OV9

Here clicky. There is a time and a place for a personal crusade in your career and it only takes half a brain cell to realise there are things much larger than your own agenda. Things that irk me are this completely unit was informed of the topic well before hand - as is the process - and didn't even bother to take the opportunity to gain a full understanding of the issue, they just left it and by the sounds of it ignored it, and then after all that opportunity objected on the day of the races. It makes a mockery of their own integrity on their personal crusade and their professional status which expects them to learn as much as possible to make an informed choice when voting on such issues. Pot calling kettle black or what.

I hope he's sacked. That's my personal opinion of course but really, this topic has been discussed for years and is long over due coming into law so where's this arse hole had his head all that time? When he's being reported as not knowing the issue he was objecting to I'm not surprised he's failed to come out and explain himself when all the parties and chief whips got behind it and spoke to each individual MP well before the vote. This cunt should have done the homework he's paid to do and decided that just for once something was actually bigger than his little crusade. Which is a fraction of the level of intelligence we expect from people in his position.

He's let himself down, he's let his party down (I don't really care about either of those but someone will), most importantly he's let victims down. He's fucked it up. He's really fucked it up. And I bet he gets away with this.

I'm not defending him but least he turned up, where are the rest of the useless fuckers?

unzippy wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:20 am I'm not defending him but least he turned up, where are the rest of the useless fuckers?

Fridays are traditionally when MPs return to their constituency hence why this bell cheese only does this on Fridays.

What possible benefit could he attain from obstructing such a commonsensical bill getting passed?

JLv3.0 wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:54 am What possible benefit could he attain from obstructing such a commonsensical bill getting passed?

He said he did it for "procedural reasons":

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rting-bill

Hmm. I'd suggest the time and the place to take a strong stance of procedural box-ticking was not then and there. He is indeed the end of a bell.

So he objected so that a law wouldn’t be just passed without being properly debated.

Itseems like this ones a no brainier, but it’s probably not a bad idea to give a chance to hear any actual objections in a debate before actually making it law - just in case.

Rich B wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:13 am So he objected so that a law wouldn’t be just passed without being properly debated.

Itseems like this ones a no brainier, but it’s probably not a bad idea to give a chance to hear any actual objections in a debate before actually making it law - just in case.

He didn't know what upskirting was

Apparently he campaigned against turning one of the Commons bars into a crèche

So much of the arcane, stupid procedures of the two houses need binning, this is just one example.

Carlos wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:23 am

Rich B wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:13 am So he objected so that a law wouldn’t be just passed without being properly debated.

Itseems like this ones a no brainier, but it’s probably not a bad idea to give a chance to hear any actual objections in a debate before actually making it law - just in case.

He didn't know what upskirting was

from what I gather, it’s not the subject, it’s the passing laws without debate he objects to.

One of the red tops had a dwarf pap on the payroll specifically for the "oops" upskirt shot years ago.

Gavin wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:28 am One of the red tops had a dwarf pap on the payroll specifically for the "oops" upskirt shot years ago.

Any plans to release an English version of that post?

JLv3.0 wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:34 am

Gavin wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:28 am One of the red tops had a dwarf pap on the payroll specifically for the "oops" upskirt shot years ago.

Any plans to release an English version of that post?

keep reading it, it works!

JLv3.0 wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:34 am

Gavin wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:28 am One of the red tops had a dwarf pap on the payroll specifically for the "oops" upskirt shot years ago.

Any plans to release an English version of that post?

A newspaper, that is published in tabloid format, employed an individual with dwarfism as a photographer specialising in taking unstaged celebrity photographs in public areas, specifically because he could attain low angle photographs which would capture flashes of underwear or other areas under the main garments of females under certain circumstances.

Ok got it now! Thanks Dave

The 'red top' and 'pap' threw me off but I'm back in the game now!

It is how us young ones speak Grandad!

Rich B wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:48 am

Carlos wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:23 am

Rich B wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:13 am So he objected so that a law wouldn’t be just passed without being properly debated.

Itseems like this ones a no brainier, but it’s probably not a bad idea to give a chance to hear any actual objections in a debate before actually making it law - just in case.

He didn't know what upskirting was

from what I gather, it’s not the subject, it’s the passing laws without debate he objects to.

Yes, that's his excuse but this is a topic that's been long debated in numerous political forums with an exceptionally high profile, relatively speaking. Clearly he's not aware of that which brings into question what the fuck he's actually doing for the money he gets paid. If he had even a vague idea of what was going on then he should have put his personal crusade to one side on just this one occasion and let it through.

I see it's going back through, hopefully it gets passed this time.

Doesn’t it already come under another crime? Surely it can’t be currently legal to take a snap up an unsuspecting female’s skirt?

240PP wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:31 pm Doesn’t it already come under another crime? Surely it can’t be currently legal to take a snap up an unsuspecting female’s skirt?

It's not currently covered by law, hence trying to get it approved as a law. I think the technicality causing an issue is that the area in question is still "covered" by under wear, if the person was going commando then I believe it's covered by law.

Maybe he did it to this particular issue as it would gain him more of an audience for his issue with the voting?

I fear it backfired.

Dave!