Upskirting Bill blocked by errant MP.

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
I don't think that's the correct analysis of the situation but crack on blaming everything on snowflakes :mrgreen:
You're wrong - again in this case.
 
Last edited:
Right, and revoked consent after the fact too. eg; some weirdo´s who do this sort of thing consent to it happening, two years later they revoke consent and the person who took the photo is automatically a nonce.
No, they would not automatically become a nonce for having taken a photo when consent was in place

Consenting to have the photo taken allows it to be taken, and there can be terms on what to do with the photo afterwards
Revoking consent later on allows the terms to change ..... eg you must now delete and no longer use the photo
Or you can take her photo, due to being in a relationship then at the end she can require you to delete



However if the ‘model’ lies and claims consent was never given then that would be a different matter - not revoked but a lie
 
Last edited:
He was interviewed by Nick Ferrari on LBC this morning and put up a good defence for his action (ie some private members bills get passed into law without proper scrutiny or debate) BUT he shot himself in his bollox by saying he had not read the bill and he didn't know what upskirting was!
 
Looks like the poor guy is in trouble again but the bit I liked in the article below is that he seems to have been vindicated in his original stance: “because MPs had tabled a string of amendments to the government's bill over fears it will not be effective.”
“Maria Miller, chairwoman of the Women and Equalities Committee, last week warned against rushing the Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill through parliament because "we could end up with a piece of legislation that is not doing what the government set out for it to do, which is to close a loophole in the law".
"What really concerns me is that perpetrators could easily plead that they were taking images not for sexual gratification, but anonymously for sale to a third party," she told MPs.
"That could actually give perpetrators a very big loophole to climb through."

Off course no one who was tearing this guy apart a few weeks ago has the guts to acknowledge they were wrong and apologise. Even the BBC article was grudging in its acknowledgment of what was said.

Upskirting row MP under fire again
 
Off course no one who was tearing this guy apart a few weeks ago has the guts to acknowledge they were wrong and apologise. Even the BBC article was grudging in its acknowledgment of what was said.
Chope claimed not to have read the bill at all so he would have to have astonishing powers of foresight to have gott it right. As stated by many others above he’s scuppered all sorts of perfectly good pm bills simply because he enjoys playing sport with parliamentary procedure.
 
Chope claimed not to have read the bill at all so he would have to have astonishing powers of foresight to have gott it right. As stated by many others above he’s scuppered all sorts of perfectly good pm bills simply because he enjoys playing sport with parliamentary procedure.
Well my point was he blocked it because he’s making a stand against waving through lazily written, loophole ridden legislation. You don’t need to read something to know that, if you don’t debate legislation then there’s a good chance it’ll have loopholes and he was right about that.
 
First his constituency office now

I wonder if Abbott left a pair of hers in his office.
Probably covering his entire desk.
 
Well my point was he blocked it because he’s making a stand against waving through lazily written, loophole ridden legislation.
By lazily assuming something about a Bill he hasn't bothered to read?

Well done him.
 
By lazily assuming something about a Bill he hasn't bothered to read?

Well done him.
Well, to me, if you are against waving through any legislation do you need to read them? Probably not. In this case, on reflection there are obviously some issues with what they were trying to pass so it was good that he had the courage to say “No, waving these through is wrong.” You disagree. Fine but your way would have landed up with crap, loophole ridden legislation on this important subject.

Also, he’s probably experienced enough to know that a significant proportion of what they attempt to wave through lazily is poorly written, so he doesn’t need to read them all. He wants discussion based on many MPs having read them.
 
Although this is the one that hit the headlines, when it was first reported it was mentioned that a number of MPs did this in turn to stop lazy bills being introduced on a Friday afternoon. We only know about it because a number of MPs got a strop on and then we have a concerted bullying effort against one MP.

I am more concerned that a number of MPs have tried to intimidate a fellow member because they do not like what he did. Now imagine what the fuss would have been like if he was a women and bleeding his heart out live on the news. One or two double standards in play.
 
Well, to me, if you are against waving through any legislation do you need to read them?
If you're objecting mindlessly, no. If you want to find out if the grounds you're objecting to apply, you probably should else you'll look a little bit of a tool.
 
By lazily assuming something about a Bill he hasn't bothered to read?

Well done him.
He is a bit of a dick with a habit of blocking private members bills. But his principle is quite right that legislation should be debated in parliament rather than discussed behind closed doors, written and pushed through
It would be better to have read the bill and decide whether he is happy with the content or not before making a blanket objection.

He could be a busy man working for his constituents without time to fully read a paper about a topic that should be fully debated, or he could be too lazy and making his own personal point with objections for the sake of them
 
If you're objecting mindlessly, no. If you want to find out if the grounds you're objecting to apply, you probably should else you'll look a little bit of a tool.
He’s not objecting mindlessly. He’s just not objecting for the reason you want. He appears to believe that there should be some debate by our elected officials before legislation is passed and has had enough of waving things through on a Friday so he’s trying to stop it. That he treats this bill, which turned out to have issues, the same as others means he’s applying the same criteria to them all. I for one am happy he is pushing for debate and stopping our legislators being lazy.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top