Finn's law: Tory MP derails bid for police dog law change

"Government-backed plans to bring in a law to stop people who attack police dogs and horses from claiming self-defence have been derailed.

Environment Secretary Michael Gove had supported the so-called "Finn's law", debated in the House of Commons. It is named after police dog Finn, who needed surgery when he was stabbed in October 2016. But Conservative MP Sir Christopher Chope announced his objection to the proposed Animal Welfare (Service) Bill.

The Bill was tabled by Conservative MP Sir Oliver Heald and would have progressed further towards becoming law if Sir Christopher, who has a reputation for derailing private members' bills, had not objected."

Full article HERE

I don't understand how ONE MP can derail like this - surely that's not democratic?   And, apparently, without giving a reason?

This man seems to block all private members bills just because he can, most of the time he's not even looked into what they are about. The electorate need to look at his record before they vote next time. Hopefully Finns law will be passed in the very near future

He appears to be a complete and utter tool.  Apparently he blocks them going through this way because they aren't being properly debated.  Same thing he's done with the upskirting bill - only now he's said that if the government put that through he will fully support it!  So I assume he just has something against this system, or is a total dick.  Or both.

> or is a total dick.  Or both.

Yeah.  Both.

MamaBass
I don't understand how ONE MP can derail like this - surely that's not democratic?   And, apparently, without giving a reason?

It was probably a private members bill, I am almost certain they (private members bills) can be blocked by one MP objecting. it would be helpful if admin gave us that info and made it a complete post rather than folks spending tedious time to find the part of the Westminster gov site this bill (private or otherwise) is.
.

Apparently he blocks them going through this way because they aren't being properly debated.

That sounds like it might be the case.
.

He disagrees with the system not necessarily the bills.until that changes or he goes I guess many will not go through that should or would otherwise

Nikita
He appears to be a complete and utter tool.

Huh!? at £77,379 pa for sitting in seats & shouting the odd sentence between naps for 5 days a week seems he put his ''tool'' in the right place.
.

> He disagrees with the system not necessarily the bills.until that changes or he goes I guess many will not go through that should or would otherwise

This is how I understand it too.  And yes, Private Members Bills.   Hum.

I gather he has been doing tbis for many years trying to make a point. Shame nothing so far is changing as I am sure many a good bill has been refused instead of looking behind at the system

Yes mamabas u are right .it seems with the upskirting bill becaiae teresa May wants it to go through she is able to take it forward some how .hopefully it will soon be inplace and those perverts will be prosecuted

Wear TROUSERS!!!

Seriously?  I hope that's a joke mamabas.  That's dangerously close to saying it's the victim's fault for being upskirted because - gasp - they had the audacity to wear a skirt!

I know that's not what you're saying, but no-one should have to wear trousers just because someone else might not behave appropriately.  It's the someone else that needs sorting out.

I hoped it was too for all the reasons u said Nikita. And more

Can we get this thread back on track please.