UKC

How can one MP have a veto on laws?  It absurd

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44496427

your post got me interested. A quick read on wikipedia suggests that this mechanism may apply only to private members bills. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_member%27s_bill

Fecking Gammon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope

And?  It's still absurd.

Someone should check his phone.

Any Tory die-hards want to defend this?

Seems to be a scumbag response but fair enough if he has a good reason. 

Otherwise the name Sir Christopher Chope may be forever associated with upskirting.

Everything about Westminster is absurd.  It's a collection of absurdities gradually accumulated over a few hundred years.

For example, one of the reasons there was no time to adequately debate the Brexit bills yesterday was that every time there is a vote the whole lot of them have to walk out and hang about in corridors and then get counted by hand so it takes about 45 minutes.   They could easily have an electronic system and get a vote done in about a minute.

Shouting "object" doesn't veto a law, it requests a debate about it (rather than it proceeding unopposed).   

So the government or Parliament can schedule time for that debate if they want to.

I'm struggling to find a good reason for his objection, unless he thinks the maximum sentence of 2 years is disproportionate to the offence.

Not according to the link above "This is a formality; the bill will be put to the bottom of the order paper, will likely be objected to on each future occasion and has no practical chance of success."

Basically the guy's an idiot. Look at the rest of his history

My guess is he is trying to immortalise himself by getting 'Choping' into the Urban Dictionary.

Choping: (v) masturbating over upskirt pictures.

"No practical chance of success" means that it's unlikely that Parliamentary time will be scheduled to debate it.

But, if those in charge of Parliamentary time wanted to debate it then they could schedule time.

I think the party should dismiss him...

Well I think the logic is that many times Private Mambers bills are not serious attempts to legislate, but more attempts to make a political point. So there seem to be a few ways to cut discussion short to avoid wasting time. I don't think the same veto is available for bills presented by the government.  

Not exactly. Most PMBs fail, but this was expected to get through because the govt had indicated it's support. In other words the govt thinks it's a good idea, but isn't prepared to devote any of it's allocated time to it. 

Now it looks like there was an expectation that this law would pass unopposed, and undebated, but one MP is enough to say that a debate is needed. Now unfortunately, due to rules of PMBs, that may be enough to kill it, unless the govt does the decent thing and allocates it some time.

As to the MP in question, it may well be that he is the classic tory male backbencher, but there is also the possibility that he has a genuine concern that the law is badly drafted and could end up criminalising perfectly acceptable behaviour.  

Have you checked his track record?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chope

seems the word bell end, might well have been invented with him in mind.

How does he keep getting elected ?

Never underestimate how many utter tw*ts there are in the world.

Wow... 

Because, until the bill passes both houses, it's not a "law".

A womble of the cock order.

Nope, but it doesn't surprise me. I had heard of Philip Davies, who has a similar track record. 

My first reaction to this story was amazement that upskirting was so prevalent that it needed legislation. Quite shocked and horrified to discover it is. But my second thought was how on earth do you legislate against it. You need to define what is acceptable to have in a photo and what isn't. Apparently "down blousing" is also a problem, which means someone holding a camera above their heads could accidentally, or "accidentally", take a picture which includes more cleavage than is welcome. Very difficult to define in law.

Then again if they want to ban people holding up their phones at gigs, with the threat of a 2 year jail term, I'm all in favour !!! 

I said that to a backbench MP once. He said the advantage of the present voting system was that it gave him the only chance he got to buttonhole ministers.

Like most systems that have developed over a long period, it may have more merit than meets the eye. I’m not convinced the same can be said for the ‘object’ system.

jcm

Tricky but in my legal opinion boobs are on public display in certain attire. Fannies and arses are not. That seems a clear dividing line (no pun intended)...

Ooh look!! Surprise! The resident thicky-right apologist arrives and makes some half-arsed pedantic diversion to avoid discussing both the system and the result.

The secret barrister has done a post on this. 

