is a knob.

Utterly pathetic remark, David Carter (UK). No, I am not also a Tory; far from it. But your comment marks you as a pathetic bigoted idiot.

How dare he block this very sensible and much-needed Bill?

Because! Did you read anything I posted, Sen? Did you actually take the trouble to read the bleeding article properly? Are you happy with the notion that dozens of men (yes, it will be men, I'm sure) could be jailed not because they've been naughty, but because they've been caught up in a badly worded piece of legislation? Or is that alright, just so long as no-one has to worry about their knickers? Not, as idiot Rebecca Reid insists, their genitalia, cos as the article also points out, no new law is needed to prosecute that. That's the whole problem!

No, I can't see how that could happen either, but you're no more a legal expert than I am. I shouldn't be having to say this for the fourth time, but since it seems I do, I'm going to be loud, blunt & downright coarse.

Just shut the fuck up, everyone!



The currently available evidence suggests that Chope is objecting simply because he objects to insufficiently discussed legislation slipping through parliamentary procedure. Not because he objects to the principle behind the bill. And we probably ought to be thankful that some miserable pedant takes that much trouble over what laws get passed. If it turns out he's objecting because he's a misogynistic bastard who thinks upskirting is fine, I'll join in with everyone else in jumping up & down on his miserable metaphorical carcass.

Until then, stop rushing to judgement. Let's wait until Ms Martin publicises the results of her meeting with him (as, I am quite certain, she will).

Yours, frustratedly,

Rędwulf


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 05:22 PM

It would have been quite easy for him to stop all the speculation and flack, Raedwulf. He could have quite easily explained his objection. If it was what you say, fine. He would have had the support of many. But did he explain? No. Has he explained yet? No. Did he explain his reservations to the member who raised the bill? No. Instead he just used the arcane laws of the house and brought the whole system into disrepute. Whether his motives are noble or not his actions were objectionable. (Pun intended)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: bobad
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 05:23 PM

Hey Raedwulf that's just too much reason and common sense for this place - you should know that by now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 05:41 PM

Sorry Raedwulf, no can do. Since the breaking point poster, and the poster of Ed Miliband in Salmon's pocket, anything to bash tories or brexiters with is fair game. The gloves are off.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 05:58 PM

It also leaves aside just how many Tory MPs, from Teresa May down, are 'disappointed' in his action. One - I am afraid I forget who - said is something that reinforces the 'nasty party' image more than anything as complicated as like the to-Ing and fro-Ing of Brexit . It is something destined to be brought and hung around the party's neck come the next election. And, to repeat, it was a Tory saying that.

Then there is the fact the government gave the bill its blessing beforehand.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 06:11 PM

You are turning into a complete arse, Raedwulf old chap. Calm down, dear.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 06:23 PM

Following on from Dave's comment, I am sure every one of the national papers would be pleased to publish an article he cares to write explaining his reasons. If he objects to 'flabby' legislation, for example, he could explain what was flabby about it, and so on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 12:58 AM

he's not a member of mudcat.. is he...???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 01:45 AM

just so long as no-one has to worry about their knickers? Not, as idiot Rebecca Reid insists, their genitalia, cos as the article also points out, no new law is needed to prosecute that. That's the whole problem!

I have been thinking about that point, because it is quite interesting. A man decides to take an upskirt photo of a woman, who doesn't notice.

Before he looks at the photo, no-one knows if a crime has been committed. That's a very strange state of affairs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 03:21 AM

As someone on BBC news just said. It is a prime example of a privelaged, old, white male abusing his power.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: theleveller
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 04:51 AM

So if it's unfair to brand Chope as a scumbag until he's explained his reasons for voting this way (which he probably never will), how about his past voting record? Here's just a small sample:

Voted against: gay rights, smoking ban, hunting ban, same-sex marriage, raising welfare benefits, preventing revenge evictions by landlords (like him), financial support for 16-19 year olds in training, increasing tax on incomes over £150K, measures for tax avoidance, more powers for local authorities, measures to prevent climate change, Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.


Voted for: increasing tuition fees, Iraq war, reducing housing benefits, creating jobs for young people, more restrictive regulation of trade unions, academies, stricter asylum system, ID cards, mass surveillance of private communications, phasing out secure tenancies, restricting legal aid.

If that doesn't warrant the label of scumbag I don't know what does.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: theleveller
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 04:58 AM

Sorry, creating jobs for young people should be in the 'against' list.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 04:59 AM

There's a Twitter thread suggesting that the term 'Upskirting' be replaced by 'Chopeing'. Seems reasonable to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 05:05 AM

"If that doesn't warrant the label of scumbag I don't know what does."

