Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: On the edge Jun 16 2018, 08:02 PM

I've got a sneaking sympathy for Master Chope. He's been well and truly shafted by his Tiry mates,simply so they can 'look cool' - no surprises there though. Although he's probably got the rationale well and truly muddled, in essence, he's right. We really don't need a new specific law, we have sufficient remedy already. Creating a new and very specific law would simply encourage the continued inept and unintelligent behaviour of todays senior police and prosecuting lawyers. The offence is already covered because it can be considered and outrage to public decency. It's exactly the same as capturing on film people using the loo etc. Ok the maximum penalty might need lifting, but the offence is covered already. So, Master Chope should have suggested that size twelves need applying to a few policemen, whilst a good few CPS people could do with some intensive re education.

Posted by: gel Jun 17 2018, 07:37 AM

What I find worse was his blocking of the bill to give more protection to police dogs/ horses injured by toe rags when committing crimes.
Some fellow Tory's should ensure he's not in the Chamber when such Private Member's Bills come up for discussion.

Posted by: SirWilliam Jun 17 2018, 08:47 AM

One thing having the necessary legislation, quite another applying it in the real world. most antisocial behaviour, from murder downwards, is covered but it still occurs despite the machinations of those in high places. Most of us probably were not aware that "upskirting" even existed but we do now and I can't help feeling that it may become de rigueur in certain corners of the pond.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 18 2018, 08:20 AM

Having a definitive law means flexibility to adjust penalties for the specific offence. Thr Tory burk hasn’t done himself or his party an favours.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 18 2018, 03:52 PM

Quite right, but he's been on this trip for quite a while and other such issues have similarly crashed because of his input. Yes, on the face of it he's a Tory Burk, BUT his mates on the Tory benches are even more so; they should have stopped him several years back. Leads me to think he's simply a fall guy for the party; who want to be seen to be supporting popukar causes and then quietly stangeling them when no one is thought to be looking.

In strictly legal terms, this would have been bad law and almost unenforceable. Proper parliamentary scrutiny would have made it work - that's what he was trying to do.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 18 2018, 04:29 PM

That may be true, but it brings our democracy into disrepute.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 18 2018, 07:36 PM

Wholly agree; the way they carry on, that seems to be Tory policy.

Posted by: x2lls Jun 18 2018, 07:52 PM

There are far more serious issues/groups bringing democracy into disrepute. Namely, the government.