 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting)
|
|
|
Subject: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: DMcG Date: 15 Jun 18 - 10:39 AM Story here! Thanks to some wonderful rules in the UK Parliamentary system, Sir Christopher Chope has just blocked a proposed law to make illegal taking photos up the skirts of women without their consent. All that is required is to shout 'Object!' at the right time on private members bill. It is not necessary to elaborate on what your objections are. Makes you proud, doesn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Jack Campin Date: 15 Jun 18 - 10:46 AM Let's see his willy on Imgur from a snap in the Commons loos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Raedwulf Date: 15 Jun 18 - 10:50 AM Neither proud nor ashamed. First, " It is outrageous that a single member of Parliament has today been able to derail a much needed and universally supported..." Pardon me for pointing out that, since someone shouted "Object", it quite obviously isn't "universally supported". Rather more to the point, I would like to know what Chope's objections are before passing judgement. I can't think of a bad reason to object, let alone a good one. But the report contains no information beyond the fact that Ms Martin has already spoken to him and arranged a meeting to discuss the bill further with him. So let's not rush to judgement, eh? If I have to guess, since he is a barrister by profession, I'm presuming that he has concerns about the wording of the bill & its practical application in court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Raedwulf Date: 15 Jun 18 - 11:07 AM Further to my previous, on looking him up (no, not looking up... Sheesh! You people... ;-) ), 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. I reckon it's worth waiting to find out what these objections are before forming any conclusions. I admit to being surprised, D - you're usually one of the more restrained, reasoned, and reasonable members. I guess we all leap sometimes! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: DMcG Date: 15 Jun 18 - 11:28 AM Thank you for the compliment. Indeed, when the full record of what was said is published in Hansard I intend to read it. There are reasons I could think of to object - for example if the penalties were insufficient or the required levels of proof were too high. As someone with no legal training whatsoever the proposed text did not look to me like that. Were I such a lawyer with those objections I would say during debate that these are my objections and that I will be objecting, but I would ask the proposer to work with me to overcome what I see as the shortfall so we can reintroduce it at the earliest opportunity. If he did anything approaching that I will willingly come back to this thread and eat humble pie. If he didn't, on the other hand, then my opinion (based his previous philibustering) will stand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: DMcG Date: 15 Jun 18 - 11:30 AM Filibustering. "Philibustering' was a usage I coined in honour of a previous boss named Phil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Donuel Date: 15 Jun 18 - 11:50 AM IT Beats Fistibustering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Tattie Bogle Date: 15 Jun 18 - 11:54 AM In the interests o equality, in Scotland it is to be called "upkilting". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Raedwulf Date: 15 Jun 18 - 12:22 PM In Scotland, Tattie, it's already an offence. The (expanded since D originally posted) article says Upskirting has been an offence in Scotland since 2010 when it was listed under the broadened definition of voyeurism. I doubt Hansard will help, D. It's only a record of what was said in the House, isn't it? I note, from Twitter, that Philip Davies MP was a 'partner in crime', so maybe he said something more than one word? I suspect we will have to wait for Ms Martin's reportage of her planned meeting with Chope, though. I also note that, judging by Chope's Twitter (no I don't Twit, but anyone can look at it, of course), Rebecca Reid (whoever she is) is a complete fucking idiot, however personal her experience. Final word for now. The expanded article has this to say - Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statue book by a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting. And after all this is a bill to create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail {my bolding}. So, however worthy the cause, he insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that. Indeed, a few minutes before he blocked the upskirting bill, he was forcing a delay to the final debate on the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill, or Seni's Law, which also had strong support from the government. The upskirting bill is not dead - there will be other opportunities to get it a formal second reading debate - but they will only succeed if Sir Christopher and his allies can be persuaded not to object again. The only other alternative is for the government to provide debating time for it, or, far more likely, to add the proposals to a bill of their own. That, on its own, seems reasonable, if somewhat pedantic. But I'd still be interested to know what specific & particular objections Chope has to the bill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Jun 18 - 01:15 PM "private members bill." Very apt!