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/08/31/upskirting-why-a-new-law-is-neede...

i like it wen mr buggins upskirts me. We userlly do it on a friday night

Had to laugh at the phrase "Private members' bills" in this context.

F*ck me that's depressing, you read about a 25 year political career where he has done everything in his power to block simple bills that would relieve harm or suffering for many at no cost to anyone else and then get to this bit:

"Chope was appointed a Knight Bachelor in the 2018 New Year Honours for political and public service"

Why aren't people rioting? Oh yeah, because tw*ts like him have direct all the anger at immigrants and the EU 

I haven't seen the detail but perhaps he is objecting to hasty, knee jerk, poorly drafted law rather than the principle of this practice specifically i.e. he may find it just as objectionable as others but would rather take time to debate and consider.  Just a thought.

Al

Read his track record....

That's possible, but given his voting record, it seems unlikely. 

He has a daughter in her 20s.  Ffs.  

What MP with a daughter at such an age would block this?   

Hilarious.  Really. 

This from the SecreteBarrister seems pretty clear:

"And a ready-made answer presents itself just over the border: the definition of “voyeurism” was extended in Scotland in 2010 to explicitly cover the non-consensual recording of images, beneath clothing, of a person’s genitals, buttocks or underwear, for sexual gratification or causing humiliation, alarm or distress. There is no good reason why a similarly-drafted provision could not be enacted in England & Wales."

Yep, but if you read what else he has objected to (and what he hasn't) a picture emerges of someone who isn't so much concerned about hastily drafted legislation but someone who is a walking cliche of a Daily Mail below the line commenter and an arse of the very first water. 

On 12 March 2010, he was responsible for the blocking of a bill to protect poor countries from "vulture funds", despite his party's support for the bill.[14]

On 11 October 2011, Chope raised an eleventh-hour objection to the Hillsborough debate taking place because he believed a debate about MPs' pensions was more important. Cries of "shame" echoed around the chamber and Labour MP Jamie Reed said that the perpetrator should be "named and shamed" for raising the objection.[15]

In December 2013 Chope objected[16][17] to the second reading of the Alan Turing (Statutory Pardon) Bill in the House of Commons. Because of this, the Government decided to act under the royal prerogative of mercy. On 24 December 2013 Queen Elizabeth II granted Turing a free pardon.[18][19]

He came under criticism in late 2014 for repeatedly blocking a bill that would ban the use of wild animals in circus performances, justifying his actions by saying "The EU Membership Costs and Benefits bill should have been called by the clerk before the circuses bill, so I raised a point of order".[20]

On 28 November 2014 Chope, a private landlord, filibustered a Liberal Democrat bill with cross party support intended to make revenge evictions an offence.[21]

In October 2015, Chope joined fellow Conservative members Philip Davies and David Nuttall in extended speeches, known as a filibuster, against a private member's bill that would have placed restrictions on hospital parking charges for carers. Their actions caused the bill to run out of time.[22]

On 15 June 2018 Chope blocked the passage of a private member's bill that would have made upskirting a specific offence by calling "object" in the House of Commons, which drew immediate criticism from fellow MPs.[23]

He is a tw*t...

This is how it was reported on the BBC website:

"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.

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."

I have not read the proposed bill so I don't feel like I am in a position to comment on the rights and wrongs of this action.  Has anyone here actually read it?

I'm not defending his action in this case, but it seems that in general terms, he may have a point in objecting on principle to the introduction of ANY legislation which has not been debated. A sort of self appointed safety valve against "knee jerk" rule?

It seems it comes up again for a vote on 6th July.

Fair enough, that appears to cover upskirting, but not down blousing,  and if the legislation is along those lines then the case that the Tory MP is merely a misogynist dinosaur seems well-founded. So lets see if the government takes the appropriate action. But I've got a feeling that part of the problem is summer recess - which is another bloody joke.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0174/cbill_2017...

