SIGN UP

Tory Mp Blocks Fgm Protection Law

Avatar Image
fender62 | 18:37 Sun 10th Feb 2019 | News
59 Answers
is this mp right in the head, or does he have an ulterior motive..it's great bit of legislation a long time coming..
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/08/tory-mp-who-blocked-upskirting-bill-halts-fgm-protection-law-christopher-chope

Answers

41 to 59 of 59rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sorry, losing the plot tonight, and o9nly on my first drink.


Second link was meant to be this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/22/bristol-father-found-not-guilty-female-genital-mutilation-trial-six-year-old-daughter
335 cases. Not even a 777 full, never mind a Jumbo.
"Small earthquake in Chile. Not many dead."
//335 cases//

Phew that's all right then. Was that just Bristol? Not what you might call a main air link to a freaka.
Bristol is second only to Birmingham which had 450 cases during the same period April 2016 and March 2017.
785 too many.
Zac Goldsmith, who co-sponsored the bill, says “Please note that once again he did not object to those [bills] put forward by his friends.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/10/tory-mp-blocked-fgm-law-christopher-chope-faces-deselection

I don’t know what those bills were, but that surely completely negates the argument that this, together with the upskirting issue, has been done as a matter of principle. He is, it seems, a man devoid of principle.
I think we could call him 'Nope Chope'

Do we know the wording of the bill he objects to? Nope to that as well - are there such things as bad or poorly worded bills and Acts ? Yup

every finance act from eternity and the Dangerous Dogs Act spring to mind -

anyway I thought there was legislation against FGM ....
how many excellent acts do we need for good ideas?
(FGM Act 2003 )
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/22/bristol-father-found-not-guilty-female-genital-mutilation-trial-six-year-old-daughter

and when the child was examined by a gynaecologist - no lesion could be seen

case collapsed - all this is a bit witch-hunty innit ?
Ignoring this particular topic I think he is correct.

"“Please note that once again he did not object to those [bills] put forward by his friends.” As you say we dont know what those Bills were. Perhaps he read them more deeply and was satisfied in himself they were whole or so minor as to not matter.

With something like FGM the law needs to be tight, Togo's post early shows some good thought as to why.

What I dont understand is if something is so important why hasn't the Government or opposition pushed for a full debated Bill?
//Do we know the wording of the bill he objects to? Nope to that as well //

actually, yep to that -

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0294/18294.pdf
Well Zacs, Brexit would have had a smoother ride through parliament were they to have noted some things didn't need due process/debate; but there were still those determined to delay, and hopefully stop it.

But I agree some things do need little more than scanning through to check for get-out loopholes.
"I can only imagine the "howls" a few months down the line when parents are hauled before the beak and imprisoned because they have had male children circumcised for health or religious reasons."

I doubt anyone would be hauled up for something done for genuine medical reasons. But religious, yeah, and so they should. MGM may be far less serious than FGM but it's basically the same practice. If someone is old enough to get themselves done as an adult then that's up to them, but children should be protected.
‘Brexit would have had a smoother ride through parliament were they to have noted some things didn't need due process/debate’

What that means is anyone’s guess.
This guy is a complete R soul. If he's trying to make some kind of weird point about parliamentary process, this is not the right way to do it. Either his party or his constituents need to get rid of him.
// ‘Brexit would have had a smoother ride through parliament were they to have noted some things didn't need due process/debate’ What that means is anyone’s guess.//

Parliament cant do anything at all but it still can do some very odd things. Treaty making has changed in the last 100 y and now the treaty is laid before parliament - as a bill.
altho really it is all-or-none - you approve the treaty or not

as happened with Maastricht - clause 2 struck out - clause three add a 'normally' - clause 4 only if parliament agrees in a month -clause 5 is mimsy and should go to committee, and all this makes the treaty so much better. The MPs think that will change the treaty!

and they should realise that you cant do that with a treaty - it is done and dusted
it is voted on in its entirety

or .....

‘Brexit would have had a smoother ride through parliament if they noted some things didn't need due process/debate’
I would just like to add, as a resident of Bristol, please acknowledge a high rate of reported FGM means we are a city that takes it seriously as a crime and pursues it. It is a very difficult crime to prove. I was very happy to see the first conviction in the UK for this recently, and hope it inspires the thought that it CAN be prosecuted, and is worth the investment of increasingly limited Police resources.
has anyone seen an analysis of the bill and what it wanted to do ?

if you follow Mushie link - the now rejected bill
refers to the Female gential mutilations act 2003 - which makes it a crime

the new bill inserts the power to make FGM protection orders which appears to be the function of the criminal courts, under the 2003 act
also available to the Family courts controlled by the Children Act 1989

Ha !

I can see why Chump Chope wants it properly discussed....
the family courts are essentially different in aim and function that the criminal courts
// What I dont understand is if something is so important why hasn't the Government or opposition pushed for a full debated Bill? //
because all parliamentary time is Brexitty

[The General Medical COuncil wanted to tidy up some little points over doctors discipline and glumly concluded that they cdnt get parliamentary time for it for at least a few years .....]

41 to 59 of 59rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Do you know the answer?

Tory Mp Blocks Fgm Protection Law

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.