Talk:Christopher Chope

Blocking and filibustering of bills

The section lists numerous occasions when Chope has blocked bills, but offers no explanations. I admit I don't think I'd ever paid attention to him or his activities in the House before today, but according to the BBC's Mark D'Arcy, "Sir Christopher is a leading member of a group of backbench Conservatives who make a practice of ensuring that what they see as well-meaning but flabby legislation is not lazily plopped on to the statue book by a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting. And after all this is a bill to create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail. So, however worthy the cause, he insists on proper, extensive scrutiny, and he has spent most Commons Fridays for the last 20 years doing just that." The section should explain why the various bills were filibustered or blocked, rather than just list them and imply that he is supportive of the activities that the bills would outlaw. Neil S. Walker (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This explanation of the reason why he blocked the upskirting bill dosn't make sense. Commons Business for Friday 15 June 2018 lists nine private members bills that he was proposing today. Why would he put these bills forward to a few MPs on a poorly attended Friday sitting if he opposes the practice? AlwynapHuw (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps those bills did not "create a new criminal offence, for which people can go to jail"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"The section should explain why the various bills were filibustered or blocked" Why? The section about his parliamentary career does not explain why he voted for/against various bills. I thought this aspect of his parliamentary actions merited its own section because (i) He is noted for this type of action and (ii) it separates an otherwise large and undifferentiated topic. Ewen (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless editors document with WP:RS how these various parliamentary maneuvers are of lasting significance, their enumeration here serves the sole purpose of discrediting our BLP subject—which implicates WP:UNDUE in addition to WP:NPOV. As it stands, I support removing the section in toto. KalHolmann (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no implication of support for the activities that the bills would prohibit. The list as it is is factual, supported by references and is not partisan. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I would rather keep the section so readers can find out what Chope is doing. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a weakness of a number of WP:BLPs that the often good reasons for an MP's action aren't given. The WP:RS UK press grant people a 'right to reply' and I always add it though regrettably some editors remove it quoting WP:UNDUE. The reasons are a part of reader education which is what Wikipedia is or should be about. I personally would prefer the section to remain in the hope that Chope's reasons are explained e.g. on his personal webpage. No one wants another dangerous dog bill but relatively minor sexual are often seen in the early careers of major sexual offenders. Early identification including DNA is beneficial to all as a deterrent. JRPG (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

In point of accuracy (which the article is clearly not concerned with), I don't think Chope necessarily objects to the bills in terms of content, he just objects to bills that have not debated. I believe he has objected to literally HUNDREDS of bills. Clearly if private member bills were in general passed then we would have a fundamentally different parliamentary system. There are around 100 private members bills presented each year, with around five passed, and 30 government bills with 95% passed.

There are THOUSANDS of private members bills that have failed during Chope's term in Parliament. An attempt to compile a long list of the choicest ones to make him look bad is blatant POV-pushing. 125.161.105.1 (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Why do you post anonymously User:125.161.105.1? Not sure why the neutrality of this section is disputed: all statements are covered by respectable references, so why not write something positive about him (with source)? Suggest remove tag. Roy Bateman (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Posts by IP editors are perfectly acceptable and valid. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I just wrote the post and posted it, I don't regularly contribute here (haven't for years and years, and no intent to) to the extent that I'd necessarily want to engage in the form of a logged-in account. 125.165.1.237 (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Good to know what politicians do and their arguments, especially when it is noticeable. It seems his objection prevented from ,,proper, extensive scrutiny" by standing committee, report stage as well as by the House of Lords. I'm curious how old is this vetoing procedure. PawełS (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Early 1600s, if I have read this correctly The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1604-1629. Once a bill had progressed to third reading it became much harder to amend, as further alterations necessarily involved defacing the bill, which had already been transferred to parchment. Consequently anyone who announced that he had discovered a fault in the bill or raised an objection at third reading might cause the whole measure to fail. Experienced Members were well aware of a bill’s vulnerability at this stage in its proceedings, and were not averse to exploiting the situation to quash measures they found disagreeable. In May 1614, for example, at its third reading, Edward Alford raised an objection to the bill to punish abuses on the Sabbath, whereupon Sir Jerome Horsey expostulated ‘that this is a trick of old Parliament-men, to give a bill a jerk at the last reading’ AlwynapHuw (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it more interesting to note that nobody seems to be documenting this behaviour? You'd expect someone like TheyWorkForYou to be able to produce a definitive list. 83.101.50.177 (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Re upskirting: Among those in the party who shouted "shame"

