The Billy Caldwell case, the poor lad who needs cannabis oil to help deal with his seizures, is genuinely disgusting.
The kneejerk reaction is "well, it's because of the Daily Mail lot isn't it?" but whenever I see drug legalisation articles on the Daily Mail, when its things like cannabis and not complete decriminalisation, the top rated comments all revolve around legalising it.
Having said that, this oil doesn't even have the psychoactive ingredient THC, it instead uses CBD. It's not like we are rolling up a spliff for a 12 year old and making him smoke it.
Something that would be so simple to rectify, at the very least for medicinal reasons that doesn't have THC!
This problem is not to do with Tory or Labour but flexibility. It needs somebody in the relevant position in government to say, let's get this oil in now for this boy. If I was somebody who could order this to happen, I don't know how I could live with myself not doing anything!
This is outside of the debate as to whether cannabis should be legal or not. It is a vital medicine for this lad and he should not be deprived of it! As Chope's behaviour is shameful, so is the inactivity here. Public outrage has to try to affect a change quickly! It is a powerful tool!
That's Sir Christopher Chope to all you peasants, ever since he was knighted under Theresa May's government.
Just reading all the other stuff about him re: voting against minimum wage and how much he claims in expenses. If true you know the guy is an absolute scumbag. Why do so many of his type get into government
The Billy Caldwell case, the poor lad who needs cannabis oil to help deal with his seizures, is genuinely disgusting.
The kneejerk reaction is "well, it's because of the Daily Mail lot isn't it?" but whenever I see drug legalisation articles on the Daily Mail, when its things like cannabis and not complete decriminalisation, the top rated comments all revolve around legalising it.
Having said that, this oil doesn't even have the psychoactive ingredient THC, it instead uses CBD. It's not like we are rolling up a spliff for a 12 year old and making him smoke it.
Something that would be so simple to rectify, at the very least for medicinal reasons that doesn't have THC!
That's Sir Christopher Chope to all you peasants, ever since he was knighted under Theresa May's government.
Just reading all the other stuff about him re: voting against minimum wage and how much he claims in expenses. If true you know the guy is an absolute scumbag. Why do so many of his type get into government
Christopher Chope is one of the biggest c##ts in the Tory party. Possible the very biggest. He is the MP for the next constituency over to mine. Some of the stuff he comes out with locally is little short of disgusting and clearly against the majority interests of his constituency.
He has gotten away with these parliamentary stunts like the filibustering and objecting to private members bills for years (although he's happy enough with the Henry VIII provisions of course...). He was one of the dickheads that camped out at parliament to block the list for private members bills with his own bullshit ones to ensure there wasn't any chance of anything Brexit related on the list. He thinks it's all a big hoot to play these stupid games.
May gave him a knighthood only recently because he was making noises about crossing the floor to UKIP or packing in the Tories if they don't deliver his hard Brexit.
He's a very poor MP and a worse human being but can get away with it because he has a demographic in his constituency that would vote for a chair if it wore a blue rosette.
Surely it's in the interests of most Dorset folk to ensure the rest of the country is as miserable as possible, so as to make their county such an appealing holiday destination
The reactions on here re Chope were exactly the same as mine were. Initially. But then I thought about it a bit. Chope is a barrister. I haven't seen the wording of the draft bill but wonder if it was defective? (Private members' bills often are - the dangerous dogs legislation being a prime example.)
Here's an example. What item(s) of clothing is mentioned? Is it just the "skirt"? Would that make it an offence for blokes to take photos up women's skirts while leaving it as entirely legal for women to take photos up blokes' shorts? If so, the draft would be defective. I suspect it will be back in due course but properly written. Anyone got a link to the draft bill?
Edited to add: I've found the draft. It is the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill, the purpose of which is to amend other existing legislation. It is neutral with regard to clothing and sex.
But I wonder if Chope didn't like this bit:
(3) The purposes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are— (a) obtaining sexual gratification (whether for A or C), or (b) humiliating, distressing or alarming B.
It seems to me that if you were "just doing it for a laugh" rather than any form of gratification, etc then it might be difficult to prove otherwise.
