I honestly think there are sufficient ways of punishing uncle derek already. The very real point is that the law would make no distinction between the two.
Good, maybe Auntie Doreen and Uncle Derek can learn to stop being perverts and blaming drink or their age for their actions.
But why should there be a distinction? Why is it wrong for a man to do it but because its a woman it's OK? That was my point. A man in a kilt doesn't ask to have his private parts photographed
Seriously - you want to put middle aged women on the sex offenders register for getting carried away with a joke about what do scotsmen have up their kilt. **** me - what do you do when little boys pull little girls hair in the play ground - cart them off to the cop shop and have them charged with greivous bodily harm?
Until I read about this today I wasn't aware either of the fact that bills can go through on the nod without a debate, or of the fact that when an attempt is made to do so, it can be blocked if one MP just says "object". My understanding, and it it just from what I have read, is that the MP in question isn't actually fundamentally against the idea, but wants it debating. On balance, I think thats a good thing. I think there is a strong chance that passing bills through on the nod without scrutinty or debate could result in "bad law". I can't see why anyone in principle would be against the idea of this bill to make this a specific offence. But the fine details of it, how it is defined in law and what the punishment range should be, should be debated properly. That's what parliament is for. That's a good thing. Why do people have to be so one eyed on here about anything to do with the tories.
You have to question what he is and isn’t letting through. Why can you not implement a policy and make slight tweaks to the policy within weeks. This government is a disgrace.
No I don't. I just have to suggest in principle I prefer laws to be debated before being passed. Surely thats better than rushing through bad law on the nod and then having to amend it later. And what the **** has it got to do with the government?
He is part of said government. The debate over blokes shoving cameras up womens skirts? Sounds spiffing.
These new fangled phones are great - but they have their down side. I’ll just say this - men will ALWAYS go to extreme lengths to look up a women’s skirt. That’s how desperate men are - women need to realise and understand more of what they are dealing with when considering men. If a man can get away with it or thinks he can get away with it then HE WILL DO IT. That is how men are genetically programmed. Women generally think more before they act.
If you can't take a cheeky snap up someone's skirt while walking to work then there's something wrong and that's certainly the kind of world I don't want to live in. PC gone mad
No he isn't. He is a backbench MP. You do know the difference yeah? And I don't care how spiffing the debate is. That is what MPs are employed to do and I would rather they did it. Properly. This bill will become law. In its own good time. When it has been debated.
In that time there can be plenty of perpatrators who get away or victims traumatised. Amusing that you think backbench tories arent part of the government. Tallyho
So they debate it and then it's made an offence under law what's this p1llock of a M.P. gained because no ones going to vote against the motion, only him I suspect wasting parliament time.