BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Raedwulf
Date: 23 Jun 18 - 11:54 AM

Unless you've got your fat head shoved up your fat arse again, Shaw, no you don't. You got exactly the sort of response you were quite deliberately fishing for (and why would I disappoint you? Dear.). And don't pretend otherwise or play innocent. It's transparently obvious.

You like sticking labels on people. You've done it a couple of times to me. Here's one or two for you. Dear. Didactic, dogmatic, pedantic. Superior, supercilious, sneering, smug. Aggressive & rude, arrogant. Pompous, belittling, condescending, dismissive. Most of the time, you are none of those. Too frequently i.e. sometimes, you are one or several. Let's just go back through your 'contributions' (I use the word loosely) to this thread, shall we? Dear. There's 6 now; 5 of them are directly aimed at me, not comments on the topic. No complex there, not even a simple. Just simple facts.

First, 15/6/18, 6:11PM
You are turning into a complete arse, Raedwulf old chap. Calm down, dear.

Nothing to indicate you were being humorous. Here's a hint, Steve - if you're going to use "Calm down dear" humorously, then make it quite clear that that's your intent. Especially if you're pointing it at someone you've crossed words with before. Otherwise... You look patronising, condescending, sneering, dismissive, etc. Still, I decided to treat it as humorous; a bit barbed, perhaps, my response, but clearly indicated as humorously intended by the ;-) that yours lacked.

Of course, you then decided to have a complete sense of humour failure & invent a complex I don't possess (I'm a simple man, hence me using the same play on words twice). Third response by you to me - humorous intent nice & obvious, responded to in kind (with one exception amongst currently active posters, I may jump at a post, not at the poster; no, the exception is not you! ;-) ).

Fourth response - total bollocks. Not only total bollocks, but putting words in my mouth (I don't remember you kissing me. Blecccch! ;-) ). I have not at any point defended Chope, and I've made that perfectly clear. For the hard of comprehension (which is you, at the very least) I will say it one more time - there were plausible explanations for Chope's objection, Chope gave an entirely valid explanation of his objection. Given his reasoning, he was entirely right to object. Whether or not it's right that he has done so, or that he can do so... I've no opinion on. Got that, Shaw? Clear enough for you, dear? There's nothing indefensible in his position, except in the mind of a bigot, or a dogmatic, pedantic, sneering, patronising, "Of Course I Am Right, It's Me Saying It" complete arse. As you, all too often, are.

If you, or anyone else, thinks it's dead wrong (or right), fine, that's your opinion. But it's an opinion. Allow me to quote the honourable MM, Dave the Gnome, "I ask who appointed you as ruler of who can say what and how on Mudcat?" When you want to engage in a debate about the point in question instead of merely trying to sneer, condescend, patronise, and etcetera, Shaw, feel free. Until then MYOFB. Don't waste your time, my time, or anyone else's, with puerile pathetic comments like those you've directed at me so far. If it still hasn't penetrated your super-intelligent, or at least know-it-all, brain, if you talk shit at me, you'll likely get a mouthful back. Why shouldn't I? (Alright, yes, y'all, I know I shouldn't!)

And don't whine or play the innocent when someone talks back to you in the same fashion that you talk to them. The difference between us is that I know when I do it because I'm deliberately doing it (childish, mea culpa, etc), and I only do it in retaliation (childish, mea culpa, etc). You don't seem to be able to recognise when it's you doing it. Or you know it & you pretend you don't, which is ten times worse.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jun 18 - 06:15 AM

I find it rather odd that someone who disagrees with you about an openly-discussed topic on Mudcat can tell you that "it's none of your business" (expletive deleted). And I thought I'd seen it all...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Senoufou
Date: 23 Jun 18 - 05:38 AM

My sister tells me there are numerous websites selling specialist equipment for upskirting and voyeurism. Many of them are Chinese, and offer some quite advanced technology.

In their 'catalogues' are cameras which fit on the top of one's shoes, cameras concealed in toilet brushes or shower product containers, clever ways for people to take pictures of intimate areas of the body.