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Senoufou Date: 15 Jun 18 - 01:39 PM Well I think this chap is a complete and utter knob. How dare he block this very sensible and much-needed Bill? (all on his own, since everyone else across all Parties is for it) What objection can the silly old fool have against preventing perverts from doing this? The penalty for the crime can be decided with consultation, and judges/magistrates can adjust it for each miscreant. I wonder how he'd feel if his wife or daughter had had the experience of some pervy toe-rag taking a pic of them in this way and either distributing it on the Net for other perverts to drool over (!!!!!) or for his own unsavoury purposes. Absolutely disgusted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: David Carter (UK) Date: 15 Jun 18 - 03:36 PM He is a tory, of course he is a knob. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Raedwulf Date: 15 Jun 18 - 05:01 PM He is a tory, of course he is a knob. Utterly pathetic remark, David Carter (UK). No, I am not also a Tory; far from it. But your comment marks you as a pathetic bigoted idiot. How dare he block this very sensible and much-needed Bill? Because! Did you read anything I posted, Sen? Did you actually take the trouble to read the bleeding article properly? Are you happy with the notion that dozens of men (yes, it will be men, I'm sure) could be jailed not because they've been naughty, but because they've been caught up in a badly worded piece of legislation? Or is that alright, just so long as no-one has to worry about their knickers? Not, as idiot Rebecca Reid insists, their genitalia, cos as the article also points out, no new law is needed to prosecute that. That's the whole problem! No, I can't see how that could happen either, but you're no more a legal expert than I am. I shouldn't be having to say this for the fourth time, but since it seems I do, I'm going to be loud, blunt & downright coarse. Just shut the fuck up, everyone!The currently available evidence suggests that Chope is objecting simply because he objects to insufficiently discussed legislation slipping through parliamentary procedure. Not because he objects to the principle behind the bill. And we probably ought to be thankful that some miserable pedant takes that much trouble over what laws get passed. If it turns out he's objecting because he's a misogynistic bastard who thinks upskirting is fine, I'll join in with everyone else in jumping up & down on his miserable metaphorical carcass. Until then, stop rushing to judgement. Let's wait until Ms Martin publicises the results of her meeting with him (as, I am quite certain, she will). Yours, frustratedly, Rædwulf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Dave the Gnome Date: 15 Jun 18 - 05:22 PM It would have been quite easy for him to stop all the speculation and flack, Raedwulf. He could have quite easily explained his objection. If it was what you say, fine. He would have had the support of many. But did he explain? No. Has he explained yet? No. Did he explain his reservations to the member who raised the bill? No. Instead he just used the arcane laws of the house and brought the whole system into disrepute. Whether his motives are noble or not his actions were objectionable. (Pun intended) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: bobad Date: 15 Jun 18 - 05:23 PM Hey Raedwulf that's just too much reason and common sense for this place - you should know that by now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: David Carter (UK) Date: 15 Jun 18 - 05:41 PM Sorry Raedwulf, no can do. Since the breaking point poster, and the poster of Ed Miliband in Salmon's pocket, anything to bash tories or brexiters with is fair game. The gloves are off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: DMcG Date: 15 Jun 18 - 05:58 PM It also leaves aside just how many Tory MPs, from Teresa May down, are 'disappointed' in his action. One - I am afraid I forget who - said is something that reinforces the 'nasty party' image more than anything as complicated as like the to-Ing and fro-Ing of Brexit . It is something destined to be brought and hung around the party's neck come the next election. And, to repeat, it was a Tory saying that. Then there is the fact the government gave the bill its blessing beforehand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Jun 18 - 06:11 PM You are turning into a complete arse, Raedwulf old chap. Calm down, dear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: DMcG Date: 15 Jun 18 - 06:23 PM Following on from Dave's comment, I am sure every one of the national papers would be pleased to publish an article he cares to write explaining his reasons. If he objects to 'flabby' legislation, for example, he could explain what was flabby about it, and so on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: punkfolkrocker Date: 16 Jun 18 - 12:58 AM he's not a member of mudcat.. is he...??