You or he or the BBC may try and dress this up as someone who is the guardian of sloppily written legislation but the bills he has filibustered all seem to have been of a type. He didn't, for instance, vote against Universal Credit legislation despite the warnings of how unworkable that might be. 

I'm not dressing anything up as anything, I'm simply reporting what the BBC said.  I don't really think his track record has anything to do with it.

Looking at the legislation:

"A person (“A”) commits an offence if A—

(a)without another person (“B”) consenting, and

(b)without any reasonable belief that B consents,

records an image beneath B’s clothing of B’s genitals or buttocks  (whether exposed or covered with underwear) or the underwear  covering B’s genitals or buttocks, in circumstances where the genitals,  buttocks or underwear would not otherwise be visible, with the  intention that A or another person (“C”), for a purpose mentioned in  subsection (3), will look at the image."

(3)The purposes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are

(a)obtaining sexual gratification (whether for A or C), or

(b)humiliating, distressing or alarming B.

Can anyone construct an imaginative scenario where this legislation could result in a totally unjust outcome?

The people of Christchurch must be so proud.

His wiki entry reads like the fantasy version of what an unreconstructed Trot would think a Tory MP gets up to in Parliament. What a complete bastard. Who the hell is voting for people like Chope?

Yeah, you could be innocently walking down the road, texting away when you trip and drop the phone, it skids across the pavement, lens up and the camera goes off whilst pointing up someone's skirt. You then accidentally send it all your mates and accidentally go home and have a wank over it. You're right, Sir Gammon Chope has done us a huge favour in protecting us from legislation which will inevitably lead to miscarriages of justice. Like he did protecting us from that awful legislation which would have helped carers with hospital parking charges, or countries from being damaged by hedge funds. 

Tories, need I say more? More and more people are finally waking up and seeing the Tories for the utter contemptible low lifes they really are.  Close last year, they'll be gone next General Election and we can get back to a less greed driven, selfish, decent society.

The Conservative party have, and are, doing a royally brilliant job at trashing the UK.

Just go, please, just go and leave us alone.

From a former parliment worker on Twitter

"I remember Christopher Chope getting angry with a Twitter executive at the Home Affairs Select Committee, because not enough had been done to take down a Christopher Chope parody account. But if you want to take photographs up women's skirts, that's fine with Christopher Chope."

We’ve all done it...

I saw on Twitter the solicitor Nick Freeman, Mr Loophole, objecting to it on the grounds that it would tie up police and court time (ironic coming from him, but an arguable point), but then went on to say that women needed to take responsibility for what they wore! What a cnut!

Photographer is lying on the ground taking pictures of his mates doing skateboard jumps, when a woman walks past and has a Marilyn Monroe moment

https://twitter.com/barneyfarmer/status/1007669528929718277?s=19

I've never been on board with the 'Tory scum' tag. I've got friends and family that vote conservative, people I love and respect.

Saying that, I just couldn't believe Chope's Parliamentary record. Total scumbag.

I'm much obliged to those who have pointed out that he is a diligent public servant with a keen interest in the finer points of fairness and jurisprudence.

I had, to my shame, and I now concede, erroneously, lept to the conclusion that he is a vicious, self serving, nasty, out of touch, cnut. Upon whom I wouldn't piss on if he was on fire.

As a conciliatory gesture, can I assure thread readers that I would be happy to urinate upon him in the unfortunate event of any conflagration.

I hope you would film the happy occasion..

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1007565063274803200

I very much hope that Chope's action means a) more publicity for the law, b) the govt steps in to ensure the law is passed and c) Chope's constituents realise what sort of MP they have.

Wouldn't it be great if that woman was to stand against him at the next election

Dear MG, why did you make this aggressive and unpleasant comment on Big Ger's post? It spoils what was a civilised and humorous debate with sourness and disrespect. Please would you  moderate your posts. I'd be grateful. 

Because I think he is an odious prat not worthy of respect.

