This guy sounds a charmer. Mr Chope

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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?

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

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.

Have any of ChapChope's PMBs been blocked?

Delete the superfluous apostrophe.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.