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: DMcG Date: 16 Jun 18 - 01:45 AM just so long as no-one has to worry about their knickers? Not, as idiot Rebecca Reid insists, their genitalia, cos as the article also points out, no new law is needed to prosecute that. That's the whole problem! I have been thinking about that point, because it is quite interesting. A man decides to take an upskirt photo of a woman, who doesn't notice. Before he looks at the photo, no-one knows if a crime has been committed. That's a very strange state of affairs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Dave the Gnome Date: 16 Jun 18 - 03:21 AM As someone on BBC news just said. It is a prime example of a privelaged, old, white male abusing his power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: theleveller Date: 16 Jun 18 - 04:51 AM So if it's unfair to brand Chope as a scumbag until he's explained his reasons for voting this way (which he probably never will), how about his past voting record? Here's just a small sample: Voted against: gay rights, smoking ban, hunting ban, same-sex marriage, raising welfare benefits, preventing revenge evictions by landlords (like him), financial support for 16-19 year olds in training, increasing tax on incomes over £150K, measures for tax avoidance, more powers for local authorities, measures to prevent climate change, Labour’s anti-terrorism laws. Voted for: increasing tuition fees, Iraq war, reducing housing benefits, creating jobs for young people, more restrictive regulation of trade unions, academies, stricter asylum system, ID cards, mass surveillance of private communications, phasing out secure tenancies, restricting legal aid. If that doesn't warrant the label of scumbag I don't know what does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: theleveller Date: 16 Jun 18 - 04:58 AM Sorry, creating jobs for young people should be in the 'against' list. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Backwoodsman Date: 16 Jun 18 - 04:59 AM There's a Twitter thread suggesting that the term 'Upskirting' be replaced by 'Chopeing'. Seems reasonable to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Backwoodsman Date: 16 Jun 18 - 05:05 AM "If that doesn't warrant the label of scumbag I don't know what does." A more appropriate label would be the word in common usage for the part of the female anatomy those dirty, inadequate POS's are attempting to photograph. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Senoufou Date: 16 Jun 18 - 05:30 AM The women's forum Mumsnet is absolutely up in arms about this. They're all signing a huge petition and sending the prat hundreds of e mails. My husband just asked why would anyone want to block making this a crime. He's wondering if the chap himself is a perv and does it secretly in his spare time!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Kenny B (inactive) Date: 16 Jun 18 - 05:45 AM From the musical point of view, what would be the implication for singers of the "Wild Rover " could they be charged with incitement? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Mr Red Date: 16 Jun 18 - 07:49 AM well: since he has put his head above the parapet I would assume he has good legal reason to delay the bill, until the precise wording of the bill is made watertight. We have here the difference between an evangelist and a pragmatist. They may arrive at the same point, and make the statute usable. There are many precedents regarding photography and some are enshrined in law. One is that, AFAIK, there is no offence of photographing a person. None. Litigation kicks in when the image is reproduced. With digital technology, and the uploading automatically via smart cameras and phones - getting proof of "reproduction" on the fly is difficult. And is a digital image that has not been looked at - reproduced? In a digital camera you can argue that looking at it does not reproduce it. It's a jungle out there. Let us hope the "objector" is a good gamekeeper. Don't be hasty with your judgements, we can lampoon him any time in the future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: theleveller Date: 16 Jun 18 - 09:25 AM "well: since he has put his head above the parapet I would assume he has good legal reason to delay the bill, until the precise wording of the bill is made watertight." Or could it be that he wanted the time for the Private Member's Bill that he is sponsoring which would end free treatment on the NHS? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: peteglasgow Date: 16 Jun 18 - 09:59 AM as with most of the tory party, for some people there is no crime committed by IDS, B johnson, DD, TM and and the rest of them that can't be explained or ultimately excused or even applauded. This would be sort of understandable if all their supporters were wealthy or corrupt but clearly they can't be. tories are happy to have this Chope in their party despite his appalling record in disrupting the democratic process. at our constituency party last night our local MP was saying that all the tories hate Chope as well - but of course they won't get rid of him. (who votes for him ffs?) sorry, why do a good %age of our country still feel we have to be ruled by toffs and go off to war when they tell us to. We need to grow up and take some pride in ourselves |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: DMcG Date: 16 Jun 18 - 10:03 AM I hadnt heard of his NHS proposals. There is an account here. I can't say it make me warm to the fellow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: punkfolkrocker Date: 16 Jun 18 - 11:56 AM what a complete chope...!