In any event Chope is still a tosser.
I don't believe Chope has practised for donkeys years but in any event he didn't do it because he thinks the law was defective, (I don't think it is), he did it on "principal".
Well done Sajid Javid actually, looks like he took on board what he was told and made a pragmatic decision.
Smart move, those women from Castlederg are scary...
There's an element of the Caldwell family seeking to bring matters to a head (for example flying into London and deciding to remain there until matters were resolved), which is logical, because London media would be unlikely to pay too much attention for a West Tyrone story (there's been a campaign, including fund raising for treatment in America for a number of years).
The reactions on here re Chope were exactly the same as mine were. Initially. But then I thought about it a bit. Chope is a barrister. I haven't seen the wording of the draft bill but wonder if it was defective? (Private members' bills often are - the dangerous dogs legislation being a prime example.)
Here's an example. What item(s) of clothing is mentioned? Is it just the "skirt"? Would that make it an offence for blokes to take photos up women's skirts while leaving it as entirely legal for women to take photos up blokes' shorts? If so, the draft would be defective. I suspect it will be back in due course but properly written. Anyone got a link to the draft bill?
Edited to add: I've found the draft. It is the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill, the purpose of which is to amend other existing legislation. It is neutral with regard to clothing and sex.
But I wonder if Chope didn't like this bit:
(3) The purposes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are— (a) obtaining sexual gratification (whether for A or C), or (b) humiliating, distressing or alarming B.
It seems to me that if you were "just doing it for a laugh" rather than any form of gratification, etc then it might be difficult to prove otherwise.
In any event Chope is still a tosser.
I don't believe Chope has practised for donkeys years but in any event he didn't do it because he thinks the law was defective, (I don't think it is), he did it on "principal".
We can agree he's a massive tosser though.
Dl you have a source for this, as I'd love to know what freskish principals support taking those kinds of photos.
I couldn't believe there wasn't already a law, but apparently current legislation applies to hidden cameras in bathrooms etc... if the images are showing private parts. If the victim of an upskirt picture is wearing knickers this isn't deemed to be the case! Imagine what effect it could have on them though, even imagine if a victim was your daughter! I think he should be punished by his party or he is just going to do it again.
The reactions on here re Chope were exactly the same as mine were. Initially. But then I thought about it a bit. Chope is a barrister. I haven't seen the wording of the draft bill but wonder if it was defective? (Private members' bills often are - the dangerous dogs legislation being a prime example.)
Here's an example. What item(s) of clothing is mentioned? Is it just the "skirt"? Would that make it an offence for blokes to take photos up women's skirts while leaving it as entirely legal for women to take photos up blokes' shorts? If so, the draft would be defective. I suspect it will be back in due course but properly written. Anyone got a link to the draft bill?
Edited to add: I've found the draft. It is the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill, the purpose of which is to amend other existing legislation. It is neutral with regard to clothing and sex.
But I wonder if Chope didn't like this bit:
(3) The purposes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are— (a) obtaining sexual gratification (whether for A or C), or (b) humiliating, distressing or alarming B.
It seems to me that if you were "just doing it for a laugh" rather than any form of gratification, etc then it might be difficult to prove otherwise.
In any event Chope is still a tosser.
I don't believe Chope has practised for donkeys years but in any event he didn't do it because he thinks the law was defective, (I don't think it is), he did it on "principal".
We can agree he's a massive tosser though.
Dl you have a source for this, as I'd love to know what freskish principals support taking those kinds of photos.
I don't think he supports the taking of these sorts of photos per se, more that he doesn't think laws should be passed without parliamentary debate - which is the case with laws passed this way.
"Ms Martin's lawyer, Ryan Wheeler, said in a tweet that Sir Christopher objected to the bill because it had "not been debated".
We have just spoken with Sir Christopher Chope. He has objected on a principled basis because the bill has not been debated. He has kindly agreed to meet with Gina and I to discuss the bill next week..."
Quite happy of course to put forward his own bills though.
He's taking pelters for it locally. They'll all still vote for the scumbag obviously.