There are also sites for viewing the resulting pictures, and one can sell these for perverts to collect.
Surely people should be immediately protected (to some extent, as one might not even know one has been upskirted) by means of a law, the breaking of which would incur severe penalties.
(I haven't personally viewed these sites as I think I'd be sick, but my sister has braved them in order to learn. She's a strident feminist)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Raedwulf
Date: 23 Jun 18 - 04:38 AM

MYOFB, Steve. I'm not defending Chope, I never was, and I've intimated as much more than once.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 06:49 PM

Drop it, Raedwulf. You're absolutely defending the indefensible.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Raedwulf
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 10:42 AM

The point was, mayomick, that at that point in time no-one had much of a clue as to why the objection had been raised. So a sensible person might take the trouble to consider the fact that Chope has a considerable amount of technical knowledge of both the law & of parliamentary procedure, and that that would likely provide the reason for his objecting (which it did).

From your fatuous "Like saying..." I can only assume that you would, like Sen, have jumped to a stupid & wholly incorrect conclusion had you commented a week ago...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 06:58 AM

I know of quite a few people who have been 'complete and utter twats' all their blooming lives, and who have caused mayhem for donkey's years. Doesn't mean it makes them in any way acceptable, just that they should have been ousted long, long ago.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: mayomick
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 06:46 AM

“he may be a complete & utter twat (see his record on blocking & filibustering). But he has also been a barrister for more than 45 years, and an MP for 30 of the last 35”…. Raedwolf

As if being a complete and utter twat is mitigated by his having been a barrister for more than 45 years, and an MP for 30 of the last 35.

Like saying that an upskirter may have been a voyeur but had also been a peeping tom for the last forty years

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 04:19 AM

Budgies for sale:
Going "Cheep"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 03:41 AM

"Camera for sale!"
How much ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 03:14 AM

Adds a bit of urgency to 'Donald where's yer troosers?'

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 21 Jun 18 - 06:10 PM

WAAAAYYY back up the thread, Raedwulf reminded me that upskirting has been illegal in Scotland since 2009. BUT today's "Scotsman" newspaper tells us that the new English law, if ever passed, will apply to Scotsmen daring to wear kilts in England (watch out Twickenham at the next Calcutta Cup? Scores to be settled?)
Thanks to Dave the Gnome for his allusion to Nancy Nicolson's song "Cuddle against the war" (It's all in working order).
And just for the photographers, my son told me that at his school prom some years ago (leavers from High School, aged about 17 -18) all the lads, wearing kilts, did a handstand competition for the benefit of the lassies present.....oh, use your imagination if you don't get it!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 21 Jun 18 - 07:24 AM

Camera for sale!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Jun 18 - 06:33 AM

(Matchstalk men)

And he took pictures up Scotsmen's kilts to see their knobs
And upskirt shots to see girls bits 'n' bobs.
But it's not as safe as he'll think
He could face two years on clink
For taking upskirt shots to see girls bits 'n' bobs.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jun 18 - 06:29 AM

What's with under the kilt?

Nothing. It's all in perfect working order.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Jun 18 - 05:04 AM

Does this mean we can still go poking cameras up ladies dresses and Scotch men's kilts and photographing knickers and knobs?


I feel a song coming on....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jun 18 - 04:44 AM

I know a lad who was born an uncle!

So do I - me!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jun 18 - 04:43 AM

I know a lad who was born an uncle!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Jun 18 - 04:30 AM

That may be it, pfr. DavetG - I think you already know that I was using the impersonal you, & that I meant 'have to' in the sense of "ought to be able to". I'm no arbiter of what can & can't be said here - I'm not a mod for a start! DMcG - they sound like small changes worth trying. Although I suspect that Chope would simply print out the same thing every time...

Steve - if I am, I'm the modern Eccles "A most unusual boy." "In what way?" "He's older than his parents!"

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jun 18 - 04:07 AM

If you wish to complain that "x is wrong", you have to propose an alternative to x. In this case, I can only see alternatives that are the more easily, and more dangerously, abused, I'm afraid. I can see merit, as well as fault, in the current x. I'd like to know what the alternatives are before protesting too loudly...

I don't think you have to propose an alternative, but it's not hard to think of potential improvements. For example, we could have exactly the same arrangement as now, but call either "Procedure!" or "Substance!", indicating whether you objected to the contents of the bill or just the procedure. The net effect could be zero, and as like as not one of the options would simply fall into disuse, but in this case at least it might have made life a little easer for Sir C.