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Dave Hanson Date: 16 Jun 18 - 03:10 PM No matter what Raedwolf says everyone else now thinks Chope is a pervert. Dave H |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Senoufou Date: 16 Jun 18 - 03:37 PM Making 'upskirting' a serious sexual offence would result in a maximum punishment of two years in prison. Maybe Chope the Chump is concerned that this is too severe? As I used to point out to my prisoners when I did 'visiting', don't do the crime if you can't do the time. I'm very puzzled as to why this is a 'thing'. Surely on the Internet (sadly) there are endless opportunities to view the most disgusting, evil and perverted material, without having to go out and provide it for oneself? And what sort of mind must these people have? Rather frightening really... My husband says if he caught anyone doing that, he'd ram their mobile phone somewhere a bit painful. I told him he could then be arrested for GBH, which astonished him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Dave the Gnome Date: 16 Jun 18 - 03:39 PM Grievous bottomley harm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Senoufou Date: 16 Jun 18 - 03:53 PM Hahahahahaaaaa Dave! He's watching the football at the moment, but I'll tell him later what you wrote! :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: DMcG Date: 17 Jun 18 - 02:16 AM No matter what Raedwolf says everyone else now thinks Chope is a pervert. - Gave H I don't think he is - or at least, I see no evidence for it. What I do see is a man exploiting his privileged position who has arrogantly decided to appoint himself Gatekeeper of Non-Government Laws. This is my interpretation of what is going on. It may be entirely wrong, so please treat it with that level of distrust. Cope is a Thatcherite. No, I am not blaming her for this, but one aspect of being a Thatcherite is a wish to deregulate as much as possible (not everywhere, please note). As a result, he has objections to more laws and regulations being introduced at all, and certainly not by anyone other than Government. So when a law is proposed this way, he is instinctively against it. Note that he is not considering whether the proposed law has any merit at this point: it is fundamentally the mechanism that he objects to. Now, there would be some limited merit in that stance were it universal; if he blocked every single Private members bill irrespective. But no, he doesn't. He blocks the vast majority 'on principle' but he is perfectly happy to let some through and even propose his own, like the NHS one. Hence the Gatekeeper tag. He has decided that he will personally alter the balance of power between ordinary MPs and Government to restrict MPs power - unless he grants them a 'pass'. All of this happens without given a moments thought to what any actual law is. So we get onto a specific law, in this case 'upskirting'. I believe he is acting with legal and moral laziness. Any considered response must take into account the costs and benefits of the proposed law, and that he is singularly failing to do. Yes, it is true that some men may be punished unjustifiably. But that flaw is present in every single law. Which is why we have a very elaborate judicial and appeal system to minimise miscarriages. Miscarriages do occur, of course, but we rely on the system to keep them rare. So that is the 'cost' of introducing the law. The cost of not introducing the law is that a level of assault on women is permitted. This is the heart of it, not 'protecting knickers' but giving women the ability to live free from assault. ( I am using the word 'assault' in its everyday, not its legal sense, obviously.) 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'. Raedwulf said we can't imagine how men might be affected if the law is badly phrased. Leaving aside the law is about women not men - given how complicated sexuality is, there may be some women photographers upskirting others - we can imagine the typical things: false accusations, somebody taking a photo of a cathedral but due to the very high resolution of modern cameras 'upskirting' a women sat on a bench in front of it solely due to the ability to 'zoom in' on a detail of the final photo, and so on. But we don't have to imagine, because this is already the law in Scotland. So we can see what type of miscarriages arise. So in sumnmary, I see lots of things to criticise Chope for, from arrogance and delusions of grandeur through to moral and intellectual laziness. He certainly seems to be unable or unwilling to consider what upskirting or the fear of it can do to a woman. He is, judging by the reports, a thoroughly unpleasant guy, in my opinion. But I have seen no sign he is a pervert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Backwoodsman Date: 17 Jun 18 - 03:05 AM A very fine summary, DMcG. I'd add that it seems ludicrous that the procedure regarding Private Members' Bills permits a single 'objector' to destroy a Bill by the utterance of a single word. Antiquated, archaic, it makes a mockery of the Mother of Parliaments, and brings our 'democracy' into disrepute. High time that the Private Members's Bill procedure was reviewed and modernised. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Backwoodsman Date: 17 Jun 18 - 03:06 AM Members's? WTF? Members'! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Mr Red Date: 17 Jun 18 - 03:17 AM Or could it be that he wanted the time for the Private Member's Bill that he is sponsoring which would end free treatment on the NHS? and shouting "objection" could be evoked for his bill? quid pro quo. If the Chopey chump chappy doesn't predict that - his bill is dead in the water. Being a lawyer he must have sussed that one. I say lampoon him when you know the outcome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: punkfolkrocker Date: 17 Jun 18 - 03:39 AM His kind needs to be eradicated from modern government. good law making an happen quite well enough without old chopes like him.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: punkfolkrocker Date: 17 Jun 18 - 03:41 AM can |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: DMcG Date: 17 Jun 18 - 03:47 AM If the Chopey chump chappy doesn't predict that - his bill is dead in the water That makes the assumption his aim is to get the bill passed. Politics can be much more subtle. His aim may simply be to get talk of paying for the NHS normalised. There is a film Dirty Pictures which is about a court case brought by a right wing Christian group against the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center for exhibiting Robert Maplethorpe's photographs, which they regarded as pornography. At the end, the gallery won the case, and an interviewer asked the group how they felt about losing. The response was something like "We didn't lose. No gallery will consider exhibiting photos like these in the future because of the costs and damages it will incur. They will play safe. So while we lost the case, we have achieved our objective." It's a thought provoking film, and I recommend it. And it seems to me it is the same kind of thinking in the NHS bill. Whether it wins or not is not the primary objective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Dave the Gnome Date: 17 Jun 18 - 04:22 AM Why Chope objected According to Sky news he just objects on principle to any private members bill through pure belligerance. In the light of this and in the absence of any explanation from Chope himself, would Raewulf care to change his position? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: David Carter (UK) Date: 17 Jun 18 - 04:30 AM Pure belligerence is less unreasonable than actually wanting to defend perverts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Dave the Gnome Date: 17 Jun 18 - 04:39 AM It is David but nowhere near as good as the noble reasons quoted earlier. I did not think for one moment that he was either defending perverts or was one himself but the simple fact that a law defending women's rights can be derailed by one over privileged male with a bad attitude says a lot about our antiquated way of doing things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Backwoodsman Date: 17 Jun 18 - 04:45 AM Aaaaaahh.......!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Tattie Bogle Date: 17 Jun 18 - 09:52 AM There have been several pics and videos showing what happened on the day, and they show an almost empty House of Commons. How can it be constitutional for any Bills to be introduced, debated or, as in this case, objected to, when there are so few members present? |
|
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 ;-) |
|
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 THISChope 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Backwoodsman Date: 18 Jun 18 - 06:20 AM Amen, Dave. |
|
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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Jun 18 - 05:54 PM You're Chope's uncle, aren't you, Raedwulf? :-) |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Georgiansilver Date: 21 Jun 18 - 07:24 AM Camera for sale! |
|
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: 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: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Jun 18 - 03:41 AM "Camera for sale!" How much ? Jim Carroll |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: punkfolkrocker Date: 23 Jun 18 - 12:26 PM Well... fair and reasonable or not... I'd like "to chope, what a chope, choping, choped, etc - any or other variants" to enter common usage...... because I'd like a new good sounding swear word to substitute for an overused and misused favourite. If 'chope' were to take off, 'c@nt' could now really be reserved only for special occasions... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Raedwulf Date: 23 Jun 18 - 01:15 PM Shan't argue with that, pfr. Not least because language does what it will, and whilst we may sigh about changes, railing against them is pointless (I'm sure there are jokes, or puns at least, in there, but I'll forego the dubious privilege!). The sad thing about the c-word is it's actually a really good word. The 'cun' is the same cun as in cunning. As in cyning (pronounced 'cooning') that is the A/S original of king. Examine the German (Koenig), Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, etc. They're all the same word, basically. And, so the author Kathleen Herbert told me years ago, it's all bound up in the notion of wisdom & 'secret' wisdom, hence the sexual slang from the notion of female wisdom, intuition, etc. I don't know whether she was right, but her A/S was a lot better than mine is! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Donuel Date: 23 Jun 18 - 01:24 PM I too object to badly written, poorly debated, insufficiently scrutinised law. Steve is self appointed as the ego commander and chief. He is unable to even visualize the dissolution of ego in relation to thinking. So do not be desuaded in the face of weaponized ego bosses. The ego is not the boss. And that goes for you too. Don't let your ego boss you around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Dave the Gnome Date: 23 Jun 18 - 01:37 PM Listen here, Radweld. It's no good going on about Steve not being humourous while you are because it is obvious, to me anyway, that you both use exaggerated invective to good effect. And do you really believe for one minute that Chope was trying to help anyone but himself? If so, I have some shares that you will be interested in. Just send me your bank details... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Raedwulf Date: 23 Jun 18 - 02:53 PM You want my bank details, Dave? Really? Well... OK, good luck with my overdraft... :o As I said to a mate down to the pub yesterday lunchtime when he announced he was off to pick up some money, "Make sure it's not more than 50 pound or you might strain yer back!" ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Jun 18 - 04:24 AM Could be 'strain your bank' as well:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jun 18 - 05:44 AM Cor, someone needs to go on an anger management course! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: bobad Date: 24 Jun 18 - 06:26 AM Raedwulf hit the bull's eye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jun 18 - 07:25 AM Well, with friends like you... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Raedwulf Date: 24 Jun 18 - 05:25 PM Cor, someone needs to go on an anger management course! :-) Who's that, then, Steve? Not me. I get angry so rarely, I can't remember the last time I did. Certainly not sat at a keyboard - too much time to think & clam, errr, calm down, dear! ;-) That I wax eloquent (and I do!) doesn't indicate how I feel. I'd say I'm sat here laughing at you, except that isn't true either. It's just long overdue that someone stood up to you when you decide to start being an obnoxious antagonistic bastard (go on Steve, explain the 15/6 post - if it was supposed to be funny, why did you get the arsehole at my response; if it wasn't intended to be humorous, then what was the intent? Get out of that one without moving! ;-) ). I don't expect anything I've said will make a great deal of difference to you, if it actually has any effect at all. But if you weren't aware that there are other MM's who do see you in terms of the labels I suggested, you know now. And if you did know, then you're just another internet bully. And I loathe bullying, Steve. I don't believe you are one, I seem to remember you've also expressed a similar revulsion ere now. But have a think, eh? I haven't said what I've said without feeling that I have reason to do so. Dear! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jun 18 - 06:12 PM Mad as a box o' frogs. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Raedwulf Date: 24 Jun 18 - 06:20 PM So now I know what your excuse is... Wait! That's my excuse! Give it back!! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jun 18 - 06:39 PM "Radweld." Nice one, Dave! Move swiftly on, Radweldwulf. One day when you've grown up you'll realise that this stuff is absolutely not worth it,and you'll absolutely HATE reading back your posts in this thread. I've had a lovely day today, cycling on the Camel Trail in the summer sun, wearing a pair of Bellwether cycling shorts (with chamois stitched-in gusset, natch) that did the job beautifully thirty years ago but which now afford the lovely ladies of Padstow and Wadebridge the chance to "upshort" me with next to no effort (I dress to the left, so any revenge-porn pics you see of me in those shorts dressing to the right are fakes, I tell you). And why wouldn't they. It's a charity ride/walk that we do every year. Part of the ritual is to have a Chough bakery party in Padstow before we set off back to Wadebridge. There is no finer pasty on the planet. The weather was gorgeous and the air was clear. Oh for a lark in the clear air! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jun 18 - 07:42 PM Chough bakery don't hold parties on their Grade One listed premises but they do make pasties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Dave the Gnome Date: 25 Jun 18 - 11:40 AM They could host pasty parties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: punkfolkrocker Date: 25 Jun 18 - 12:01 PM You just can't predict where these threads will lead... I just spent 10 minutes watching for Mr Pastry clips on youtube... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: DMcG Date: 25 Jun 18 - 12:06 PM And as proof, As a child I once won a prize from 'The Viewer' TV guide to watch a Mr Pastry recording. And, to bring the whole thing back to music, it was a question about "The Blaydon Races", which The Viewer used as an advertising theme tune. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: mayomick Date: 25 Jun 18 - 01:15 PM Did anyone see the pic of Theresa May performing her democratic duties that's currently doing the rounds on facebook ? It was Ms May recommended Chote for a knighthood, I believe. Maybe she feared that Sir Christopher was lurking somewhere with his camera ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: mayomick Date: 25 Jun 18 - 01:20 PM Here's a link to Ms May curtsying .I hadn't realised that sort of thing still went on in the UK . https://www.google.ie/search?q=theresa+may+curtsy&num=50&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicooX1qO_bAhWKHsAKHR_cAowQ_AUICigB |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: punkfolkrocker Date: 25 Jun 18 - 01:51 PM curtsying.... she looks even more like John Cleese... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Senoufou Date: 25 Jun 18 - 01:53 PM Women should wear a 'pagne'. I always do when in Africa. It fits anyone (one merely wraps it round and ties it) It's full-length but not flappy. Completely impossible to upskirt in any way. Keeps the mozzies off one's legs. Prevents sunburn ditto. Jolly colours and designs. Highly recommended. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Raedwulf Date: 25 Jun 18 - 02:29 PM Et Voila! Only this was wanting to complete the Shaw the Pompous cabaret. We began with a piece of patronising trolling (there's another label for you to add to your list, Shaw - troll) that had nothing at all to do with the thread (I may have treated it as humorous, but I don't believe that was ever your intention), quickly followed by sniffy, snotty squealing when his jibe was good-humouredly turned back against him. Now, we get Mother Superior Stevie delivering a condescending lecture, as though she didn't start this childish contretemps. And then we get the totally irrelevant aside to try to reinforce the notion that calm, sensible, happy, grown up Stevie has been doing calm, sensible, happy, grown up stuff & this is really nothing to do with her at all... Bollocks, Shaw. No-one's buying it, no-one's agreeing with you (sorry, I forgot; in Shaw World, that means everyone else is wrong...). You started this whole thing. If you really believe you're not as guilty of all the labels you're trying to stick on me, you're a fool & I pity you. Otherwise, you're dishonest & contemptible. Either way, I am now sitting here laughing at you, you pathetic old fool. Grow up? After you. Dear. I'll do it when you do. How long does the rest of Mudcat have to wait for that to happen, I wonder? My sole regret about this is that there have been two or three previous occasions when I'd have been perfectly justified in throwing your dud ammo back at you, but I couldn't be bothered then. And I suspect there are quite a few people who feel like that about you. I've no idea what you think you're achieving, but you most certainly have demonstrated that you absolutely are a complete arse at times. I'm not in the least bit bothered what people think of me. I'm intelligent enough to know what I'm doing, I'm honest enough to admit to it, and I've explained to any poor sod who wanders into this thread exactly why I'm doing it. I doubt I've 'won' anything, but you've very definitely lost something. Dear. Don't like it, can't take it? Don't do it, don't try dishing it out. In future, be polite, little Stevie, and play nice (which, again, you mostly do). If you can't or won't, don't snivel when someone treats you as you treat others. It's long overdue that someone talked back to you in your own fashion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Nigel Parsons Date: 25 Jun 18 - 03:55 PM Raedwulf: Be fair, he's not totally off-topic. He did start talking about the "camel train". I assume that links in with "upskirting". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Raedwulf Date: 25 Jun 18 - 04:42 PM Sorry, Nigel, I'm afraid that one completely passes me by! The glide from 'trail' to 'train', I get, but if a camel train is anything except, errr, a train of camels, you've lost me. I must not be grown up enough to understand. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jun 18 - 06:07 PM Poor Radweld... :-) Incidentally, I don't recall ever mentioning a "camel train." What's one of them when it's at 'ome? Now a camel TOE...that's different. But let's not go there. Probably... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Donuel Date: 25 Jun 18 - 08:25 PM Meanwhile back on the American ranch, America calls for abolising Due Process. Without judges and a President who says I Am The Law, The Constitution is ignored and International humanitarian rights are violated. Combined with a Trade War the stage is set for WWIII after a great depression. I wont get into the weeds with the Smoot Hawley Act but things are worse than they seem. So here comes the great sell off which will enable some spculators to buy back at low prices. If the slide stops. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Jun 18 - 02:39 AM Dang, Donuel, could it possibly be that you're, like, seriously off topic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Jun 18 - 02:50 AM Are you suggesting that upkilting could be used to have an illicit gander at the gander? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Jun 18 - 02:59 AM Hey, Joe, you've just turned my post into a head-scratcher!