The reactions on here re Chope were exactly the same as mine were. Initially. But then I thought about it a bit. Chope is a barrister. I haven't seen the wording of the draft bill but wonder if it was defective? (Private members' bills often are - the dangerous dogs legislation being a prime example.)
Here's an example. What item(s) of clothing is mentioned? Is it just the "skirt"? Would that make it an offence for blokes to take photos up women's skirts while leaving it as entirely legal for women to take photos up blokes' shorts? If so, the draft would be defective. I suspect it will be back in due course but properly written. Anyone got a link to the draft bill?
Edited to add: I've found the draft. It is the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill, the purpose of which is to amend other existing legislation. It is neutral with regard to clothing and sex.
But I wonder if Chope didn't like this bit:
(3) The purposes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are— (a) obtaining sexual gratification (whether for A or C), or (b) humiliating, distressing or alarming B.
It seems to me that if you were "just doing it for a laugh" rather than any form of gratification, etc then it might be difficult to prove otherwise.
In any event Chope is still a tosser.
I don't believe Chope has practised for donkeys years but in any event he didn't do it because he thinks the law was defective, (I don't think it is), he did it on "principal".
We can agree he's a massive tosser though.
I've no idea what his motives were really, just speculating.
As regards the bill, I'm still of the view that the drafting is somewhat slack.
For example, it says "in circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would not otherwise be visible."
So, take a photo of someone's knickers underneath their clothing standing at a bus stop, go straight to gaol, get put on the sex offenders register. Take a picture of someone's bum as you're standing behind them on an escalator; or of someone's crotch as they sit opposite you on the tube in a short skirt; or of someone's bikini bottoms as they sunbathe on Bournemouth beach - no action possible by the authorities either because there is no over-garment and/or the subject of the image is already on show. How is that sensible? Or indeed, the result the world and his wife would be expecting.
The bill also says "records an image". To avoid possible contention in Courts, together with the inevitable appeals and their inherent costs, it should surely be more specific and for the sake of clarity add a "a series of images" or "frames per second" to accommodate the taking of movie clips.
The reactions on here re Chope were exactly the same as mine were. Initially. But then I thought about it a bit. Chope is a barrister. I haven't seen the wording of the draft bill but wonder if it was defective? (Private members' bills often are - the dangerous dogs legislation being a prime example.)
Here's an example. What item(s) of clothing is mentioned? Is it just the "skirt"? Would that make it an offence for blokes to take photos up women's skirts while leaving it as entirely legal for women to take photos up blokes' shorts? If so, the draft would be defective. I suspect it will be back in due course but properly written. Anyone got a link to the draft bill?
Edited to add: I've found the draft. It is the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill, the purpose of which is to amend other existing legislation. It is neutral with regard to clothing and sex.
But I wonder if Chope didn't like this bit:
(3) The purposes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are— (a) obtaining sexual gratification (whether for A or C), or (b) humiliating, distressing or alarming B.
It seems to me that if you were "just doing it for a laugh" rather than any form of gratification, etc then it might be difficult to prove otherwise.
In any event Chope is still a tosser.
I don't believe Chope has practised for donkeys years but in any event he didn't do it because he thinks the law was defective, (I don't think it is), he did it on "principal".
We can agree he's a massive tosser though.
I've no idea what his motives were really, just speculating.
As regards the bill, I'm still of the view that the drafting is somewhat slack.
For example, it says "in circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would not otherwise be visible."
So, take a photo of someone's knickers underneath their clothing standing at a bus stop, go straight to gaol, get put on the sex offenders register. Take a picture of someone's bum as you're standing behind them on an escalator; or of someone's crotch as they sit opposite you on the tube in a short skirt; or of someone's bikini bottoms as they sunbathe on Bournemouth beach - no action possible by the authorities either because there is no over-garment and/or the subject of the image is already on show. How is that sensible? Or indeed, the result the world and his wife would be expecting.
The bill also says "records an image". To avoid possible contention in Courts, together with the inevitable appeals and their inherent costs, it should surely be more specific and for the sake of clarity add a "a series of images" or "frames per second" to accommodate the taking of movie clips.