But the net effect need not be zero, because you could be required to produce a follow-up written explanation on why that your stance. That would in effect require people to object thoughtfully rather than habitually.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jun 18 - 02:25 AM

Not just women, pfr - he's pissing-off a lot of men too. We're not all neo-Neanderthals, frothing at the mouth and getting a hard-on over photos on our phones of a pair of knickers and a bit of thigh!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jun 18 - 06:14 PM

"the puzzle to me is one of why it appears to only be this particular one that has produced this sort of “outraged” reaction."

Fundamentally, 2018 is not a year for the likes of Chope to be pissing off women...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jun 18 - 06:13 PM

I can complain about anything without providing an alternative. In much the same way as I ask who appointed Chope governor of private members bills, I ask who appointed you as ruler of who can say what and how on Mudcat?

I think Steve has hit the nail on the head judging by the common superiority complex. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jun 18 - 05:54 PM

You're Chope's uncle, aren't you, Raedwulf? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Jun 18 - 05:46 PM

Why such a ridiculous process? There's a variety of crustacea that... You know what I mean. It's not hermit crabs I'm thinking of, there's a shrimp thing that builds itself a little 'cathedral'. And when it dies or moves on, then something else... Etcetera. We've got what we've got, in a large way, by accretion. Tradition can be a good thing, can be a bad thing. Needs to be re-examined from time to time to see if it's still useful or just getting in the way. You know what I mean, I don't need to belabour...

No one man is in a position to ruin the country, as a rule (pig-shagger Cameron is an obvious exception!). Chope certainly isn't & never has been. There, sir, you exaggerate! Mea culpa, mea maxima etcetera... ;-) As to whether or not etcetera, as I said before, I don't know that it's a bad thing & maybe having a miserable bloody pedant in the way is a good thing.

If you wish to complain that "x is wrong", you have to propose an alternative to x. In this case, I can only see alternatives that are the more easily, and more dangerously, abused, I'm afraid. I can see merit, as well as fault, in the current x. I'd like to know what the alternatives are before protesting too loudly...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jun 18 - 05:17 PM

I fully understand that too, Raedwulf, but if the purpose is to draw attention to something, why is it such a ridiculous process? These are grown men We are talking about, in a position to make or ruin the entire country. Who appointed Chope to be in charge of all such bills? It is simply a ludicrous situation and regardless of anyones intentions the management of our lives should be open and honest, not governed by antiquated procedures and silly games of guess what I am really after!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Jun 18 - 03:33 PM

No, DavetG, I understand that. It's possibly worth emphasising that he actually blocked 3 PMB's that afternoon (someone, I forget who, did point this out above). All of the publicity & consequent outrage has focused on just ONE of those 3 PMB's... And, with reference to both yourself & BW, Howard is entirely correct. A PMB is not necessarily a genuine attempt to enact legislation. And Chope can hardly be accused of being a mere party toady, whatever else can be flung at him.

Which, if you accept that that is case, rather reinforces his apparent stance that his objection is to procedure, not the content of any given bill. If (and it's an 'if') a primary purpose (not 'the'; 'a'!) of a PMB is to draw attention to something rather than to attempt to enact legislation, it surely is entirely appropriate that he objects to the government intruding on backbenchers' prerogatives?

I refer the Honourable MM's (Members of Mudcat ;-) ) to my earlier remarks. I do understand both your & BW's objections, but I have no particular opinion myself, beyond arguing for restraint in 'leaping' and for reasoned consideration (m'lud, etc! ;-) ). As with the tax system, I don't know enough to make a more informed comment. Perhaps it's better left in the hands of experts, even if, in this case, the experts are the MP's (my cynicism knows no bounds...)?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 07:36 AM

DMcG has already answered that question very eloquently, Boob-ad. Your contribution adds nothing to this debate (apart from a very unpleasant smell).

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: bobad
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 07:08 AM

the puzzle to me is one of why it appears to only be this particular one that has produced this sort of “outraged” reaction.

Virtue signalling.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 06:20 AM

Amen, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 06:12 AM

I think you miss my point Raedwulf. This extremely privileged male has (ab)used his position to block not only this legislation but many other private members bills. He does this as a matter of course all the time. He has appointed himself as gatekeeper and uses these arcane procedures to his own advantage, with his own agenda. Even his own party consider him a belligerent pratt. It is about time things were done properly and laws that are to be passed should be either approved or rejected by parliament. Not by Chope or any other single individual.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Howard Jones
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 06:07 AM

Private Members' Bills are odd things. Parliamentary procedures (even without the "object" mechanism) mean that very few of them ever go beyond the first stage, and they are mainly a means for an MP to bring a matter to the notice of other MPs and the public. Few if them are ever expected to become law.

