This guy sounds a charmer. Mr Chope

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.

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

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?

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 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.

Well said, parsley.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

Really Ginny ? I missed that. Possible deselection? Wow

Wow Ginny, that’s good news,

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?

In the end what Chope has done has not done any harm to the cause of preventing FGM. It may even have helped that cause. If he takes flak for it, good for him. We need more people with principles to stick their necks out, not fewer.

I still think the system needs reform. And yes Chope is bringing it into the public eye. But as his expressed aim is to change the system then he should do that consistently! Not doing so diminishes his cause!

The public outrage about FGM on this forum is demonstrated by peoples anger at his actions!

Cultural sensitivity was as effective commented earlier, an issue in the 80’s when it was hoped that working with the communities would lead to this FGM being seen for what it is and the practice stopped by parents. That view was strongly opposed by many police, social workers, Health practitioners . The lack of successful prosecutions has not been because of cultural sensitivity. A number of prosecutions failed and it seems obvious the attempt to specify FGM in the Children Act reflects that.
Don’t congratulate this self seeking man, he had no intention of helping children at risk of FGM. Instead, thank those public servants who work tirelessly to try and protect children. Let’s focus on the reality here, not attempt to reframe the behaviour of this man as having assisted the cause.

CC did NOT bring it into the public eye - and he did not shout object so to do. He has NO principles re PMB ( or ptobably anything else for that matter). Maybe his fan club on here could explain why he picks and chooses which bills he objects to and seems to allow his mates bills to go unchallenged? I’d love an intellectually coherent defence of the position he actually holds. Muummmm thought not. Of course the PMB system needs reforming but this self serving failed entitled has been backbencher is not the man to do it - that might require a bit of hard work a concept which his long career in Parliament has failed to demonstrate he is acquainted with.

I don't know which twitter thread you read, Baggs but you clearly didn't look at the one I posted a link to. The very first tweet says:

Christopher Chope has submitted somewhere in region of 50 private member's bills, and supported numerous others".

Perhaps you'd like to intellectualise that fact away?

There's a point where you're just being a twat, and he's clearly passed it

Christopher Chope's objection to the bill on Female Gender Mutilation, as with many others, is to prevent the Bill going through on the nod, that is, without being properly debated, and thus creating bad law, which clever lawyers can exploit.
I absolutely agree, Baggs, where is the outrage and condemnation at the practice?

No it isn’t eazy see Maizie post. He himself uses and supports PMBs when it suits him and his friends. PMBs do NOT go through on the nod if no one shouts object. They are subject to proper scrutiny at the committee stage and at any time the Govt can grant extra time There is plenty of discussion about having a better PMB system ( which imo would give then more time and MPs more opportunities to introduce them) but CC has not taken any part in sensible discussion - he just gets a bit of attention by shouting object when it suits him. This might have bit him in the bottom this time though. Also he has never put his name to any FMG support.