Maybe* but the point is he hasn't done this because he believes the proposal to be deficient, he's only done it because it wasn't proposed by him or one of his few mates in parliament. That and the fact he's a c##t...
*btw I agree that domestic law is often badly drafted and imo inferior to that coming out of the EU. Maybe there should be a thread where we could discuss the impact of Brexit on that ;-)
The reactions on here re Chope were exactly the same as mine were. Initially. But then I thought about it a bit. Chope is a barrister. I haven't seen the wording of the draft bill but wonder if it was defective? (Private members' bills often are - the dangerous dogs legislation being a prime example.)
Here's an example. What item(s) of clothing is mentioned? Is it just the "skirt"? Would that make it an offence for blokes to take photos up women's skirts while leaving it as entirely legal for women to take photos up blokes' shorts? If so, the draft would be defective. I suspect it will be back in due course but properly written. Anyone got a link to the draft bill?
Edited to add: I've found the draft. It is the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill, the purpose of which is to amend other existing legislation. It is neutral with regard to clothing and sex.
But I wonder if Chope didn't like this bit:
(3) The purposes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are— (a) obtaining sexual gratification (whether for A or C), or (b) humiliating, distressing or alarming B.
It seems to me that if you were "just doing it for a laugh" rather than any form of gratification, etc then it might be difficult to prove otherwise.
In any event Chope is still a tosser.
I don't believe Chope has practised for donkeys years but in any event he didn't do it because he thinks the law was defective, (I don't think it is), he did it on "principal".
We can agree he's a massive tosser though.
I've no idea what his motives were really, just speculating.
As regards the bill, I'm still of the view that the drafting is somewhat slack.
For example, it says "in circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would not otherwise be visible."
So, take a photo of someone's knickers underneath their clothing standing at a bus stop, go straight to gaol, get put on the sex offenders register. Take a picture of someone's bum as you're standing behind them on an escalator; or of someone's crotch as they sit opposite you on the tube in a short skirt; or of someone's bikini bottoms as they sunbathe on Bournemouth beach - no action possible by the authorities either because there is no over-garment and/or the subject of the image is already on show. How is that sensible? Or indeed, the result the world and his wife would be expecting.
The bill also says "records an image". To avoid possible contention in Courts, together with the inevitable appeals and their inherent costs, it should surely be more specific and for the sake of clarity add a "a series of images" or "frames per second" to accommodate the taking of movie clips.
You raise interesting points that Chope didn't, he simply shouted 'object'. Further detail could be sorted before ratification, but not for Chope, he crushed it (as he repeatedly does) because he is a c*nt of the first order. Easy to believe he got his Knighthood for services to c*ntishness.
The reactions on here re Chope were exactly the same as mine were. Initially. But then I thought about it a bit. Chope is a barrister. I haven't seen the wording of the draft bill but wonder if it was defective? (Private members' bills often are - the dangerous dogs legislation being a prime example.)
Here's an example. What item(s) of clothing is mentioned? Is it just the "skirt"? Would that make it an offence for blokes to take photos up women's skirts while leaving it as entirely legal for women to take photos up blokes' shorts? If so, the draft would be defective. I suspect it will be back in due course but properly written. Anyone got a link to the draft bill?
Edited to add: I've found the draft. It is the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill, the purpose of which is to amend other existing legislation. It is neutral with regard to clothing and sex.
But I wonder if Chope didn't like this bit:
(3) The purposes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are— (a) obtaining sexual gratification (whether for A or C), or (b) humiliating, distressing or alarming B.
It seems to me that if you were "just doing it for a laugh" rather than any form of gratification, etc then it might be difficult to prove otherwise.
In any event Chope is still a tosser.
I don't believe Chope has practised for donkeys years but in any event he didn't do it because he thinks the law was defective, (I don't think it is), he did it on "principal".
We can agree he's a massive tosser though.
I've no idea what his motives were really, just speculating.
As regards the bill, I'm still of the view that the drafting is somewhat slack.
For example, it says "in circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would not otherwise be visible."
So, take a photo of someone's knickers underneath their clothing standing at a bus stop, go straight to gaol, get put on the sex offenders register. Take a picture of someone's bum as you're standing behind them on an escalator; or of someone's crotch as they sit opposite you on the tube in a short skirt; or of someone's bikini bottoms as they sunbathe on Bournemouth beach - no action possible by the authorities either because there is no over-garment and/or the subject of the image is already on show. How is that sensible? Or indeed, the result the world and his wife would be expecting.
The bill also says "records an image". To avoid possible contention in Courts, together with the inevitable appeals and their inherent costs, it should surely be more specific and for the sake of clarity add a "a series of images" or "frames per second" to accommodate the taking of movie clips.
You raise interesting points that Chope didn't, he simply shouted 'object'. Further detail could be sorted before ratification, but not for Chope, he crushed it (as he repeatedly does) because he is a c*nt of the first order. Easy to believe he got his Knighthood for services to c*ntishness.
Well, there's his issue then! He doesn't want people going to gaol just for taking photos of him! ;-)
But, seriously, he's taking advantage of an archaic practice that parties of all shades could have knocked on the head years ago but haven't bothered to. If you want to get it sorted write to Corbyn demanding changes to parliamentary procedures when he gets into power.
Why wait? May said on Marr that it will now be brought back in Government time. Chope, who May gave a Knighthood to six months ago, will object then with his thought through narrative? Will he buggery, he will suck up to May at that time because of her previous patronage. Ram it to me if I turn out to be wrong.
The reactions on here re Chope were exactly the same as mine were. Initially. But then I thought about it a bit. Chope is a barrister. I haven't seen the wording of the draft bill but wonder if it was defective? (Private members' bills often are - the dangerous dogs legislation being a prime example.)
Here's an example. What item(s) of clothing is mentioned? Is it just the "skirt"? Would that make it an offence for blokes to take photos up women's skirts while leaving it as entirely legal for women to take photos up blokes' shorts? If so, the draft would be defective. I suspect it will be back in due course but properly written. Anyone got a link to the draft bill?
Edited to add: I've found the draft. It is the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill, the purpose of which is to amend other existing legislation. It is neutral with regard to clothing and sex.
But I wonder if Chope didn't like this bit:
(3) The purposes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are— (a) obtaining sexual gratification (whether for A or C), or (b) humiliating, distressing or alarming B.
It seems to me that if you were "just doing it for a laugh" rather than any form of gratification, etc then it might be difficult to prove otherwise.
In any event Chope is still a tosser.
I don't believe Chope has practised for donkeys years but in any event he didn't do it because he thinks the law was defective, (I don't think it is), he did it on "principal".
We can agree he's a massive tosser though.
I've no idea what his motives were really, just speculating.
As regards the bill, I'm still of the view that the drafting is somewhat slack.
For example, it says "in circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would not otherwise be visible."
So, take a photo of someone's knickers underneath their clothing standing at a bus stop, go straight to gaol, get put on the sex offenders register. Take a picture of someone's bum as you're standing behind them on an escalator; or of someone's crotch as they sit opposite you on the tube in a short skirt; or of someone's bikini bottoms as they sunbathe on Bournemouth beach - no action possible by the authorities either because there is no over-garment and/or the subject of the image is already on show. How is that sensible? Or indeed, the result the world and his wife would be expecting.
The bill also says "records an image". To avoid possible contention in Courts, together with the inevitable appeals and their inherent costs, it should surely be more specific and for the sake of clarity add a "a series of images" or "frames per second" to accommodate the taking of movie clips.
I think the current law already covers the second example - this is to fill a loophole.
The reactions on here re Chope were exactly the same as mine were. Initially. But then I thought about it a bit. Chope is a barrister. I haven't seen the wording of the draft bill but wonder if it was defective? (Private members' bills often are - the dangerous dogs legislation being a prime example.)
Here's an example. What item(s) of clothing is mentioned? Is it just the "skirt"? Would that make it an offence for blokes to take photos up women's skirts while leaving it as entirely legal for women to take photos up blokes' shorts? If so, the draft would be defective. I suspect it will be back in due course but properly written. Anyone got a link to the draft bill?