A more appropriate label would be the word in common usage for the part of the female anatomy those dirty, inadequate POS's are attempting to photograph.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Senoufou
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 05:30 AM

The women's forum Mumsnet is absolutely up in arms about this. They're all signing a huge petition and sending the prat hundreds of e mails.

My husband just asked why would anyone want to block making this a crime. He's wondering if the chap himself is a perv and does it secretly in his spare time!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 05:45 AM

From the musical point of view, what would be the implication for singers of the "Wild Rover " could they be charged with incitement?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Mr Red
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 07:49 AM

well: since he has put his head above the parapet I would assume he has good legal reason to delay the bill, until the precise wording of the bill is made watertight.

We have here the difference between an evangelist and a pragmatist. They may arrive at the same point, and make the statute usable.

There are many precedents regarding photography and some are enshrined in law.

One is that, AFAIK, there is no offence of photographing a person. None.
Litigation kicks in when the image is reproduced.
With digital technology, and the uploading automatically via smart cameras and phones - getting proof of "reproduction" on the fly is difficult. And is a digital image that has not been looked at - reproduced? In a digital camera you can argue that looking at it does not reproduce it.

It's a jungle out there. Let us hope the "objector" is a good gamekeeper. Don't be hasty with your judgements, we can lampoon him any time in the future.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: theleveller
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 09:25 AM

"well: since he has put his head above the parapet I would assume he has good legal reason to delay the bill, until the precise wording of the bill is made watertight."

Or could it be that he wanted the time for the Private Member's Bill that he is sponsoring which would end free treatment on the NHS?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: peteglasgow
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 09:59 AM

as with most of the tory party, for some people there is no crime committed by IDS, B johnson, DD, TM and and the rest of them that can't be explained or ultimately excused or even applauded. This would be sort of understandable if all their supporters were wealthy or corrupt but clearly they can't be. tories are happy to have this Chope in their party despite his appalling record in disrupting the democratic process. at our constituency party last night our local MP was saying that all the tories hate Chope as well - but of course they won't get rid of him. (who votes for him ffs?)
sorry, why do a good %age of our country still feel we have to be ruled by toffs and go off to war when they tell us to. We need to grow up and take some pride in ourselves


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 10:03 AM

I hadnt heard of his NHS proposals. There is an account here.

I can't say it make me warm to the fellow.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 11:56 AM

what a complete chope...!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 03:10 PM

No matter what Raedwolf says everyone else now thinks Chope is a pervert.

Dave H


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Senoufou
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 03:37 PM

Making 'upskirting' a serious sexual offence would result in a maximum punishment of two years in prison. Maybe Chope the Chump is concerned that this is too severe?
As I used to point out to my prisoners when I did 'visiting', don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I'm very puzzled as to why this is a 'thing'. Surely on the Internet (sadly) there are endless opportunities to view the most disgusting, evil and perverted material, without having to go out and provide it for oneself? And what sort of mind must these people have? Rather frightening really...

My husband says if he caught anyone doing that, he'd ram their mobile phone somewhere a bit painful. I told him he could then be arrested for GBH, which astonished him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 03:39 PM

Grievous bottomley harm?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Senoufou
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 03:53 PM

Hahahahahaaaaa Dave! He's watching the football at the moment, but I'll tell him later what you wrote! :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 02:16 AM


No matter what Raedwolf says everyone else now thinks Chope is a pervert. - Gave H


I don't think he is - or at least, I see no evidence for it.

What I do see is a man exploiting his privileged position who has arrogantly decided to appoint himself Gatekeeper of Non-Government Laws.

This is my interpretation of what is going on. It may be entirely wrong, so please treat it with that level of distrust.

Cope is a Thatcherite. No, I am not blaming her for this, but one aspect of being a Thatcherite is a wish to deregulate as much as possible (not everywhere, please note). As a result, he has objections to more laws and regulations being introduced at all, and certainly not by anyone other than Government. So when a law is proposed this way, he is instinctively against it. Note that he is not considering whether the proposed law has any merit at this point: it is fundamentally the mechanism that he objects to.

Now, there would be some limited merit in that stance were it universal; if he blocked every single Private members bill irrespective. But no, he doesn't. He blocks the vast majority 'on principle' but he is perfectly happy to let some through and even propose his own, like the NHS one. Hence the Gatekeeper tag. He has decided that he will personally alter the balance of power between ordinary MPs and Government to restrict MPs power - unless he grants them a 'pass'.

All of this happens without given a moments thought to what any actual law is.

