Since he has been doing exactly the same for donkey's years, BW... No. He is a qualified barrister as well, remember (I did point this out quite some time ago), which means he has a professional interest, which most especially means he has professional knowledge which the rest of us bloody well don't. And I'm emphasising that because I've read this afternoon a post from a retired fireman about Grenfell. And what he says amounts to "Shut up. You're a fool. You've no idea what you're talking about". And he's right. We don't. But we automatically think we do (well, I don't, but so many do), and we think, in our wonderful social media world, that we can tell everyone else how right we are, and the more people that agree with us, the more right we must be...

Come on, people, this is beneath feeble. For every David Carter, Mudcat has 5 people with an unbigoted, unbiased, two-eyed brain. I'm not defending Chope, as such. From what little I can see, he's probably a total berk. But I am aware that I can't see everything; why aren't you? What bigotry drives you to be so determined to jump up & down on him before you've got sufficient evidence? Or even any evidence? I don't know what he has Objected to in toto. I'd have to go through Hansard for the last 30+ years to find out. The list in his wiki entry doesn't make for particularly pleasant reading, but then again, I don't know who is responsible for it. Dare I suggest that it might be A) incomplete & B) intended to look biased against him?

So no, DavetG, my position hasn't changed. He has explained himself (which makes those of you insisting that he never would look like idiots), and he has explained that he is wholly in favour of the law (which makes those passing remarks about that look like complete idiots). Commenting on what he voted in favour of or against is irrelevant (he may, for a start, have sometimes been voting under a party whip (cue more stupid, smutty remarks, I suppose) rather than in line with his own beliefs / opinions) because he didn't vote on this bill. Suggesting he was trying to free up time for his own bill is downright stupid since 1) the time has already been lost & 2) he has a clear track record of doing this when he has no bill of his own he wants debated. He objected to it to halt it for reasons of parliamentary procedure, which may seem arcane to us, but who thinks they know or understand a tenth of what goes on in parliament? I bet some of you think you do; I know I don't. He may well have been right to do so (I don't have an opinion either way), and if he is not, it may well be that the ability of an MP to act as he does is reviewed. So, either way, it should work out to be a good thing that he did.

I have now read through everything, DMcG, and it looks to me like you & I are arguing more or less the same thing, with slight differences. Mudcat some years ago helped to teach me that if you're repeating yourself for a third time, you're wasting your time, so with two of us saying the same thing, I doubt I'll have anything further to add. Except for this...

I'll take that as the compliment it probably wasn't, Mr Shaw, since you have demonstrated here so many times that you already are a complete arse. A likeable arse, but an arse, nevertheless. So I guess that makes you the Resident Authority on the matter, the same as you appear to consider yourself the RA on so many other subjects... ;-)