This guy sounds a charmer. Mr Chope

The Children Act 2004 contains clauses to protect children from harm as, no doubt, the 1998 Act does too. If FGM isn't harm, what is? I think there is seen to be a need to "do something more" and that is why the PMB on this subject was put forward.

But, thinking (sorry, intellectualising; thanks for the compliment) about this, it seems to me that the problem, whereby people have not been prosecuted for engaging in this awful practice, has been what is euphemistically called "cultural sensitivity". Wonky thinking about multiculturalism has meant people feel awkward about calling out what are poor cultural norms, practices we should not tolerate because they are not good. I hope the recent prosecution will help shift that wonky thinking fear.

As for Chope and all the criticism of him, that's just a sideline of virtual signalling: he's such a bad man! tut, tut!
We should thank him for bringing this into the blazing public eye instead of making him a scapegoat for public outrage. Where's the equivalent public outrage about FGM?

Wow Ginny, that’s good news,

Really Ginny ? I missed that. Possible deselection? Wow

I see he's been called to an urgent meeting by his constituency to answer questions following calls for his deselection.

Fellow Tory David Hoare said:
'It’s time he considered his position and frankly b******d off.'

Hear, hear.

Well that would be ok because even if CC hadn’t shouted object it wouldn’t have had much of a debate anyway

I did mean it would pass onto the next stage of scrutiny.

Parsley the bill would not pass without comment on a Friday afternoon - it would simply go onto the next stage of scrutiny. Where on earth did you get that idea from?

As you can tell Baggs, dislike Chope’s stirring because it’s unprincipled.
I feel strongly that playing with such a serious subject as FGM is unacceptable.

On the other hand, I can also understand their wanting to get home to their families, especially those in far flung constituencies, after a week at Westminster.

Do you know, I'm beginning to like Chope's "stirring". it looks as if quite a lot of MPs need to be "stirred" rather more.

And surely every MP shold have a interest in preventing FGM? And being able to prosecute people who subject kids to it. So where were they all last Friday?

Well said, parsley.

I have no problem with MPs objecting to a private members bill that has not received proper scrutiny, in their opinion. I do object to the possibility that a poorly worded bill can pass without comment on a quiet Friday afternoon. However, it is not acceptable that MPs leave these objections to a group of backbenchers and one in particular. If a PM bill is flawed then any MP with an interest in the subject should be willing to attend the House in order to be seen to object. Otherwise the good practice of these objections is lost and the focus shifts, as it has, to the individual who is hogging the limelight.

Why would Chope try and change the PMB system? That would assume he thought it needed changing. Since he apparently uses it quite a lot for ends that people don't understand, and speculate about to his discredit, it would seem that he doesn't think it needs changing but thinks it a very useful device.

I do think the reason he chooses fairly high profile " social" cases is to deliberately stir

You could well be right, PECS, but for what purpose?

There is a Children Act 2004 as well, iam. They are not the easiest things to trawl through, are they?

Absolutely Madgran . I really cannot begin to understand why anyone thinks otherwise. Plus his lack of any meaningful action or campaign to change the whole PMB system.

I think that his hypocrisy about allowing some that suit him to go through without appropriate debate completely undermines his own explanation for his actions!

‘Intellectualising why people like Chope behave as they do doesn't butter parsnips (as my grannie might have said)’

Neither does it explain his utter hypocrisy

EllanVannin what is education? would be a long debate on its own! There are too many MPs who have blinkers, who do not have the capacity to think beyond their own experiences, the imagination to forsee the potential impact of their decisions/ actions, the ability to look at life from anothers' perspective, to even debate properly ! Our 2 party system is more and more unfit for purpose!

I have less and less respect for most MP's now as many have proved that they're not fit for the job in hand nor for the purpose of becoming MP's. Education does NOT equal common sense !!

Whilst I understand & agree that the Bill can still proceed despite the legitimate delaying actions of this man I do think the reason he chooses fairly high profile " social" cases is to deliberately stir. This does not seem to be honourable. If he really cared about these issues he would be busy preparing speeches and lobbying. I have yet to find evidence that this is what he does. Too few politicians are driven by a real desire to serve their electorate, improve the quality and safety of life for ordinary citizens. They are rather too full of their own self-importance.

Baggs may I point out there was a question mark at the end of the post you replied to. I was therefore asking a question of you, not stating a fact. No need to shout.

The Children Act 1989 enables the Court to consider the needs of the child, including the need for protection. The Court has to consider whether the child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering significant harm. There are Judgements that have been written by Judges asked to consider specific incidents or risks of harm. The Act doesn't detail every specific harm a child could be subjected to, or at risk of. That's unnecessary and unwieldy. I don't know the detail of the proposed bill but we are now almost 30 years since the Act was introduced so I'm not surprised that the need to specify FGM has been confirmed by the proposal.
Debates about the best way to work with parents to protect children at risk of FGM were taking place in the 80's when it was hoped that engaging with communities, rather than simply criminalising parents was the right way forward. I didn't share that view and I'm not up to date with statistics or the current approach. It does seem clear to me that if attempts are being made to incorporate FGM as a specific risk of harm, that's come about because the people working most closely in this area believe that is what is needed to protect children.
Intellectualising why people like Chope behave as they do doesn't butter parsnips (as my grannie might have said)

I don't believe Chope is a supporter of FGM, nor that he is indifferent about it. Therefore, logically at least, there must be a good reason he did what he did on Friday.

Time, I hope, will tell.