Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Ross
  • 12,481 comments
  • 500,856 views

How will you vote in the 2019 UK General Election?

  • The Brexit Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Change UK/The Independent Group

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 3 7.5%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • Labour Party

    Votes: 11 27.5%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 8 20.0%

  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 3 7.5%

  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other Parties

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 11 27.5%
  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
I don't understand the Chope hate. He said at the time that he wasn't against the change of law, just against the fact it (or rather any law) could be introduced without any parliamentary debate at all.
 
Famine
I don't understand the Chope hate. He said at the time that he wasn't against the change of law, just against the fact it (or rather any law) could be introduced without any parliamentary debate at all.
Click to expand...

It's easy to see why he's being getting **** for him standing against it. He's got a pretty horrible track record in Parliament... and was then made a Knight... That said, I do agree with you.
 
Famine
I don't understand the Chope hate. He said at the time that he wasn't against the change of law, just against the fact it (or rather any law) could be introduced without any parliamentary debate at all.
Click to expand...

He's objected on principal but everyone's always gonna see it as him being a perv.
 
Famine
I don't understand the Chope hate. He said at the time that he wasn't against the change of law, just against the fact it (or rather any law) could be introduced without any parliamentary debate at all.
Click to expand...
Because he chose to do it on an ammendment that was 4 pages long and had no opposition.

Choose your fights wisely.
 
ExigeEvan
Because he chose to do it on an ammendment that was 4 pages long and had no opposition.

Choose your fights wisely.
Click to expand...
But that's not the central point of the people who are attacking him. All the comments are directed at his ignorance of what "upskirting" is, with comments about how it should be renamed "choping", women sharing their stories of how perverts have upskirted them, panty-bunting at his offices, and all sorts of abuse (largely centreing on him condoning and being complicit in the sexual abuse of women) levelled at him...

... not his procedural pedantry.


Which, he also claims, will actually speed up the adoption of the legislation. Although I find that curious.
 
Maybe by selflessly acting as the villain to unite everyone else against him is supposed to make them more eager to push it through quickly. He's a hero really.
 
Famine
But that's not the central point of the people who are attacking him. All the comments are directed at his ignorance of what "upskirting" is, with comments about how it should be renamed "choping", women sharing their stories of how perverts have upskirted them, panty-bunting at his offices, and all sorts of abuse (largely centreing on him condoning and being complicit in the sexual abuse of women) levelled at him...

... not his procedural pedantry.


Which, he also claims, will actually speed up the adoption of the legislation. Although I find that curious.
Click to expand...
Which is what makes it worse, it was a 4 page ammendment and he chose not to read it and just objected because that's the kind of imbecile he is.

Let's not forget, it has been through the chamber once, the PM has spoken about it and there has been a publicity campaign. What is his job if not to be mindful of current legislative developments!?

By causing a delay he is complicit in further cases of up-skirting potentially going un-prosecuted in the short term.
 
ExigeEvan
Which is what makes it worse, it was a 4 page ammendment and he chose not to read it
Click to expand...
I've not heard anything about whether he read it or not - just that he did not look at it in detail.
ExigeEvan
and just objected because that's the kind of imbecile he is.
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, his point is valid. A government shoehorning in significant changes to legislation - and let's not forget that this is a law creating a crime - in a quiet, poorly attended parliament session without debate is not democratically safe.

Although it looks like on this occasion he's actually objected to the wrong thing - it wasn't government-proposed legislation.
ExigeEvan
Let's not forget, it has been through the chamber once, the PM has spoken about it and there has been a publicity campaign. What is his job if not to be mindful of current legislative developments!?
Click to expand...
Protecting rights and democracy. He believes that democracy is better served by changes to legislation being debated than introduced by stealth. I don't readily disagree.
ExigeEvan
By causing a delay he is complicit in further cases of up-skirting potentially going un-prosecuted in the short term.
Click to expand...
He does not believe that he is causing a delay... In fact he believes it will occur more quickly with the government going through the appropriate channels to introduce the new law:
I feel a bit sore about being scapegoated over this. The suggestion that I am some kind of pervert is a complete travesty of the truth. It's defamatory of my character and it's very depressing some of my colleagues have been perpetuating that in the past 48 hours. None of them phoned me up to ask me to explain my actions. Why would they want to humiliate one of their own colleagues? Hopefully when this does get into the statute book, they will accept I was right but maybe that's asking for the moon.

The government has been hijacking time that is rightfully that of backbenchers. This is about who controls the House of Commons on Fridays and that's where I am coming from. I actually support the Bills that were before the house. Four of the 26 Bills that fell at the same time were my own.

But this is something I have fought for in most of my time as an MP and it goes to the very heart of the power balance between the government and Parliament. The government is abusing parliamentary time for its own ends and in a democracy this is not acceptable. The government cannot just bring in what it wants on the nod. We don't quite live in the Putin era yet.

I spoke to Gina Martin, the lady who had been promoting the Bill as a victim herself, and she said she perfectly understood my reasons. We arranged to meet to discuss the matter further so I must admit I was surprised.

My recommendation to the government is that to ensure the fastest, fairest and surest passage to the statute book for a Bill to outlaw upskirting, which I would wholeheartedly support, it introduces its own legislation without delay.

