To be fucking furious that a Tory MP just prevented upskirting being made a criminal offence?

[gracielacey]

Tory MP Christopher Chope has just singlehandedly prevented the passing of the private members bill supported by the government that would have made upskirting a sexual offence, by shouting Object.

Can I urge you all to leave a message on his parliamentary office answerphone and email him to ask why he thinks men should be entitled to photograph women's genitalia?

(Post Edited by MNHQ)

Sorry folks I have realised the inappropriate use of the term "up close and personal" - but you know what I meant I hope

As I said before Sodding unicorns, you should have maybe read more of the thread. I was castigating Speakeasy who was trying to minimise the offence by suggesting it's going to put boys with mirrors on the sex offenders register! She was talking about what used to happen in her day.

@Doubletrouble99 in which case I stand corrected and I apologise.

This is page 15 of 15 (This thread has 353 messages.)First Previous Next Last Go to page

To be fucking furious that a Tory MP just prevented upskirting being made a criminal offence? (353 Posts)
Add message | Report | Message poster gracielacey Fri 15-Jun-18 15:17:46
Tory MP Christopher Chope has just singlehandedly prevented the passing of the private members bill supported by the government that would have made upskirting a sexual offence, by shouting Object.

Can I urge you all to leave a message on his parliamentary office answerphone and email him to ask why he thinks men should be entitled to photograph women's genitalia?

(Post Edited by MNHQ)
Add message | Report | Message poster SoddingUnicorns Sun 17-Jun-18 15:32:28
But they can see (and photograph) more on the beach

Well presumably if someone is on a beach with their tits out, they’re aware of it. Having a dirty little creep shove a camera up your skirt is entirely different.

" caught an upskirt photographer when he was a security guard. Creepy little fucker had been doing it all over the Overgate in Dundee and it took them weeks to catch him. Wasn’t til he got lifted and DNA taken they realised he was a fucking rapist too.

Still think it’s hysteria? (Ridiculous misogynistic word used to keep women down btw. Shows a real lack of intelligence)"

Do try to calm down. Some of us have different viewpoints. No point getting upset about it, is there?

Kids being adolescents are far different from rapists - as I am sure you well know, but nothing like attempting to conflate the issues is there?

As all rapists were once adolescent, and may even have started their innapropriate behaviours then, I don't think there is much conflation. There is a lot of research that shows deviant behaviour in adulthood often begins in childhood...

...before you try to point out the error of my ways... not all adolescents become rapists, but all rapists were adolescents!

I’m perfectly calm. Do try not to be so patronising won’t you? You won’t wind me up, but you will make a twat of yourself.

If you think there isn’t a connection between sexually deviant childhood behaviours and adult offending then quite frankly you’re an idiot.

At what age should they be told that their sexual urges require consent from the other party? 15? 25? 45? Never?

You’re a man aren’t you, if not, you are a profoundly stupid woman.

Your the one reducing the importance of the issue Speakeasy. The idea that anyone should take into account 'boys being boys' in their supporting of a law which will protect women from men who do this is just daft. The police and judiciary will take into account the age of the offender and severity of each case. It's not for us to decide not to have a law in case it inconveniences a young boy. Don't you think that that boy might well grow up thinking that he has got away with something and that he can continue doing it? Do you not think that men who do this might have been trying to do similar when they were young

Just another roof of our second class status. I really feel for the MP who pushed through the private members bill, usually these are supported by both parties if sensible new pieces of legislation which enable Parliament to keep up with changes in society.
Conclusion is he is an ageing mysoginist with very dubious morals. Lovely reflection on our society.

But they can see (and photograph) more on the beach. This is over reaction to the point of hysteria. MeToo has a lot to answer for

How thick are you @Speakeasy ? Are you Christopher Chope in disguise?

A three year old could tell the difference between women wearing bikinis on a beach having photos taken of them and women wearing skirts having upskirt photos taken.

The women on the beach chose to wear those bikinis publicly and consequently display the areas of flesh that are not covered.

A woman who has been the victim of an upskirt photo did not consent to have the area underneath her skirt, including underwear/buttocks/genitalia displayed to the world.

It's about CONSENT.

You are a fucking misogynistic idiot and you're probably a man.

OOOOOOHHHHHH such a lot of insults coming my way and just because I haven't signed up for the current moral panic!

Lots of people do things as adolescents that they will never do as adults. That is part and parcel of growing up.

Some people attack children and women. That doesn't mean that everyone should be held accountable for life for childhood or adolescent experiments or bravado.

Do I still think it is hysteria? Well should anyone really believe that it is a word used to keep women down they would find plenty of evidence in this thread.

Some people attack children and women. That doesn't mean that everyone should be held accountable for life for childhood or adolescent experiments or bravado

Oh god you are absolutely batshit.

Ooooh! Silly Sunday continues

Calm down ladies. Turns out Sir Chris is the victim all along:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44513497

Oh, how could we have got it so wrong??

Oh yes! I remember now, yesterday he didn't really know what upskirting is; he himself uses/supports Friday afternoon PMB and well, he made a mistake! He mistook his moment. If he wants Friday afternoon PMBs to stop he should do so using proper channels. Not self aggrandising twattery!

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/216290

2010

I think the point being made, and it is odd to have to clarify it, is about privilege. How a person such as Chope, given he is white, middle class and would never have to deal with such an issue, still has a say in how such things are dealt with on a criminal level.

He is exerting his privilege. Do you get it now?

@PennyWistful

I asked what various aspects of him had to do with the arguement. I was then called dense yet you think I'm being unpleasant and then patronised me. Fuck, light must bend around both of us!

No, I don't "get it now" as your 'explanation' whilst using commas plentifully is sparse on logic and understanding of British politics.

Do only poor people have to worry about voyeurism then as that's the only link to his middle classness which I can think of.

Is this a genderless law? Surely 'up skirting' could happen to either sex (see a PP talking about Scotland). His sex has nothing to do with it.

Should only women vote on laws which are sexed / gendered to protect women? Only lady judges in rape cases with a female victim? Can we kick out lady judges if the victim is male? Does Teresa May have to sit out of votes where the law only affects men?

What privilege is the issue? He is democratically elected to represent his constituency in Parliament. That is the system that we have. Are you saying if you were richer, smarter, male and white you would be an MP and Dame?

You have a problem that "a person like Chope ... still has a say in how such things are dealt with on a criminal level." What is your credible alternative?

He did it so it would be debated. He doesn’t believe laws should be waved through without debate.
I doubt it is going to be stopped just because he wanted to debate it. I don’t think it works like that.

It'll be debated if it had gone through this time. PMBs d9n't just suddenly become laws on a Friday afternoon. If they get past the Chope Hurdle then they'll go through all the checks and balances any other proposed Bill does - Committee scrutiny, 2nd reading, HoL 3rd Reading etc. Plenty of time to debate.

In other words, he's making excuses and playing on ignorance of the Parliamentary process.

he is an eccentric old fellow who is in the habit of filibustering to obstruct other people's business, and of clogging up the system with numerous bills of his own. He has a long and shameful record.

We've only become widely aware this time because he has obstructed a bill which has a lot of public interest and has hit the news.

Our country has a problem if it has a system which allows an eccentric old buffer to obstruct business. We can cope with people whose opinions we don't share. We shouldn't be subject to the whims of procedural obstruction.

I may (probably am) be mistaken, but wasn't there talk of being able to get rid of a sitting MP if enough constituents signed a relevant petition or some such???

If this isn't a figment of my imagination, it would be a very good time to trigger the process.