Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

Sign the petition to have Christopher Chope stripped of his knighthood

100 replies

Polynerd · 15/06/2018 22:17

Here it is: if angered by his behaviour re the upskirting bill, please consider signing.
t.co/SdFj7FUyee

OP posts:

PointlessTV · 15/06/2018 22:51

Linking GF would help. I only asked for more information.

BettyFloop · 15/06/2018 22:52

I believe another bill was objected to today regarding greater protection for police dogs & horses (though no one is outraged about that one, for some reason...)

I am!

FrozenMargarita17 · 15/06/2018 22:53

Signed.

HollowTalk · 15/06/2018 22:53

Reading his Wiki page was really frightening, to think he has any power.

Dyrne · 15/06/2018 22:54

Oh right, in that case he's a knob then. Why not start a serious campaign to change the system rather than just sit and heckle from the sidelines?

Original poster

Polynerd · 15/06/2018 22:55

It's pretty brief @PointlessTV I would like to see more detail but here: order-order.com/2018/06/15/9-things-chris-chope-blocked/

OP posts:

CloudCaptain · 15/06/2018 23:07

Good points above. Politicians do seem to do feck all for the most part. Can't watch question time because they all seem to act like clucking chickens avoiding any serious questions. His method isn't the best and probably does have a bias for his chums but at least he is doing something to uphold a bit of rigor to the process of having bills passed. I agree, more Mps should be present. A minimum attendance should be mandatory for all bills to be scrutinised and passed. But the draconian state of the system will not be so easy to change.

Canbourne · 15/06/2018 23:26

I sign the petition to remove choose knighthood. . How disgusting to condone taking pictures up women's skirts.

Magpiesarehuge · 15/06/2018 23:56

Nope, I’d need to hear what he has to say first on why he objected. I’d like to hear his reasoning.

l82tkitup · 16/06/2018 00:43

In what possible scenario is it 'OK' to take a picture up a girl's skirt?
He needs to clarify very quickly. Is it because he thinks a potential 2 yr sentence is overly severe - or is it just something he thinks men have a right to do?

VaggieMight · 16/06/2018 01:03

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at poster's request.

Magpiesarehuge · 16/06/2018 01:25

Thing is, as a gender critical/gender atheist - I'm now so much more critical of condemning folk offhand, out of kilter for having different opinions. I now really see the implications of this kind of mindset. I’m struggling with this

CaitlynsCat · 16/06/2018 06:37

There were twenty separate bills rejected as a matter of routine.

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-06-15/debates/EC426BD5-DA81-4D67-BD30-CAC2A81DF6F9/BusinessWithoutDebate

This is silly frothing, the government claimed to support the bill and they would have known how it works, and could have spoken to the MPs who routinely object to bills and ask their support.

There are 100 private members bills rejected per year, some every bit as worthy or more sot - making a fuss about one random one is extreme stupidity.

NotTerfNorCis · 16/06/2018 06:47

Actually no. I think he may have a point.

Sir Christopher? Is that you?

PeakPants · 16/06/2018 06:51

Lol you can rest assured that the GRA did not go through on a Friday and was subject to lots of debate. These are private members bills which are very different in nature.
His voting record suggests that he is an utter twat though.

drearydeardre · 16/06/2018 06:54

IfyouseeRitaMoreno · 16/06/2018 06:55

Excuse my ignorance but how does his objection mean that the bill will be more robustly debated?

Why was it not debated before?

And shouldn’t he be aware of the bills coming through?

AuntieStella · 16/06/2018 07:10

I think it's a disgrace that so few MPs were in the house for this bill.

His conduct doesn't appear to be for a joke, it's a settled pattern and one which really hasn't attracted attention before. Though I do remember a MN thread before about one of his private members bills, which like this one went nowhere, but unlike this one had zero government support (didn't stop anti-right posters trying to claim it did, though)

He was Mr Chope then. And I've only been able to find his OBE as a bestowed honour.

So is this actually an inherited family title? Can they be stripped?

No point in calling for something that's impossible. Especially when the bill has already been retimetabled (next month, I read) and with government support.

It is his constituency level party which can do the most damage - as they can deselect him. Or the residents of Christchurch, who could vote him out.

CaptainMarvelDanvers · 16/06/2018 07:15

I disagree with his opinions but I agree with other posters, a bill shouldn’t be rushed through.

Honestly I don’t know what most MPs bloody do, they excuse themselves from doing work in their constituency(except for election time) by saying they are busy in parliament and they excuse themselves from parliament by saying they are busy in their constituency. I know there are a few who take their jobs seriously but there is a lot more who don’t.

AuntieStella · 16/06/2018 07:18

"And shouldn’t he be aware of the bills coming through?"

He was, he was aware and present. Along with a mere 24 others.

"Excuse my ignorance but how does his objection mean that the bill will be more robustly debated?"

He's done this quite a lot. No-one has paid attention until now. So despite the godawful fuss, he's achieved his aim. People are (briefly at least) talking about how the legislative process works, and how a new criminal offence can be created by 3% of MPs on a Friday afternoon (future debate would have been about the wording of the law, not the creation of the offence as that would have been passed).

QuoadUltra · 16/06/2018 07:40

Legislation should be properly scrutinised.

The guy is a dick, obviously. But this petition is ridiculous. Of course he won’t be stripped of his knighthood.

Magpiesarehuge · 16/06/2018 07:42

*I believe another bill was objected to today regarding greater protection for police dogs & horses (though no one is outraged about that one, for some reason...)

I believe another bill was objected to today regarding greater protection for police dogs & horses (though no one is outraged about that one, for some reason...)*

Is thst the one to change them being classed just as property? I did hear a police dog handler spesk a wile back, campaigning for their status to be changed as his dog was killed protecting him from an armed attacker and was treated as though damage had been done to his truncheon or something. The policeman was gutted his dog was treated as disposable, of no consequence.

honeysucklejasmine · 16/06/2018 07:54

Maybe if he and Philip Davies weren't bring filibustering tears, there would be time to debate this bill (and the others from Friday).

I understand the "to few MPs present" argument but there's two solutions to that. 1) don't do any work on Fridays at all, parliament doesn't sit 5 days a week anymore, Friday is officially a constituency day. Or 2) compel MPs to actually turn up to debates about legislation and not slope off early for the weekend.

honeysucklejasmine · 16/06/2018 07:56

being filibustering twats

Bowlofbabelfish · 16/06/2018 08:15

He’s not the most pleasant chap is he?

At the same time, there does need to be reform so that a minimum number of MPs are present before a bill is passed. Sneaking stuff through under the Radar is how abuses happen.

What happens now? Will the bill actually get debated properly? Or does it get shelved?

Flip

1 2 3 4