I thought I changed my post before anybody saw what I said. Guess I got caught with my pants down. Er, maybe I'd better not go there. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Mr Red Date: 26 Jun 18 - 03:22 AM Last I read this will become a scheduled debate. Which has more chance of being set out properly and given enough time to be made a usable statute. Private Members' Bills are not given enough time to debate fully and more likely were designed to introduce the concept to parliament and test the strength of feeling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Nigel Parsons Date: 26 Jun 18 - 03:53 AM "Private members bill" - how apt ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Raedwulf Date: 26 Jun 18 - 05:30 AM Indeed, Red. As was previously pointed out (by Howard, if memory serves), PMB's aren't necessarily intended to enact legislation, but also simply to draw attention to things that might otherwise not get any parliament time at all. That governments use PMBs for their own purposes & therefore eat into backbenchers' time is part of Chope's reasons for objecting (& I'll say it again for the hard of comprehension, I've no opinion on whether or not it's right that MPs can object in this fashion). And I've managed to avoid saying anything about 'back doors!' Ooooops! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Dave the Gnome Date: 26 Jun 18 - 08:34 AM What about private Bill's member? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Jun 18 - 08:46 AM Private members bill? Private members bills? Private member's bill? Private member's bills? Private members' bill? Private members' bills? Hang on, I think I've got it: Private members' bill's! ....Nigel? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Nigel Parsons Date: 26 Jun 18 - 09:26 AM I don't have the foggiest what Shaw is on about now. My comment was: "Private members bill" - how apt ;) It's a parliamentary bill concerning 'private members'. No requirement for a possessive pronoun apostrophe anywhere in that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Jun 18 - 10:42 AM You're only saying that because you neglected to put one in. The Parliament website disagrees with you, as does Wikipedia. And so do I. The lack of an apostrophe there denotes illiteracy, I'm afraid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Kenny B (inactive) Date: 26 Jun 18 - 10:48 AM I am led to believe that it was a chargeable offence for a kilted serviceman to go upstairs on a tram or bus I'm sure someone will contradict me if im wrong |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Nigel Parsons Date: 26 Jun 18 - 10:59 AM Once again Steve Shaw believes he knows better than I do what I intended to post when I posted it. Teachers' standards are clearly declining. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Jun 18 - 11:13 AM Aren't you supposed to precede a lady going upstairs and follow her going downstairs? From one of those Naked Gun films as Frank Drebin watches Jane going upstairs past a case containing a stuffed animal: Drebin: " Nice beaver!" Jane: "Thank you!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Senoufou Date: 26 Jun 18 - 12:37 PM I told my husband he should walk on my right when we're on the pavement. He asked why? I said it was to protect me from mud splashes from passing carriages and to keep his sword hand free in case we were attacked. He gave me a withering look and said, "You Toubaboo are all completely bonkers!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Nigel Parsons Date: 27 Jun 18 - 03:34 AM Eliza: I told my husband he should walk on my right when we're on the pavement. He asked why? I said it was to protect me from mud splashes from passing carriages and to keep his sword hand free in case we were attacked. He gave me a withering look and said, "You Toubaboo are all completely bonkers!" I always heard it as 'walk on the outside' (rather than the 'right'), but with the same reasons, or "so that he can spit in the gutter". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Mr Red Date: 27 Jun 18 - 03:36 AM Steve Shaw I think the correct artistic description for your little poem would be: Apostrohpe. All I can add is: Fool Stop! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Jun 18 - 03:56 AM PLEASE don't get me started again on the misuse of apostrophe's... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Senoufou Date: 27 Jun 18 - 04:11 AM You're right Nigel. On the outside! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Mr Red Date: 28 Jun 18 - 03:11 AM Or in your case - Stevo Apostrophes' You weren't a grocer in a former life were you? just giving you A POST TROPHY Ho, ho, ho - oh my sides ache |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: punkfolkrocker Date: 28 Jun 18 - 12:04 PM 'catastrophe' - now there's a word that can be twisted for childish merriment... even better if you're brave enough to have a stuffed cat arse with tale fixed bolt upright in surprise, mounted on a plaque above the fire place... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: punkfolkrocker Date: 28 Jun 18 - 12:06 PM of course, it could have been spelled 'tail' if I wasn't so hot and distracted by discomfort... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Jack Campin Date: 29 Jun 18 - 09:47 AM Upskirter tries for a Darwin Award |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Nigel Parsons Date: 01 Jul 18 - 04:50 AM Thanks Jack, I'd already read that in the papers. Someone hotfooting it to the doctors, following an attempt to start 'upskirting'. I suppose upskirting is a form of 'assault', but I didn't realise 'battery' came into it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Object!' (Upskirting) From: Nigel Parsons Date: 01 Jul 18 - 04:51 AM Time to re-start the 'Song Challenge' threads? |