No, I'll post how I wish.

The lovely Mr Davies was also involved today, talking for 2 1/2 hours to make sure a mental health PMB couldn’t pass too, so looks like he had at least one fellow traveller.  

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mps-philip-davies-sir-12715459

I simply don't get how parliament can end up with these procedures. How can EU exit bills be curtailed to a few minutes but people are allowed to speak for hours to derail other things?

The ridiculous reason that this law is needed is that by wearing knickers women are currently preventing prosecutions.  

If one of these tw*ts happens to upskirt a woman not wearing underwear it can be prosecuted with the existing laws.  

Personally I think upskirting is far worse than down blousing.  Illogical maybe but that is my emotional reaction to your question.  

Nick the hon member for enabling sex offenders .  

I remember an interview with Freeman where he seemed quite proud of the fact that he'd got the same businessman off drink driving charges multiple times on technicalities. He went on to claim he'd feel not one iota of guilt if his client went on to kill someone while driving under the influence. 

What a cock.

Must have missed that. Fire me

I'm the same, though it could be to do with the state of my knickers

Christ on a bike, he’s like a cartoon Tory villain.  It’s funny that filibustering by these sorts only seems to be against bills that most reasonable people would see as decent and for the general good of society. 

You think yours are bad?
Ever wondered where 'marsbar' got her username from?

This makes good reading. I've been wondering where things stand with regards to upkilting. Your post answers that question.

Well really.  How very dare you.  

Just another Tory cunnnnnnnnnnt , do you need a list, IDS for starters.

Always better to attack the post, rather than the poster though, no?  

When Mrs Num Num goes out on a Friday night in her mini skirt, her minge hangs below the hem-line. There should be a law against that.

It depends if you want a discussion on the point.  I don't with Big Ger. 

Note however I did address the point too - the post was attempting to distract from the subject.

Fair play.  I just don't think comments like  "The resident thicky-right apologist arrives and makes some half-arsed pedantic diversion" has any place in an adult discussion.

Address the post.  Not the poster

You have more patience than me.  

You make that sound like a bad thing

It's all very well as a general principle.  However, in any social setting, including here, there are those who are basically obnoxious and seeking to derail discussion. Indulging them and tolerating them beyond a certain point doesn't help discussion it just diverts it.  Big Ger was seeking to do that above (as he does with practically all his contributions), hence my post.  I'll stop now because this is another diversion!

Not a bad thing, just an observation.  

Upkilting is not the only danger faced by kilt wearers who go commando.

http://www.anorak.co.uk/282840/strange-but-true/bride-punches-kilt-wearing-...

MMM.mmmm......Calling someone an "obnoxious prat" doesn't really set the stage for a useful debate though, does it.    Just saying.

Ok...

He’s a double a star c unt. They are easy to identify. 

He only has a voice because the constituents  of Christchurch in Dorset have voted for this antidiluvian turd.

Shame on them.

I’m really struggling to tell “Sir” Christopher Chope from the late “Sir”’Alan B’stard of New Statesman fame. It’s uncanny how much a dislikeable parody of a Tory MP could ever end up the complete Member for Christchurch. 

B

"Later that year, in the expenses scandal, it emerged that Chope claimed £136,992 in parliamentary expenses in 2007/08. This included claiming £881 to repair a sofa."

That’s the other thing - of all the people the Tories could put forward for a knighthood, they chose him. Tells you all you need to know. 

Me too - I agree completely with you - I just read Chope's Wikipedia page. ONCE AGAIN I really want to give up

If you have not read it, folks, please read it and see what kind of a person is currently serving as an MP

Rather interesting bunting has appeared outside his constituency office.  

https://mobile.twitter.com/thegobbledegook/status/1008037699566100480?ref_s...

Rumour also has it that the local WI are after him and he is hiding from them

Not all of us!

I ran for Green Party Councillor in a Christchurch ward a few years ago and had the joy of chatting with him, we didn't agree on anything funnily enough.

