[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Taf

Another knee-jerk law stopped in its tracks by someone being sensible. It should be properly debated first.

Thank you! At last someone with a moment to breathe, to think about it. I was going to run a thread on this as the original Sky story ran as if the thing passed.

I see it as a preposterous idea. I'll likely write a longer comment on it, once the bill gets to a debate. (Sounds like a horrible idea though).

---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

This is where there is daft policies and rules within Parliament, no one person should have the power to kill a bill like that by just shouting 'object'.

Why was there a need to have such a law in the first place? Without being able to prove intent, the bill would have no chance of being effective, at all.

This bill is absurd, on the merits.

The Tories have lost their way, Labour is a disaster party. We are in a political situation of being in absolute Limbo.

Very true, on all fronts, and the answer is not to try more parties. The Lib Dems (with their few MPs) proposed this, then complained when someone opposed. It is dangerous to give power to the brain dead.

---------- Post added at 18:36 ---------- Previous post was at 18:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

What's there to debate? Gobsmacked it isn't illegal already.

It is illegal though - same rules apply to the paparazzi as they do to any average Joe.

I think that you can't use a lens to zoom in and there are reasonable grounds of privacy in reasonable areas - expectations etc.

Now, I don't even want to get into the absurd hypothetical scenarios that this could effect and end up involving.

This is Britain's version of the French law banning whistling - the latest round of Darwin awards time hitting parliament.

---------- Post added at 18:43 ---------- Previous post was at 18:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

I think this is a specific incidence of private members bills and the time allotted to them meaning you can run out the clock on getting it passed. You couldn't do this to any government introduced legislation I think.

Yeah, even the lady who decided to fawn faux outrage at the whole process even eventually said that this is nothing but procedural said that Sir Bill is opposed to PMB's:

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsPolitics/...ry-mp-11405840

What was disgusting was her comments at the end which said that it was a "petty thing to do" (to follow procedure - how dare people get the due process expected of a parliamentarian when passing a bill!)

What a piece of work - openly huffing at the idea of her own pet project being thwarted by someone using the framework of the house to analyze something now that "there outta be a law" crowd have picked up steam.

---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 18:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

He says it's because it's not been properly debated and he is against laws just being put onto the books without proper parliamentary debate. Not entirely unreasonable but this looks really, really bad in terms of PR.

Yeah, the optics are indeed terrible, especially as it was a guy that blocked it - as in the current world of femmewhoring anything that does not placate the whims of genderoically inferior crowd is seen as a chauvinist. Of course none of the women in the party could say anything because they are now clamoring for their latest project - abortion in NI!

The modern day conservative party sickens me.