Conservative MPS Victoria Atkins and Will Quince were among those who cried "shame" after his intervention on the upskirting bill. ([1]) Bangalamania (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a widespread wave of memes and other calls to refer to "upskirting" as "Choping", coining a new word. Can we have some guidance on when this would become official enough to be included in the Wikipedia article? Simply cited from a newspaper article, would that be enough? 131.111.184.102 (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I successfully applied for protection to Upskirt on the basis of IP editors referring to it as "chopeing" in the leader. These additions were made without reference. If you can find a suitable reference, it can be discussed whether to include it by-the-by in relevant articles, with due respect to how widespread the phenomenon is. Currently it merely looks like a silly fad. Matt 190417 (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

On the verb "to chope"

Please do not add this to the article without seeking consensus on this talk page first. My reasons for asking this are stated here. Very few authoritative news sites have picked up on the chopeing neologism, and one of the few that have has suggested that it means "to block bills" rather than "to upskirt". Because the number of reliable sources for the neologism are small, and the neologism therefore is limited to a number of politically-charged Twitter users, it fails notability to be added to the encyclopaedia. MB190417 (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation

He objected to a bill that would protect girls at risk of female genital mutilation : https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/chope-71-is-said-to-object-to-private-members-bills/ --87.170.193.8 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That is covered in the article. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9CAB:1373:3FCE:602D (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Reinsertion of anonymous named description of Chope as a "selfish twat"

It is already stated in the article that, according to The Guardian, Chope's actions in November 2021 "caused fury within the Conservative Parliamentary Party" and I concede that content from The Guardian can also be included stating that "a minister expressed anonymously that "He (Chope) has been for many year a Jurassic embarrassment – tonight he crossed a line. The man should retire and the executive are livid".

But to include in the article another MP anonymously attacking Chope as a "selfish twat" seems, in my view, to be not needed. The article already makes clear there was reported fury within the Conservative Party.

As per WP:BLP guidelines: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid."

Whilst the source of the description is in the broadsheet Guardian – not a tabloid, the anonymous description of him as a "selfish twat" seems to have a tabloid tone rather than a neutral encyclopedic tone. As per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia doesn't need to include everything even if it's reported in a reliable source. Guidelines at WP:NOTNEWS state: "Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. In addition to writing in encyclopedic tone, events must be put into encyclopedic context."

Would other encyclopedias, such as Encyclopædia Britannica, for example, include an entirely anonymous description of a notable person as a "selfish twat"? Very unlikely in my view. If a named MP is on the record as calling Chope a "selfish twat" then that might be noteworthy enough for inclusion. But to include an anonymous attack alongside another anonymous description of him as "a Jurassic embarrassment" seems undue. My view is that the anonymous attack on him as a "selfish twat" shouldn't be included in the article unless there is a clear consensus on this talk page for the inclusion. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

As it’s reported it was Paul Holmes, a PPS, can it now be re-added? See https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2021/nov/16/conservative-mps-boris-johnson-sleaze-report-christopher-chope-commons-uk-politics-live-latest-updates?page=with:block-619399758f08d09d4ebd80c4&filterKeyEvents=false). A Google search throws up several other conformations of the name. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9CAB:1373:3FCE:602D (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The reference for this in The Guardian link above is a tweet from a journalist saying that Paul Holmes described Chope as a "selfish twat" in a WhatsApp text message to a group of Conservative MPs. Holmes is a relatively junior PPS who was first elected in 2019. If it was a senior minister who publicly said on the record, for example in an interview with the media, that Chope is a "selfish twat", then I think there would be more justification for including it in the article. But this was a private WhatsApp text message from a relatively junior PPS that appears to have been leaked to a journalist. In my view the attack or four letter insult is not very important and including it doesn't add a great deal to the encyclopedic tone of the article.