To coin an old saying... The good folk of Christchurch would vote a pig in if it wore a blue rosette. 

"The good folk" ???

In reply to

Brilliant.. but

Oh dear, seen the comment at the bottom by some knuckle dragging moron.

so depressing.

cheers

toby

He’s a special chap.  Thinks the upskirting law is about hating men.  Presumably oblivious to the fact that a woman could be prosecuted under this law if she took a photo of someone’s bum under clothes.

Pretty sure the vast majority of men don’t support the men who do this kind of thing to their wives, girlfriends, sisters, daughters or women in general.   

TM not too pleased about it and he's backtraking somewhat

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44513497

I really don't think he is backtracking. I think he genuinely believes he is trying to promote good legislative practice. I do not think he is in favour of upskirting, or trying to prevent a law being passed to prevent it.

His parliamentary history is littered with this behaviour. And there is plenty to question about his voting history. But I suspect the accusations being thrown at him that he is either a pervert, or is protecting perverts, are unfair.

You are right on that. All the other criticism is fair.

ok maybe he's not backtracking (even a little bit ?),  other than that i have no idea about his motives ( i haven't made any accusations as im sure your aware)

Bet the PM is not best pleased about having to devote gov. parliament time to do achieve this -like the other one he scuppered

Just for the record, here's  Chope's defence of his actions (a letter to The Times this morning):

Sir, Your legal editor reported on Friday (“New offence of upskirting to carry two-year jail term”, June 15) that Lucy Frazer, justice minister, had announced that “by making upskirting a specific offence we are sending a clear message that it will not be tolerated”.

Was I alone in expecting that a government bill would be brought forward in government time to deliver the required change in the law quickly but with the opportunity for it also to be fully scrutinised in parliament?

It now seems that the government hoped to use the procedure for private member’s bills to avoid a second reading debate and then use its newly claimed right to give the “upskirting” bill priority over other private member’s bills that have already been approved at second reading after full debate but to which the government has so far denied the opportunity for a committee stage. The government should not be further undermining the principle of first come, first served for balloted private member’s bills. To ensure the fastest, fairest and surest passage to the statute book for a bill to outlaw “upskirting”, the government should introduce its own without delay. I shall then give it my wholehearted support.

Sir Christopher Chope MP
House of Commons, London

I was thinking about this this morning. Chope is bright bloke, legally trained etc. His defence is that the current parliamentary procedures around PMBs somehow produces inferior laws than HM Govt. bills. He has used this excuse for his filibustering antics previously. Surely it would be more efficient for him to get the system changed so that PMBs are subject to the same scrutiny? He's been there 35 years, surely this has occurred to him? With that in mind I afraid I don't accept his reasoning, and will continue to think the man a total dick.

So he says.  And he might have a point if he could show some obvious flaw in the bill or some public interest in forcing it to a debate.  At least in this case, by his own admission, he blocked it without having read it or even knowing what 'upskirting' meant.

This sounds to me less like someone acting out of principle as the last guardian of legislative scrutiny and more like a smug contrarian on a hobby horse. 

Yes

F*ck Theresa May and her attempts to distance herself. This is the bloke that her govt put up for a knighthood last year, he hasn't changed since then. Until he became an embarrassment last week he was fully supported by the party she leads. With few exceptions this the sort of person that makes up the 'modern' Tory party and whilst there may be some progressive Tory MPs this bloke is probably more in step with the membership than they are.

The other flaw in his "procedural" argument is that a PMB is only really different in is manner of introduction; thereafter it still has to have two readings, all the committee stages etc. etc.  can understand the need to have parliamentary scrutiny in for example legalising cannabis use in medicines (see other thread), but this is to me just a common sense extension of existing voyeurism laws that has had no objections from anyone except Chope.