Occasionally they are used for matters which the government supports but which for some reason it won't put forward itself. Sir Christopher objects on principle to matters which might end up on the statute book being nodded through a virtually empty chamber on a Friday afternoon (when most MPs are travelling back to their constituencies). Perhaps he has a point. If a matter is important enough to become law then arguably that should be introduced as part of a proper Bill and properly debated. He has now confirmed that if the upskirting proposal were to be put forward in this way he would support it.

I suspect many of those who are upset by this would be equally outraged if something they disapproved of - perhaps his own PMB about the NHS - were to go through 'on the nod' without debate.

Whilst the basic principle of an upskirting law is probably not controversial, it is essential that it is correctly drafted and thoroughly scrutinised so that it only reaches the intended targets. For example, it was pointed out that on the same day the newspapers had published photos of Katy Perry's latest show including dancers showing their knickers. Presumably these are not intended to be covered by the proposed legislation, the difficulty is drafting it to say so.

Whether it is appropriate for a single MP to be able to block a PMB is a matter for Parliament. Possibly the furore around this matter will cause the appropriate bodies to look again at the procedures.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 05:49 AM

Despite his vandalism in destroying the PMBs put down by others, this foul charlatan has tabled 31 PMBs of his own during the past year.

He makes a complete mockery of parliament and brings it into disrepute, whilst shamelessly hiding under a false umbrella of 'preventing bad legislation'.

He is simply an egotistical self-publicist. May should grow some balls and drag him back into line.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Raedwulf
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 04:57 AM

15th June 6:11PM "You are turning into a complete arse, Raedwulf old chap. Calm down, dear." Wrong again, Sen.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Raedwulf
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 04:43 AM

My comment to you doesn't have anything to do with Chope; it's in response to your remark to me above. It's an astounding extrapolation on your part to declare that I have an inferiority complex. Or have you just forgotten that you posted directly at me? Going senile, old boy?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 04:40 AM

Steve has merely commented on what constitutes a criminal act. He hasn't said anything else, and unlike yourself Raedwulf, has posted a short, succinct remark.
He absolutely isn't a 'complete arse'.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 04:25 AM

That's an astounding extrapolation, considering that I haven't expressed any opinion at all about Chope's doings. Take your inferiority complex elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Raedwulf
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 04:01 AM

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... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 03:03 AM

I'm OK Dave apart from an aching back which kept me up all night. Hope all is OK with you.

While I might tend towards agreeing with the supposed principle, I'd also agree it could turn out the guy is a hypocrite...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 02:46 AM

My answer to 'IF this is true, the puzzle to me is one of why it appears to only be this particular one that has produced this sort of “outraged” reaction" is that it is one that affects half the population at literally an intimate level. Few bills do that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 02:38 AM

Hi jon - long time no speak! How's things?

'Every' is a dangerous term, especially in a tweet.   Other ministers have said he is more likely to object to bills from the opposition, which implies he nods some through despite this principle.

There is no doubt he blocks many such bills and has done for a long time, but it a bit hard to reconcile this principled objection to the procedure with the fact he is introducing a private members' bill of his own.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 02:31 AM

Jon, I can only go back to what I said earlier - if he is genuinely on a campaign to modernise and rationalise this particular parliamentary process, he should do it by the proper, formal method, not by this kind of destructive behaviour which would be viewed as vandalism or hooliganism anywhere else.

Two 'wrongs' don't, certainly in this case, make a 'right'.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 02:03 AM

DmcG:

"A simple, but rather tedious, test would show if this noble desire to empower backbenchers is true or just hot air. "

A tweet by George Freeman MP in answer to whether his action was to do with legal details MAY answer that:

No. He blocks EVERY Private Members Bill on a weird point of principle. Including the really good ones. It’s gone on too long. It’s an affront to Parliamentary democracy. The public want to see MORE powers & freedoms for Backbench MPs - not fewer.