It's already stated in the article that according to The Guardian, Chope's actions "caused fury" within the Conservative Party, so readers of the article can understand the reaction that Chope's actions caused. Guidelines at WP:BLP state: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." The source above is from a tweet by a journalist about a leaked WhatsApp text message that attacked Chope. In my view it is not important enough to include. WP:NOTNEWS. But if there was a consensus from other editors that it's important enough to include and adds encyclopedic value to the article, I'd accept the majority view. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

”written conservatively” doesn’t mean “written with a conservative bias”. There had been no statement of denial from the MP that he has been misquoted or taken out of context, so I think it’s acceptable that a member of the government’s opinion is taken into account and included. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9CAB:1373:3FCE:602D (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I certainly don't think the article – as it currently stands – could be regarded as "written with a conservative bias". The "Blocking and filibustering of bills" subsection contains 12 paragraphs, with much of it devoted to criticism of Chope's actions. The "Political views" section contains criticism of Chope by Labour MP Paul Flynn and in the opening "Parliamentary career" section it is stated that comments Chope made in 2013 were criticised and that there was also widespread criticism of Chope's actions when it was reported that he had threatened to delay the Hillsborough disaster inquiry. In my view the article already contains much criticism of Chope without it being vital to also include an attack on him by a junior PPS in a text in a private WhatsApp group. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

First you state that if a named MP called him a selfish twat "then that might be noteworthy enough for inclusion". Then, after said MP is named, you restrospectively add the additional criterion of "[if] it was a senior minister". 92.40.216.221 (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Was this WhatsApp group intended to be publicly available, regardless of who made the remark? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Don't include. Who cares about the gutter language which some insignificant PPS posted anonymously on social media? If anything, inclusion reduces the impact of the well-aimed "Jurassic" jibe; also anonymous, but credibly reported by a serious journalist as indicative of senior government opinion.

I also don't think that the offensive sexist remark directed by Chope at Alicia Kearns MP during this recent incident is significant enough to merit inclusion.

(Looking back through my BTL comments on The Guardian blog, I was reminded that last week I posted an insulting comment about Chope (44 recommends) without calling him rude names.) Narky Blert (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't "posted anonymously". Holmes sent it under his own name. It was also "credibly reported by a serious journalist as indicative of senior government opinion". 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11B6:D0AF:F836:E379 (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

A PPS is not a member of the government. See Parliamentary Private Secretary. Narky Blert (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Although they are not members of the Government, they are closely associated with it, subject to the Ministerial code, must vote in line with the government if they want to retain their posts, etc. As to describing him as "some insignificant PPS", he's the PPS of the Home Secretary. I'm not sure that's "insignificant"? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11B6:D0AF:F836:E379 (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Don't include. Chope is almost as much of a dinosuar as the dreaded Mogg Father, but we ought to concentrate more on what appears in Hansard than on a 2-year old junior PPS's tweets? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"junior PPS"? He's Priti Patel's PPS - I'm not sure that classes him as "junior"? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11B6:D0AF:F836:E379 (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Paul Holmes is relatively junior in terms of his experience in the House of Commons. He was elected as an MP at the general election on 12 December 2019, so currently an MP for just under two years. If Holmes was a more senior MP who had made his comments in an interview with the media then I could understand it being noteworthy enough for inclusion. But I'm not convinced that a description of Chope in a text message on a WhatsApp group is important enough for a biographical article. The fact that his text message was reported in a newspaper doesn't necessarily mean it's important enough to include in the article. WP:NOTNEWS. I feel that describing the "fury of the Conservative Party" at Chope's actions, as reported in The Guardian, is sufficient. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Update: It has been more than six weeks since the start of the discussion, which I think is a sufficient amount of time for editors to express their views. No consensus was gained for the inclusion of the description of him in a text message in a WhatsApp group as a "selfish twat". I have therefore today removed the "selfish twat" description. The article still includes the fact that according to The Guardian, there was "reported fury within the Conservative Party" at Chope's actions. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccination

There is nothing about Sir Christopher Chope's doubts about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Recently (October 2022) he took part in a Westminster Hall debate following an e-petition to Parliament. Mjt1949 (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)