Film, Media & TV15 mins ago
Debit Where It's Due...........
45 Answers
https:/ /www.bb c.co.uk /news/u k-polit ics-444 96427
Even though this bloke is a Tory and a brexiteer, what is he doing blocking a bill about filming up the John Hurt?
Even though this bloke is a Tory and a brexiteer, what is he doing blocking a bill about filming up the John Hurt?
Answers
Anne, there is absolutely no need for that. People would probably run a mile looking at you continual attacks of posters and rarely posting anything related to the question.
15:28 Fri 15th Jun 2018
Being a Friday afternoon man myself ( you stop all sorts of crip being approved)
he was not saying any legislation against upskirting was bad but THAT bit of proffered legislation ( about upskirting ) was bad
( do you like cake ? yeah but not that bit - it stinks!)
and he has done it before - twenty years of Fridays objecting to crap, knee jerk bad legislation
he was not saying any legislation against upskirting was bad but THAT bit of proffered legislation ( about upskirting ) was bad
( do you like cake ? yeah but not that bit - it stinks!)
and he has done it before - twenty years of Fridays objecting to crap, knee jerk bad legislation
AOG, A kilt is a skirt ,so yes the cat will include it.
http:// www.dic tionary .com/br owse/ki lt
http://
Sir Christopher objects to Friday legislation (or whatever it is) because the legislation is shoddy. Not because he objects to the principle.
What he and his fellow objectors do is make the legislation go back for scrutiny. Which is probably a good thing.
However I agree that existing legislation should cover it.
And it is a shame once again that some posters bring nothing to the discussion. Only objectionable insults. Do they do that because they have nothing of interest or intelligence to bring to the discussion or because they simply like being obnoxious to specific people?
What he and his fellow objectors do is make the legislation go back for scrutiny. Which is probably a good thing.
However I agree that existing legislation should cover it.
And it is a shame once again that some posters bring nothing to the discussion. Only objectionable insults. Do they do that because they have nothing of interest or intelligence to bring to the discussion or because they simply like being obnoxious to specific people?
I notice Sir Christopher is a death penalty advocate, a burqa-banner and opposes same sex marriage.
I hope he applies his rigour to ALL ‘flabby legislation’ and not just this.
Will he be helping to redraft a ‘proper’ bill?
Somehow I doubt it.
I also hope tho he doesn’t become a victim of social media persecution
I hope he applies his rigour to ALL ‘flabby legislation’ and not just this.
Will he be helping to redraft a ‘proper’ bill?
Somehow I doubt it.
I also hope tho he doesn’t become a victim of social media persecution
Perhaps when we have heavy handed (haha) legislation to ban the voyeurs and pervs, we can have legislation banning the exhibitionists from flashing their undercrackers and wobbly bits all over the meedya at every opportunity, whether we want, or indeed want our children and grandchildren to witness the grotesque(in most cases) "spectacle". :))