Backwoodsman:

"Don't you find it rather suspicious that he has only now stated his 'support' for an upskirting law, following the outrage his hooligan behaviour brought down on his own stupid head?"

As far as I can make out, the guy has been doing this for nearly 20 years and on the “upskirting” day, he also blocked/delayed 2 other things.   IF this is true, the puzzle to me is one of why it appears to only be this particular one that has produced this sort of “outraged” reaction.

--
As to whether his stance (assuming it is a genuinely consistent one) is reasonable or not. At ”first glance”, I’d probably side with Chope.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Jun 18 - 01:05 AM

Some people just can't resist the temptation to oppose, Steve, even when their argument has little or no value. Those ass-hats are best ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 08:30 PM

Absolute rubbish. To be a criminal act, the act must be done with intent.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 07:37 PM

From: Backwoodsman - PM
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 04:28 PM
Then he should do things properly, and seek the support of other MPs in a campaign to effect a change in parliamentary procedures by the appropriate, formal means. Deliberately destroying a Bill, which sought to introduce much-needed legislation relating to protecting women against sexual crime, by invoking an antiquated, archaic procedural rule is nothing short of parliamentary hooliganism, and brings the Mother of Parliaments into disrepute.

If that is what he has done, it would be reprehensible.
But if what he has done is to ensure that, rather than being passed 'on the nod', the proposed legislation has to be debated then he is keeping parliament in line.

Yes, 'upskirting' should be recognised, and it should be considered as an unacceptable practice.

DMcG makes an interesting point about whether someone will know they are breaking the law:
I said earlier that the current position is odd in law. Let me elaborate, and make an analogy with property law. I think most people would agree that one aspect of a good law is that you can tell if a set of actions will break it. I.e. I can answer the question "If I do this, will I be breaking the law?" . Seems reasonable? Yet the current position is that I can take such a photograph and no-one knows if the law has been broken. It is only subsequently - perhaps hours or days or even months later - when the photograph is looked at that we can know if the law was broken at the time. The corresponding position in property law would be if it was perfectly to enter a building without any permission, take some property but it was only against the law if a subsequent valuation of the thing taken showed it to be 'valuable'. That is self-evidently a nonsensical law, yet is it basically the position on 'upskirting'.

So, taken to extremes (reductio ad absurdum) if someone takes a 'wholly innocent' photograph, and, in the background, are two young girls, sitting on a wall, with their knickers showing, then he would be breaking this new law. His intent would be to get the foreground shot (hopefully) but he could find his actions criminalised by the suggested law.

I believe, Christopher Chope is protecting our laws by insisting that laws are not passed without due scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 05:14 PM

When you do go back and read things earlier in the thread, you might like to look at my long post where I said that is what I thought he was doing and why I thought that would be an inadequate answer from him should he make it. Only my view, of course, and everyone is entitled to disagree if they so wish.

What is an interesting twist, which I hadnt anticipated, is that he claims he is protesting against the Government taking over time that is rightfully allocated to back benchers. I haven't had the time - and admittedly may not have the patience - to go over all the private members bills he has objected to in the past. A simple, but rather tedious, test would show if this noble desire to empower backbenchers is true or just hot air.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 04:28 PM

Then he should do things properly, and seek the support of other MPs in a campaign to effect a change in parliamentary procedures by the appropriate, formal means. Deliberately destroying a Bill, which sought to introduce much-needed legislation relating to protecting women against sexual crime, by invoking an antiquated, archaic procedural rule is nothing short of parliamentary hooliganism, and brings the Mother of Parliaments into disrepute.

Don't you find it rather suspicious that he has only now stated his 'support' for an upskirting law, following the outrage his hooligan behaviour brought down on his own stupid head?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Raedwulf
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 04:05 PM

And, not bothering at this point to read all of the comments since I last posted, and especially not bothering to read anything offended & narky in response (I'll get back to that & laugh at you later),

READ THIS

Chope is in favour of an upskirting law. He just objects, RIGHTLY, to badly written, poorly debated, insufficiently scrutinised law. And this would have qualified for at least one of those (I sincerely hope it was at least properly written!).

Reconsider your extremely finite wisdom & rush to judgement...

Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 10:12 AM

It was Friday afternoon, Tattie. You can't expect MPs to turn up then after they have spent, what, all of 30 hours in the house already. They are only paid a paltry £75000 or so ;-)