So we get onto a specific law, in this case 'upskirting'. I believe he is acting with legal and moral laziness. Any considered response must take into account the costs and benefits of the proposed law, and that he is singularly failing to do. Yes, it is true that some men may be punished unjustifiably. But that flaw is present in every single law. Which is why we have a very elaborate judicial and appeal system to minimise miscarriages. Miscarriages do occur, of course, but we rely on the system to keep them rare. So that is the 'cost' of introducing the law. The cost of not introducing the law is that a level of assault on women is permitted. This is the heart of it, not 'protecting knickers' but giving women the ability to live free from assault. ( I am using the word 'assault' in its everyday, not its legal sense, obviously.)


I said earlier that the current position is odd in law. Let me elaborate, and make an analogy with property law. I think most people would agree that one aspect of a good law is that you can tell if a set of actions will break it. I.e. I can answer the question "If I do this, will I be breaking the law?" . Seems reasonable? Yet the current position is that I can take such a photograph and no-one knows if the law has been broken. It is only subsequently - perhaps hours or days or even months later - when the photograph is looked at that we can know if the law was broken at the time. The corresponding position in property law would be if it was perfectly to enter a building without any permission, take some property but it was only against the law if a subsequent valuation of the thing taken showed it to be 'valuable'. That is self-evidently a nonsensical law, yet is it basically the position on 'upskirting'.

Raedwulf said we can't imagine how men might be affected if the law is badly phrased. Leaving aside the law is about women not men - given how complicated sexuality is, there may be some women photographers upskirting others - we can imagine the typical things: false accusations, somebody taking a photo of a cathedral but due to the very high resolution of modern cameras 'upskirting' a women sat on a bench in front of it solely due to the ability to 'zoom in' on a detail of the final photo, and so on. But we don't have to imagine, because this is already the law in Scotland. So we can see what type of miscarriages arise.

So in sumnmary, I see lots of things to criticise Chope for, from arrogance and delusions of grandeur through to moral and intellectual laziness. He certainly seems to be unable or unwilling to consider what upskirting or the fear of it can do to a woman. He is, judging by the reports, a thoroughly unpleasant guy, in my opinion. But I have seen no sign he is a pervert.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 03:05 AM

A very fine summary, DMcG.

I'd add that it seems ludicrous that the procedure regarding Private Members' Bills permits a single 'objector' to destroy a Bill by the utterance of a single word. Antiquated, archaic, it makes a mockery of the Mother of Parliaments, and brings our 'democracy' into disrepute.

High time that the Private Members's Bill procedure was reviewed and modernised.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 03:06 AM

Members's? WTF?

Members'!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Mr Red
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 03:17 AM

Or could it be that he wanted the time for the Private Member's Bill that he is sponsoring which would end free treatment on the NHS?

and shouting "objection" could be evoked for his bill?
quid pro quo. If the Chopey chump chappy doesn't predict that - his bill is dead in the water. Being a lawyer he must have sussed that one. I say lampoon him when you know the outcome.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 03:39 AM

His kind needs to be eradicated from modern government.

good law making an happen quite well enough without old chopes like him..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 03:41 AM

can


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 03:47 AM

If the Chopey chump chappy doesn't predict that - his bill is dead in the water

That makes the assumption his aim is to get the bill passed. Politics can be much more subtle. His aim may simply be to get talk of paying for the NHS normalised.

There is a film Dirty Pictures which is about a court case brought by a right wing Christian group against the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center for exhibiting Robert Maplethorpe's photographs, which they regarded as pornography. At the end, the gallery won the case, and an interviewer asked the group how they felt about losing. The response was something like "We didn't lose. No gallery will consider exhibiting photos like these in the future because of the costs and damages it will incur. They will play safe. So while we lost the case, we have achieved our objective."

It's a thought provoking film, and I recommend it. And it seems to me it is the same kind of thinking in the NHS bill. Whether it wins or not is not the primary objective.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 04:22 AM

Why Chope objected

According to Sky news he just objects on principle to any private members bill through pure belligerance. In the light of this and in the absence of any explanation from Chope himself, would Raewulf care to change his position?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 04:30 AM

Pure belligerence is less unreasonable than actually wanting to defend perverts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 04:39 AM

It is David but nowhere near as good as the noble reasons quoted earlier. I did not think for one moment that he was either defending perverts or was one himself but the simple fact that a law defending women's rights can be derailed by one over privileged male with a bad attitude says a lot about our antiquated way of doing things.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 04:45 AM

Aaaaaahh.......!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 09:52 AM

There have been several pics and videos showing what happened on the day, and they show an almost empty House of Commons. How can it be constitutional for any Bills to be introduced, debated or, as in this case, objected to, when there are so few members present?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 10:12 AM

It was Friday afternoon, Tattie. You can't expect MPs to turn up then after they have spent, what, all of 30 hours in the house already. They are only paid a paltry £75000 or so ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 19 January 5:39 AM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.