Upskirting bill blocked

Its simply not true that he’s against PMB full stop. I’ll try and post a link.

This is the msn supposedly against pmb putting forward a pmb
www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/politics/this-tory-is-putting-bill-to-make-patients-pay-for-nhs-treatment-before-parliament-today/11/05/

msn = man

I believe this twisted MP has taken advantage of the outdated customs and behaviour of the House of Commons. For where else in any organisation would it be allowed under rule for one person out of an attendance of over 600 to stop any change being brought forward just by shouting objection.

Following the midweek debacle during Prime Minister's question time this incident demonstrates once again that procedural change must come about in our Parliamentary system or this population will lose all confidence in our system of governance and those who are elected to perform that governance on our behalf.

Surely, it must be brought about that any MP wishing to stop the progress of a bill through Parliament must find a minimum of second person to support his or her objection which should then be voted on by the whole house immediately that the objection is put forward.

However, I do believe that the whole of our parliamentary system should immediately be reviewed so that procedures that will bring it into the modern era can be brought forward as quickly as possible.

Nothing was ever changed by people sitting back and "moaning" about the status quo (as is the case with this MP). However, demands for change directed towards the appropriate authorities and personnel will without doubt bring about that change if carried out in sufficient numbers.

He also objected today to the increased protection for police animals in the line of duty.

I struggle to wrap my head around anyone objecting to a decent sentence being handed out to the absolute lowlifes who attempt to blind police horses.

The upskirting thing particularly infuriates me because so many of the victims are actual children. Schoolchildren frequently do not get a choice about wearing skirts or not, so even those inclined to victim blame about "short skirts" and the usual nonsense haven't a leg to stand on there.

I would have been absolutely terrified if someone had done this to me on public transport as a schoolchild or indeed a young woman. I had enough deeply upsetting experiences on public transport without people taking pictures of them into the bargain.

maryeliza thanks for that most interesting link. I apologise for my language but this MP is behaving like an ar*e

From maryeliza's link it appears he has a history of this sort of thing. He sounds a most unpleasant man.

I'm not sure Chope objects to protecting women and dogs from disgusting or violent behaviour. I think the argument (aside from his apparently standard objection to Private Members' Bills, which is a separate issue) is that making something illegal or increasing the potential punishment for behaviour like upskirting or stabbing a police dog, which seems to be what the proposed legislation in England is about (upskirting is already a crime in Scotland), does not technically "protect" women or police dogs. It (potentially) punishes perpetrators.

Proper consequences for disgusting or violent behaviour are good but they are not "protection". Bullet- or slash-proof dog jackets would be protection and not wearing skimpy skirts would do more to protect women from upskirting. Please note, I am not saying that women shouldn't wear skimpy skirts if they want to, nor disapproving of the practice, just pointing out that certain other types of clothing that are just as fashionable and stylish give a woman more "protection" from upskirting. This is true whether one likes it or not.

The proposed laws on both these topics are about punishment for offenders, not about protection of women or dogs, which is what is claimed in this quote from the Guardian: The criminalisation of upskirting … is a welcome first step towards a more comprehensive law protecting victims of all forms of image-based sexual abuse, which also includes so-called ‘revenge porn'

I think everyone, even Chope, and even probably upskirters and police dog attackers, know already that such behaviour is totally unacceptable.

So, just to be clear, I'm not arguing against greater punishment for convicted perpetrators of upskirting or attacks on police dogs. I'm arguing against calling laws to increase the consequences of such behaviour "protection". So I think, like most other people, it seems, that Chope was probably wrong to oppose the PMBs on these topics.

The government could change the law on how to stop PMBs too.

Proper protection would be for perverts to stop doing it. If harsher penalties and greater public awareness / disapproval stops some of them that’s got to be good. Firming up the law is one step.

I don’t know if I accept that arguement Baggs. IMO if some act or other, especially one which is premeditated, now carries the potential of persecution and a jail sentence some people might think twice about it.

That will offer some degree of ‘protection’ inasmuch as, in the case of ‘upskirting’, anyone then accused of such a crime will have their behaviour exposed in a public court and this might well deter others.

This would probably not be true in cases such as stabbing a police dog, where these actions are carried out in the heat of the moment by the type of thug who habitually carries a knife anyway.

I was delighted at the 20+ years sentences handed down to the two thugs who killed a Youth Worker while stealing his mobile phone and mounted on scooters. Surely this will send a powerful message to others of this ilk.

Oops! Prosecution not persecution ??

The government could change the law on how to stop PMBs too.

No they couldn't. They could propose legislation but it would need the consent of Parliament to be enacted.

It's really time that filibustering was stopped, though.

Put like this
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 statute 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
(BBC News online) Chope's approach to "flabby legislation" does not look unreasonable. Flabby legislation is probably more expensive to taxpayers than legislation made less flabbily, and also probably less efficient. I would be interested to hear the point of view of an experienced lawyer on that.