I am not a dinosaur. I am very much alive and kicking. There are too few colleagues who are prepared to stand up for the rights of Parliament against the executive and that's when the freedoms we cherish will be eroded.
Click to expand...
The bolded part is the important section. He's also done the same thing with Finn's Law, for the same reason - and I don't remember anyone saying he was a dog murdering bastard. And in the same session as the upskirting bill, one MP filibustered - which isn't allowed - and blocked a vote on a mental health bill!


Don't get me wrong, he's pretty heinously voted against some things like same-sex marriage, but on this occasion he's not really deserving the kind of abuse he's getting - and it's not like there'll be a spate of upskirting in the meantime.

Let's not forget that the change of legislation merely makes it easier to prosecute than existing legislation, by creating a specific offence, rather than makes it illegal where it was previously legal.
 
Quick news quiz for Brits:

Britain Struggles to Cope As Weather Turns _________

a) Warm
b) Cold
c) Windy
d) Snowy
e) Parky (pronounced eeeeeh, parky)

All of them, obviously. Bloody sick of it, I am.
 
HenrySwanson
Happy 70th NHS! Let's celebrate with a good old scandal (which might be your biggest cover-up yet)

THOUSANDS of NHS patients could have been killed in 'one of the biggest cover ups ever': Faulty syringe pumps used by Gosport Dr Opiate 'are to blame for deaths across the UK'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-prematurely-faulty-opiate-syringe-pumps.html
Click to expand...
It's only the Daily Mail and therefore must be completely ignored by many esteemed members here on it's face.
 
HenrySwanson
I was secretly hoping for that response from someone as it was actually the Sunday Times that investigated.

With that story and now this:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/billy-caldwells-mum-says-doctors-12776102

I was only joking earlier on in the thread about euthanasia becoming a decision of the state....
Click to expand...

Where is the state involved in that article in The Mirror?
Billy, from Castlederg, Northern Ireland, was born prematurely at 32 weeks. He did well after leaving hospital but seizures started at four months.
Single mum Charlotte says: “Doctors tried to treat Billy but nothing worked and eventually he was just drugged with sedatives. He had intractable, drug-resistant epilepsy. We were admitted to hospital when he was four months. My boy was desperately ill but fighting and his greatest champion was me, his mum.”
Click to expand...

She alleges: “I had Billy in my arms and I was rocking him. He had just come out of a seizure. The doctor came up and he looked so calm and kind. He told me Billy could be on morphine for pain relief and showed me a syringe driver. It became clear what was being offered to me when he said it was his professional opinion that it would be better for Billy and better for me if we let him slip away.
Click to expand...

Looks to me, regardless of how overblown this article is, that the opinion of the doctors treating this poor child where giving him and her a painless way out, given how daunting his life was. The State is never mentioned. Euthanasia isn't even legal in the UK and our courts have battled to keep it that way.

In fact, to totally invalidate your hilarious assertion, The State, is in light of this case looking to make the current illegal drug, legal to help this child.
 
baldgye
Where is the state involved in that article in The Mirror?




Looks to me, regardless of how overblown this article is, that the opinion of the doctors treating this poor child where giving him and her a painless way out, given how daunting his life was. The State is never mentioned. Euthanasia isn't even legal in the UK and our courts have battled to keep it that way.

In fact, to totally invalidate your hilarious assertion, The State, is in light of this case looking to make the current illegal drug, legal to help this child.
Click to expand...
Overblown? He was offered the same "treatment" as the NHS has been covering up for years!

Is the NHS not the State's healthcare system?
 
Scaff
Just to be clear, are you claiming (without a bit of evidence) that euthanasia is NHS policy?
Click to expand...
Of course not, but we're seeing what agents of the NHS are doing in hospitals. Those aren't isolated incidents.

What we could be seeing is the grassroots of widespread euthanasia in the NHS. And note I emphasise the word "could". My assertion was about the state eventually adopting euthanasia and....looking at the extent of the cover-ups I'm not so reassured.

baldgye
In fact, to totally invalidate your hilarious assertion, The State, is in light of this case looking to make the current illegal drug, legal to help this child.
Click to expand...
Remember I said "becoming" - I don't believe it currently is the state policy. And your article is talking about a treatment for the boy. Euthanasia could be seen as an equally valid treatment.
 
HenrySwanson
Of course not, but we're seeing what agents of the NHS are doing in hospitals. Those aren't isolated incidents.
Click to expand...
Actually based on the currently presented evidence that's exactly what they are, isolated incidents.

HenrySwanson
What we could be seeing is the grassroots of widespread euthanasia in the NHS. And note I emphasise the word "could". My assertion was about the state eventually adopting euthanasia and....looking at the extent of the cover-ups I'm not so reassured.
Click to expand...
The state could eventually adopt euthanasia (and my personal view is that it should - with a well defined and rigorous model), but your initial presentation read as a conspiracy of the state having introduced it via the 'back-door'.
 
Currently sat at a festival in the apparently Muslim no-go zone of Finsbury Park.

It's insane how much booze these Sharia laws allow.

IMG_20180630_132155_434.jpg
 

Latest Posts

Back