This guy sounds a charmer. Mr Chope

Eazybee, I don’t know how you can have missed the outrage and condemnation of the practice of FGM. It’s here on this thread, it’s been a regular cause of media reports.

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?

I'll give it a go, maiz. Let's see now... if Chap Chope is submitting PMBs himself and supported others, it does indeed seem to overshadow his 'principled' claim about why he blocks many PMBs. I've pondered on that already, as it happens, and this is what my intellectualising came up with. One's he submitted himself would, one presumes, have been well debated (by him and his buddies, or possibly by him and his wife) according to his judgment, therefore the principle thingy would be irrelevant in their cases. Likewise with the ones he supported.

I don't really see what the problem is, maiz, if he's using the block wotsit on PMBs that he doesn't think have received sufficient scrutiny. I'm not saying he's right if this is the way he thinks and people may say my intellectualising on this score has gone a bit wild, but MPs have done odder things than that many a time. I never cease to be amazed at some of their shenanigens that are supposedly on our behalf.

I can't, of course, intellectualise actual facts into not being facts but I can look at facts with a bit of lateral thinking. You should try it sometime: it's fun.

Delete the superfluous apostrophe.

Have any of ChapChope's PMBs been blocked?

Good post at 07:41:41, iam.

I don't understand what Chope's self-seeking behaviour is achieving for him though—it looks counter-productive to me—which is why I think it within the realms of possibility that attention is sought for whatever's in the PMBs that he blocks.

What is certain is that more attention does need to be paid to FGM in an advanced civilisation. One prosecution in decades is appalling.

On Friday, the veteran MP, Sir Christopher Chope, used the device of shouting “object” to prevent a Bill about female genital mutilation (FGM) going through without debate. He has previously done the same to the Bill against “upskirting”, one about flood defences, and others.
Because of his objection to the FGM Bill, he was condemned by no fewer than three Cabinet ministers – Sajid Javid, Matt Hancock and Liz Truss. Shame on them, and their virtue-signalling as they position themselves for a possible leadership contest. They know perfectly well that Sir Christopher is not trying to defend FGM. He is trying to prevent legislation by gesture. He was not trying to block the Bill, but to make sure that it did not go through on the nod.
If something is to become the law of this country it needs to be properly debated by our lawmakers. If this principle is ignored, bad law can result.

Perhaps it’s time parliamentarians sorted out the structure for debates?

And adding it specifically to the Children Act may have helped that prosecution rate. PMBs are there for the Bill's that are often common sense, not party political and do not need hours of debate. The Children Act had been thoroughly debated and voted on. To have FGM specifically named gave it the full weight of the Children Act. It was a no brainer.
Chope is a chump! The worst kind of public Conservative that I suspect many are embarrassed by!

It wasn't going through on the nod urmstongran - it was going on to the next stage of debate.
You can criticise those who criticise him , accuse them of virtue signalling and positioning themselves for leadership. How can you possibly know his motivation around FGM.
I am not virtue signalling. I've been involved in work around FGM since the 80's (until retirement not too long ago). I know the damage it causes. If there is a proposal to bring it specifically into the Children Act then I trust the people involved in that to be working in the best interests of children.

There is a letter in the Independent by Otto Inglis saying Chope should not be criticised for blocking the FGM bill. The middle two paragraphs (which I've scrunched together to make italicising easier) support the arguments I've been making:

FGM has been illegal throughout the UK since 1985, and yet we had had to wait till 2015 for the first prosecution and until this year for the first conviction. By contrast France has managed over a hundred successful prosecutions during the past 30 years. The clear inference from this is that Britain lacks the will to tackle this problem. Liz Truss, James Brokenshire and other MPs who are criticising Sir Christopher over this bill are really just virtue signalling. If they were serious about ending FGM, they would be demanding that the Home Office, the police and the prosecuting authorities prioritise its suppression.

Hear, hear Baggs I mentioned the better conviction rate in France against this barbaric practice on another thread a couple of weeks ago.

If they were serious about ending FGM, they would be demanding that the Home Office, the police and the prosecuting authorities prioritise its suppression.

Unfortunately the police and prosecuting authorities have been adversely affected by funding cuts in the name of 'austerity'. which rather limits their ability to act.

As I understand it it is extremely difficult to find evidence for, and to prosecute, FGM cases, if only if for the fact that it is carried out on very young girls, often abroad, who have very little voice. No doubt Iam64 can tell us more.

As I understand it it is extremely difficult to find evidence for, and to prosecute, FGM cases, if only if for the fact that it is carried out on very young girls, often abroad, who have very little voice.

Should we be finding out how the French manage it then?

I think it's an important point Inglis is making.

To have FGM specifically named gave it the full weight of the Children Act.

But why should it be necessary when it is "harm", which is already fully covered in the Children Act so already had "the full weight" of the Act?

As urmstongran and Otto Inglis have argued, the full weight of the Acts that are already there and have been since 1985 do not appear to have been used. Austerity can't be blamed for all that time. It would appear that the will to act just hasn't been there. So far nothing but being precious about cultural sensitivities seems to explain that, especially when UK results (or lack of them) are compared with those of France.

There is a conspiracy and culture of silence within communities where FGM is practiced. There is also the belief that girls who aren’t subjected to this barbaric mutilation won’t be marriage material, will be ostracised.
It’s my memory that In France, it’s acceptable, in factbexpected that girls in the age group are examined at school to ensure they haven’t been cut, especially after school holidays.
In this country it isn’t possible to physically examine, or question a child without parental permission, unless a court makes an order. I suspect that’s one of the reasons for the proposal to specifically name FGM within the Children Act.

Thank you for that info, iam.

I presume the PMB will go through in due course because if all the outraged MPs are worth their salt, they'll contrive to prevent Chope from blocking it again. They should jolly well try at any rate.

Baggs - I haven't googled to update myself but that's my understanding from pre-retirement. If the risk of harm is identified as FGM then the Court can make orders. No one would want to see much loved children removed from parents but maybe a Court order could prevent them being mutilated. The life long damage caused to girls and women is incalculable. Talk to any midwife.....