Thank you for the correction, me. I think you're right, but the fact remains that parliament and government can and probably should do something about parliamentary procedure on PMBs, which is what I meant.

I'm not being sarcastic. I appreciate the correction.

How very patronising of Sir C and his cronies to take it upon themselves to define bills like this as ‘well-meaning but flabby’. I think this time they have shot themselves in the foot!

He wasn’t probsbly wrong - he was completely and utterly wrong. You have to look at this in the context of his whole parliamentary career - he has opposed just about every socially liberal and humane piece of legislation that has come before the House during his otherwise completely undistinguished career as an MP. He is self regarding and attention seeking. The story about his umbrage at the delay in his false Twitter account being taken down is typical of the man - it’s all about him. I think we all understand that laws don’t per se protect people and that some laws in particular have to be part of a range of measures that will hopefully eventually lessen the likelihood of such behaviour happening. But punishment is also part of how any society operates so far as behaviour that has been deemed illegal is concerned. To be a young girl upskirted is bad enough, to see the person who did it go unpunished makes it even worse. Over the years I have followed pmb that I supported be objected to because they were badly drafted, had little support,needed thinking about more etc and they have resurfaced later as much better bills. None of this applied in this case - it was one man riding his pet hobby horse because frankly he has nothing else to ‘contribute’ of any worth or measure to Parliament.

As for ‘flabby’ legislation, in this case anyway the arguemrnt is complete rubbish because we have the experience of Scotland to draw upon. Parliamentary draftsmen would anyway be involved in the drafting of any pmb and after a 2nd reading, there is the committee stage for scrutiny. PMB have played a huge role in our society and for one arrogant man to take it upon himself to decide to halt ( or in this case delay) progress for no good reason is so fundamentally undemocratic as to be an utter farce.

Chris Chope is a nasty piece of work. I am ashamed that he went to my alma mater St Andrews, and I think (but may be wrong) that he stood for Parliament when we lived in Richmond. The Liberal candidate got in though. ?

Chris Chope is described as a 'right wing' tory. The news on line this morning makes clear his action on the upskirting pmb is disliked by every other tory MP interviewed on the subject. Thanks maryeliza for the links, which confirm that as well as being to the right of Genghis Khan in his political views, he doesn't give a flying fig about anyone who lacks the wealth and wherewithal to protect themselves and ensure they have proper medical and social services.
Baggs - I understand your point about 'flabby' legislation but Chris Chope's behaviour in blocking bills doesn't seem to have that as its focus. He seems to be an old fashioned, right wing, libertarian. His action on up skirting is unforgivable. As for blocking the attempts on protection/prosecution for those who hurt police horses and dogs - what's that about?! Disgusting.

I haven’t yet seen a statement from his constituency association.

Good post Iam - that’s it in a nutshell.
I wonder how long we’ll have to wait for that Maryeliza.

I think people are equating making something illegal with stopping it happening. If that were true then people would definitely be protected from upskirting if it is made illegal (already is in Scotland) and police dogs would definitely be protected from attack.

Also, murder would not happen. Neither would rape or robbery. You get the idea?

Real life evidence shows that making something illegal does not stop it happening. That is the point I am making over the use of the "protection from" idea, regardless of the parliamentary antics of right- or left-leaning or centre-ground MPs.

My argument is not that upskirting and attacking police dogs should not be made illegal and I don't think Chope's is either even though, like most people, I think his method of blocking changes in the law on upskirting is, to put it mildly, annoying and frustrating to the people who want to change the law.

Actually I think attacking police dogs is already illegal. The problem, as I understand it, is that it comes under damage to property legislation rather than Actual Bodily Harm legislation which carries heavier penalties.

It is heavier penalties that the proposed law change is about. If people want to believe that that is equal to greater protection for potential victims, then so be it. I just don't agree that it is or will be. As I've already said, that is a separate issue from the morality of the behaviours in question. Of course sexual harassment and attacking police dogs should have adequate legal consequences. The question is how to go about it. Chope seems to think that PMBs are not the right way. One doesn't have to agree with him or to like his approach to politics to accept that it is, and quite rightly, a 'legal' point of view that he has a right to express.

I would accept Chope's right to object to "flabby" legislation if he had put forward - in Parliament at the time - a rational argument for doing so. He didnt. He has subsequently claimed that he doesnt even know what the bill was about, You have to wonder if he had even read it.

How we exercise our ‘rights’ is often the measure of us. Just because we can doesn’t make it acceptable that we automatically should . His constituency association have told LBC they have no comment btw

Is the importance attached to this PMB in proportion to the number of MPs in the House that day?
There appeared to be very few.

He's a barrister alreadytaken - of course he knew what it was about. I would also accept his right to object to 'flabby' PMB but he should ascertain the importance of any subject before objecting.

I think people are equating making something illegal with stopping it happening
It will not stop it happening, but making it illegal with penalties in line with other sexual offences should act as a deterrent.