Edited to add: I've found the draft. It is the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill, the purpose of which is to amend other existing legislation. It is neutral with regard to clothing and sex.
But I wonder if Chope didn't like this bit:
(3) The purposes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are— (a) obtaining sexual gratification (whether for A or C), or (b) humiliating, distressing or alarming B.
It seems to me that if you were "just doing it for a laugh" rather than any form of gratification, etc then it might be difficult to prove otherwise.
In any event Chope is still a tosser.
I don't believe Chope has practised for donkeys years but in any event he didn't do it because he thinks the law was defective, (I don't think it is), he did it on "principal".
We can agree he's a massive tosser though.
I've no idea what his motives were really, just speculating.
As regards the bill, I'm still of the view that the drafting is somewhat slack.
For example, it says "in circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would not otherwise be visible."
So, take a photo of someone's knickers underneath their clothing standing at a bus stop, go straight to gaol, get put on the sex offenders register. Take a picture of someone's bum as you're standing behind them on an escalator; or of someone's crotch as they sit opposite you on the tube in a short skirt; or of someone's bikini bottoms as they sunbathe on Bournemouth beach - no action possible by the authorities either because there is no over-garment and/or the subject of the image is already on show. How is that sensible? Or indeed, the result the world and his wife would be expecting.
The bill also says "records an image". To avoid possible contention in Courts, together with the inevitable appeals and their inherent costs, it should surely be more specific and for the sake of clarity add a "a series of images" or "frames per second" to accommodate the taking of movie clips.
I think the current law already covers the second example - this is to fill a loophole.
Do you think so? For interest, can you point me in the direction of said legislation? (The only relevant legislation in E&W seems to be the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The only bits that seem to vaguely cover such activities feature under sections 67 and 68 on voyeurism [and this bill's intention was clearly to add more bits to these sections]). But they currently clearly only cover "a person doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy". That would automatically preclude escalators, tube trains and Bournemouth beach wouldn't it?
You are merely proving to be as bad as Chope. Actually not as bad, as you have not stopped this legislation that has cross party support and makes sense!
You are merely proving to be as bad as Chope. Actually not as bad, as you have not stopped this legislation that has cross party support and makes sense!
It only makes sense if you read it in isolation. It needs to be read in conjunction with existing legislation. There are sufficient lacunas in it to drive a coach and horses through any case that arose from it. In which case it will fail in its aim, which would be a shame.
All I want is practical, workable, legislation on the statute books that actually achieves the intended purpose. In my view, this draft bill will probably fail to achieve what it sets out to and if brought into law would need redrafting in next to no time. Explain to me what's sensible about that?
You are merely proving to be as bad as Chope. Actually not as bad, as you have not stopped this legislation that has cross party support and makes sense!
It only makes sense if you read it in isolation. It needs to be read in conjunction with existing legislation. There are sufficient lacunas in it to drive a coach and horses through any case that arose from it. In which case it will fail in its aim, which would be a shame.
All I want is practical, workable, legislation on the statute books that actually achieves the intended purpose. In my view, this draft bill will probably fail to achieve what it sets out to and if brought into law would need redrafting in next to no time. Explain to me what's sensible about that?
Is that not what the House of Lords is for?
While I agree with a lot of what you say, I don't think he has done it for any other reason that he believes government should dominate the legislative agenda. If not, where was was his objection to the Parliament member's fund? Why did he create 31 private members bills last year if he thinks they do not face proper scrutiny? The whole point of the mechanism is to allow our elected representatives to suggest laws and raise debate free from the restraints of government after all.
Comments
The kneejerk reaction is "well, it's because of the Daily Mail lot isn't it?" but whenever I see drug legalisation articles on the Daily Mail, when its things like cannabis and not complete decriminalisation, the top rated comments all revolve around legalising it.
Having said that, this oil doesn't even have the psychoactive ingredient THC, it instead uses CBD. It's not like we are rolling up a spliff for a 12 year old and making him smoke it.