But in this case an offence has not been committed provided the photographer does not use, or distribute the image to others who might use, the image to obtain sexual gratification or to humiliate/alarm/harass the woman/man (the law equally protects all genders, so transvestites/Scottish blokes wearing kilts etc are also protected). If the photographer kept the image without the victim's knowledge, it's difficult to imagine why they might have kept it without intending to obtain sexual gratification/humiliate/alarm etc.

My (loathsome) MP is Philip Davies who is in the habit of talking out bills. I've written to him on this in the past and received what I believe to be an unsatisfactory reply. I don't agree that one person should be able to act unilaterally to prevent the House from exerting its will. However, in principle I can understand why some of these bills are opposed. For instance, the carers hospital parking charges one has a number of potential flaws which are obvious if you think about it. In my view, these are probably outweighed by the benefit to the hospital and to patients of having carers attend hospital more regularly (my wife is a nurse and carers will often be on wards helping with the basic care needs of the patients - thus taking the strain off the nursing staff, thus benefiting the hospital on net, despite lost parking revenue). If you think about it even more though, charging carers for parking is not mandatory and there is nothing to prevent hospital trusts from waiving the charges themselves without central government direction. So maybe we don't need a law at all and it can be left to Trusts to get on with it themselves? So maybe there is a net disbenefit to hospitals on waiving carers parking charges? Maybe some trusts would benefit from trialling a free-carers-parking scheme? I don't know. I haven't thought about it enough and I don't have all the facts. The point I'm trying to make is that, sometimes, issues and legislation which appear to be pure common sense might not actually be that straightforward. And which politician, seeking popular appeal, is going to go and vote against one of these bills because they believe that, despite good intentions, it could inflict harm? Not many.

With regards upskirting, I've read the amendment and I can't see anything wrong with it - and I doubt Chope could either, but I suspect he objected on a point of principle - which is silly. Who knows, maybe he wants it to go to debate so that the maximum sentences can be increased to a life term?! Somehow I doubt it...

Other than baseless prejudice, what makes you think that this is true?

(I ask as someone who has never voted conservative and is a member of the Labour party).

Anecdote, what made you think it was baseless?

Because your accusation that the whole Tory party is like Chope is clearly not true. Its logically impossible. You say that "With few exceptions this the sort of person that makes up the 'modern' Tory party". If that was true, why did Chope have to act unilaterally against something that the rest of his party supported?

I don't mind criticism of the Tory party, there is a hell of a lot to criticise, but idly throwing around demonising rhetoric like this is just dumb. I'm not meaning to pick on just you, there are a lot of examples of it in this thread. I despair for the left at the moment because it has become so incredibly and vehemently intolerant of other people's views. Is that what the left should really be about?

Conservative associations throughout the country are selecting Chope and his ilk so if they are not representative of the people that make up the Tory party who is? These are the MPs that have brought us 8 years of austerity despite it's dubious economic benefits and its well documented harm, they have undermined welfare systems and lurched further right on immigration just to appease these people so, yes, the Conservative party is every bit like Chope. He was not acting unilaterally, even in a near empty chamber he was abetted by one of his colleagues, the fact that others have since (pretty quietly, lets face it) distanced themselves from him is nothing more than self-preservation. His voting record is no worse than that darling of the Tory mainstream Mogg (or any number of them really, including May).

No, what is dumb is giving TM and the rest of her party a free pass on this, if this hadn't caught this particular news cycle he would have carried on doing this and the Tories would have carried on lauding him. Let's not forget he was nominated for a knighthood by them for doing just this! Far from being reviled by the rest of the party he is a poster boy for them. Chope may have a PR problem at the moment but on the whole his policies are Tory policies, his voting record is with the government so don't be so thick as to fall for the 'no true Scotsman' argument.

I am intolerant of MPs that go out of their way to f*ck over those who are most in need of their help but I am not of the left so I've no idea why the f*ck you are asking me.

In Christchurch, the local gammons are partial to a spot of upmedicalcompressionstockinging.