Upskirting

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Upskirting

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 7 of 14 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

Mapletree Croydon 16 Jun 18 9.22am
Originally posted by Direwolf I think this is a fair point. Why should any Bill that will dictate the behaviour of people and carry legal consequences be allowed to pass through The House with around only 6% of our elected representatives there? It was three years in the making. Anyone with a view had plenty of time to prepare their arguments. Nobody had any counter argument to the bill, its detail or the process. Chope thought he knew better than the whole of Parliament. Edited by Mapletree (16 Jun 2018 9.32am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 16 Jun 18 9.22am

Originally posted by Direwolf

I think this is a fair point. Why should any Bill that will dictate the behaviour of people and carry legal consequences be allowed to pass through The House with around only 6% of our elected representatives there?

It was three years in the making. Anyone with a view had plenty of time to prepare their arguments. Nobody had any counter argument to the bill, its detail or the process. Chope thought he knew better than the whole of Parliament.

Edited by Mapletree (16 Jun 2018 9.32am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 16 Jun 18 10.24am
Originally posted by Mapletree It was three years in the making. Anyone with a view had plenty of time to prepare their arguments. Nobody had any counter argument to the bill, its detail or the process. Chope thought he knew better than the whole of Parliament. Edited by Mapletree (16 Jun 2018 9.32am) Not three years in the making on debate. I think you are talking about getting it to be a bill. That's not the same thing is it. This bill wasn't debated in the house, that concerns me. Where are the safeguards in the bill for my concerns? Bad laws are passed all the time. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Jun 2018 10.26am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

16 Jun 18 10.24am

Originally posted by Mapletree

Edited by Mapletree (16 Jun 2018 9.32am)

Not three years in the making on debate. I think you are talking about getting it to be a bill. That's not the same thing is it.

This bill wasn't debated in the house, that concerns me.

Where are the safeguards in the bill for my concerns?

Bad laws are passed all the time.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Jun 2018 10.26am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000 16 Jun 18 10.29am
Chope is a fool, admittedly a fool that believes Private Members Bills shouldn't happen rather than believing upskirting is ok, but a fool nonetheless. I'm no Tory but this could harm their party and is an easy stick to beat them with come election time. Mud sticks regardless of everyone else in the party seeming to support the bill. Why the Bill couldn't have just been waved through and then amended at Committee stage to put in safeguards as previous posters have suggested, is very strange. Chope and his mate have acted very stupidly. 'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'
Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000

16 Jun 18 10.29am

Chope is a fool, admittedly a fool that believes Private Members Bills shouldn't happen rather than believing upskirting is ok, but a fool nonetheless.

I'm no Tory but this could harm their party and is an easy stick to beat them with come election time. Mud sticks regardless of everyone else in the party seeming to support the bill.

Why the Bill couldn't have just been waved through and then amended at Committee stage to put in safeguards as previous posters have suggested, is very strange. Chope and his mate have acted very stupidly.

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle 16 Jun 18 10.31am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays This bill wasn't debated in the house, that concerns me. Where are the safeguards in the bill for my concerns? You can't have laws that apply to everyone except immature teenagers otherwise that could be a defence for almost anything
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

16 Jun 18 10.31am

Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

This bill wasn't debated in the house, that concerns me.

Where are the safeguards in the bill for my concerns?

You can't have laws that apply to everyone except immature teenagers otherwise that could be a defence for almost anything

Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle 16 Jun 18 10.33am
Originally posted by johnno42000 I'm no Tory but this could harm their party and is an easy stick to beat them with come election time. Mud sticks regardless of everyone else in the party seeming to support the bill. It seems that the bill is likely to be presented, debated and then passed within a month so there won't be any long term harm to the government
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

16 Jun 18 10.33am

Originally posted by johnno42000

I'm no Tory but this could harm their party and is an easy stick to beat them with come election time. Mud sticks regardless of everyone else in the party seeming to support the bill.

It seems that the bill is likely to be presented, debated and then passed within a month so there won't be any long term harm to the government

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 16 Jun 18 10.33am
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle You can't have laws that apply to everyone except immature teenagers otherwise that could be a defence for almost anything Actually we do have laws with provisions like that. Age, makes a difference to what the state can impose. The manner of the offence matters, the age matters also. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

16 Jun 18 10.33am

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

You can't have laws that apply to everyone except immature teenagers otherwise that could be a defence for almost anything

Actually we do have laws with provisions like that. Age, makes a difference to what the state can impose.

The manner of the offence matters, the age matters also.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 16 Jun 18 10.33am
Originally posted by Mapletree It was three years in the making. Anyone with a view had plenty of time to prepare their arguments. Nobody had any counter argument to the bill, its detail or the process. Chope thought he knew better than the whole of Parliament. Edited by Mapletree (16 Jun 2018 9.32am) You have to quite admire Chope. He has opposed the following: The pardon for Alan Turing; Same sex marriage; An investigation into Bercow bullying accusations; The use of wild animals in circus’; Free car parking at hospitals for carers; Making revenge evictions an offence; It must take creativity to oppose such a variety of matters and I salute his dedication to pissing off vast swathes of the public with his offensive views. Edited by matt_himself (16 Jun 2018 10.34am) "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 16 Jun 18 10.33am

Originally posted by Mapletree

Edited by Mapletree (16 Jun 2018 9.32am)

You have to quite admire Chope. He has opposed the following:

The pardon for Alan Turing;
Same sex marriage;
An investigation into Bercow bullying accusations;
The use of wild animals in circus’;
Free car parking at hospitals for carers;
Making revenge evictions an offence;

It must take creativity to oppose such a variety of matters and I salute his dedication to pissing off vast swathes of the public with his offensive views.