Something that would be so simple to rectify, at the very least for medicinal reasons that doesn't have THC!
Shameful.
This is outside of the debate as to whether cannabis should be legal or not. It is a vital medicine for this lad and he should not be deprived of it! As Chope's behaviour is shameful, so is the inactivity here. Public outrage has to try to affect a change quickly! It is a powerful tool!
Right decision has been made regardless.
He has gotten away with these parliamentary stunts like the filibustering and objecting to private members bills for years (although he's happy enough with the Henry VIII provisions of course...). He was one of the dickheads that camped out at parliament to block the list for private members bills with his own bullshit ones to ensure there wasn't any chance of anything Brexit related on the list. He thinks it's all a big hoot to play these stupid games.
May gave him a knighthood only recently because he was making noises about crossing the floor to UKIP or packing in the Tories if they don't deliver his hard Brexit.
He's a very poor MP and a worse human being but can get away with it because he has a demographic in his constituency that would vote for a chair if it wore a blue rosette.
I'm not keen...
We can agree he's a massive tosser though.
There's an element of the Caldwell family seeking to bring matters to a head (for example flying into London and deciding to remain there until matters were resolved), which is logical, because London media would be unlikely to pay too much attention for a West Tyrone story (there's been a campaign, including fund raising for treatment in America for a number of years).
bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/16294155.Government_Minister_slams_Chris_Chope_as_a__dinosaur__after_blocking_proposed_upskirting_law/
"Ms Martin's lawyer, Ryan Wheeler, said in a tweet that Sir Christopher objected to the bill because it had "not been debated".
We have just spoken with Sir Christopher Chope. He has objected on a principled basis because the bill has not been debated. He has kindly agreed to meet with Gina and I to discuss the bill next week..."
Quite happy of course to put forward his own bills though.
He's taking pelters for it locally. They'll all still vote for the scumbag obviously.
As regards the bill, I'm still of the view that the drafting is somewhat slack.
For example, it says "in circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would not otherwise be visible."
So, take a photo of someone's knickers underneath their clothing standing at a bus stop, go straight to gaol, get put on the sex offenders register. Take a picture of someone's bum as you're standing behind them on an escalator; or of someone's crotch as they sit opposite you on the tube in a short skirt; or of someone's bikini bottoms as they sunbathe on Bournemouth beach - no action possible by the authorities either because there is no over-garment and/or the subject of the image is already on show. How is that sensible? Or indeed, the result the world and his wife would be expecting.
The bill also says "records an image". To avoid possible contention in Courts, together with the inevitable appeals and their inherent costs, it should surely be more specific and for the sake of clarity add a "a series of images" or "frames per second" to accommodate the taking of movie clips.
*btw I agree that domestic law is often badly drafted and imo inferior to that coming out of the EU. Maybe there should be a thread where we could discuss the impact of Brexit on that ;-)
But, seriously, he's taking advantage of an archaic practice that parties of all shades could have knocked on the head years ago but haven't bothered to. If you want to get it sorted write to Corbyn demanding changes to parliamentary procedures when he gets into power.
May said on Marr that it will now be brought back in Government time. Chope, who May gave a Knighthood to six months ago, will object then with his thought through narrative?
Will he buggery, he will suck up to May at that time because of her previous patronage.
Ram it to me if I turn out to be wrong.
All I want is practical, workable, legislation on the statute books that actually achieves the intended purpose. In my view, this draft bill will probably fail to achieve what it sets out to and if brought into law would need redrafting in next to no time. Explain to me what's sensible about that?
Is that not what the House of Lords is for?
While I agree with a lot of what you say, I don't think he has done it for any other reason that he believes government should dominate the legislative agenda. If not, where was was his objection to the Parliament member's fund? Why did he create 31 private members bills last year if he thinks they do not face proper scrutiny? The whole point of the mechanism is to allow our elected representatives to suggest laws and raise debate free from the restraints of government after all.
bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/16296117.Christopher_Chope_exclusive__I_DO_support_upskirting_ban__I___ve_been_scapegoated_/