Edited by matt_himself (16 Jun 2018 10.34am)

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 16 Jun 18 10.36am
Originally posted by johnno42000 Chope is a fool, admittedly a fool that believes Private Members Bills shouldn't happen rather than believing upskirting is ok, but a fool nonetheless. I'm no Tory but this could harm their party and is an easy stick to beat them with come election time. Mud sticks regardless of everyone else in the party seeming to support the bill. Why the Bill couldn't have just been waved through and then amended at Committee stage to put in safeguards as previous posters have suggested, is very strange. Chope and his mate have acted very stupidly. This surely is the whole point of Chope's intervention. No Bill should be "waved through", it should be debated. Law gets waved through in places like Russia. Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 16 Jun 18 10.36am

Originally posted by johnno42000

Chope is a fool, admittedly a fool that believes Private Members Bills shouldn't happen rather than believing upskirting is ok, but a fool nonetheless.

I'm no Tory but this could harm their party and is an easy stick to beat them with come election time. Mud sticks regardless of everyone else in the party seeming to support the bill.

Why the Bill couldn't have just been waved through and then amended at Committee stage to put in safeguards as previous posters have suggested, is very strange. Chope and his mate have acted very stupidly.

This surely is the whole point of Chope's intervention. No Bill should be "waved through", it should be debated. Law gets waved through in places like Russia.

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 16 Jun 18 10.42am
Originally posted by matt_himself You have to quite admire Chope. He has opposed the following: The pardon for Alan Turing; Same sex marriage; An investigation into Bercow bullying accusations; The use of wild animals in circus’; Free car parking at hospitals for carers; Making revenge evictions an offence; It must take creativity to oppose such a variety of matters and I salute his dedication to pissing off vast swathes of the public with his offensive views. Edited by matt_himself (16 Jun 2018 10.34am) What are his offensive views? Are they all the views that you don't share? Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 16 Jun 18 10.42am

Originally posted by matt_himself

You have to quite admire Chope. He has opposed the following:

It must take creativity to oppose such a variety of matters and I salute his dedication to pissing off vast swathes of the public with his offensive views.

Edited by matt_himself (16 Jun 2018 10.34am)

What are his offensive views? Are they all the views that you don't share?

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 16 Jun 18 10.43am
Originally posted by YT My point is that if ‘parliament’ is now so hung up about the exercise of that right, then why has ‘parliament’ allowed that right to perpetuate? I think we are in agreement. 1 out of 650 is a point well made; however in this instance, did you see on TV how many MPs were actually in the chamber at the time of this outrage? I’d be surprised if it was more than 40. Doesn’t this again support the MP’s stance i.e. that an unscrutinised law can be passed when supported by only a tiny minority of the represented population? I certainly have no brief for Chope (his voting record singles him out as an utter tw@t) but I can see his point: I don't think it's right that a piece of legislation that carries a prison sentence shouldn't merit greater scrutiny than this Bill was getting. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 16 Jun 18 10.43am

Originally posted by YT

My point is that if ‘parliament’ is now so hung up about the exercise of that right, then why has ‘parliament’ allowed that right to perpetuate? I think we are in agreement.

1 out of 650 is a point well made; however in this instance, did you see on TV how many MPs were actually in the chamber at the time of this outrage? I’d be surprised if it was more than 40. Doesn’t this again support the MP’s stance i.e. that an unscrutinised law can be passed when supported by only a tiny minority of the represented population?

I certainly have no brief for Chope (his voting record singles him out as an utter tw@t) but I can see his point: I don't think it's right that a piece of legislation that carries a prison sentence shouldn't merit greater scrutiny than this Bill was getting.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000 16 Jun 18 11.30am
Originally posted by YT This surely is the whole point of Chope's intervention. No Bill should be "waved through", it should be debated. Law gets waved through in places like Russia. But it doesn't become a law until it is thoroughly debated after being waved through so the process does allow for long periods of debate, scrutiny and amendment (if necessary). Edited by johnno42000 (16 Jun 2018 11.31am) 'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'
Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000

16 Jun 18 11.30am

Originally posted by YT

This surely is the whole point of Chope's intervention. No Bill should be "waved through", it should be debated. Law gets waved through in places like Russia.

But it doesn't become a law until it is thoroughly debated after being waved through so the process does allow for long periods of debate, scrutiny and amendment (if necessary).

Edited by johnno42000 (16 Jun 2018 11.31am)

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 16 Jun 18 11.35am
Originally posted by Cucking Funt I certainly have no brief for Chope (his voting record singles him out as an utter tw@t) but I can see his point: I don't think it's right that a piece of legislation that carries a prison sentence shouldn't merit greater scrutiny than this Bill was getting. From my dim memory of school I thought Bills had a first reading, 2nd reading committee stage and then a 3rd reading (not necessarily in that order). The bill then goes to the Lords for further scrutiny before Royal Assent. TV likes to show the clashes between the party bigwigs but actually most of the real scrutiny is in the committee stage. If this bill is following that path then there should be ample opportunity for MP's to discuss, review and revise. So this is rather a hollow gesture by this MP. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 16 Jun 18 11.35am

Originally posted by Cucking Funt

From my dim memory of school I thought Bills had a first reading, 2nd reading committee stage and then a 3rd reading (not necessarily in that order). The bill then goes to the Lords for further scrutiny before Royal Assent.

TV likes to show the clashes between the party bigwigs but actually most of the real scrutiny is in the committee stage.

If this bill is following that path then there should be ample opportunity for MP's to discuss, review and revise. So this is rather a hollow gesture by this MP.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 7 of 14 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Upskirting

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors