The Shame of Shipley fails to derail Bill protecting women against violence

Three faces of Philip Davies, and none of them pleasant: The MP talks (and talks, and talks) in a bid to talk out the Istanbul Convention Bill.

I know this is the Season of Goodwill, but I won’t shed any tears if a passing reindeer craps on Philip Davies’s head.

Today (December 16), this man – the Shame of Shipley – tried to filibuster a Parliamentary Bill that would ratify the Istanbul Convention on tackling and preventing violence against women.

Perhaps he holds some kind of grudge against the UN Women’s Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson, who co-signed a letter urging the UK government to ratify the Convention.

Emma Watson, the UN Women’s Goodwill Ambassador, co-signed a letter calling on the UK government to ratify the Istanbul Convention [Image: Rex Features].

Perhaps his problem lies in the fact that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, also signed.

Perhaps he thinks the Conservative Government is betraying him (he thinks it is sexist to focus on violence against women).

Here are some more of the things he said to justify his position during his 78-minute speech:

Because the title of the Bill has about ‘combating violence against women’ then it presumes as long as you support that premise you must support this particular Bill, and therefore if you oppose this Bill it means you must be in favour, as it follows, of violence against women and children.

“Now that’s the kind of level of debate I’d expect from the morons on Twitter.

Having offended Twitter users, he said:

I don’t take the view that violence against women and girls is somehow worse than violence against men and boys.

That’s not the point; the violence may not be worse, but there really is far more of it. I note that the Daily Mirror web page carrying the story from which I’m pulling these quotes has a link to another news story with photographs of a woman who suffered horrific burns after her boyfriend doused her in petrol and set her on fire.

He tried to compare domestic violence with street crime:

My premise is that all the evidence shows men are more likely to be victims of violent crime in this country than women.

“If somebody comes up to because they hate you and beats you up to a pulp, it seems to me the nuance of what they hate you is less important than the scale of the injuries you’ve suffered.

That’s not the point. Street crime involves people who are either strangers or who may be expected to have a certain amount of animosity towards a person. Domestic crime is in the home, where people should expect to feel safe, and is perpetrated by partners who are supposed to be a symbol of that safety – and not a threat. It is a false comparison

This is not, as they say, rocket science. He continued:

He raised the case of Sadie Morris:

A female paedophile was sentenced to five years in jail after photographing herself abusing a three-year-old girl.

Or even the case of a Romanian sex gang led by women who trafficked vulnerable women into Britain and forced them into prostitution.

So what? Two ‘wrongs’ don’t make a ‘right’; these crimes by women don’t justify crimes against them.

In the same vein, when Catherine West told him two women are killed every week, on average, and it is extremely uncomfortable attending their funerals and seeing their children, he said:

There are also funerals of men who have died, and I’m sure that’s just as uncomfortable an experience for their children.

Sure – but two ‘wrongs’ don’t make a ‘right’.

And he said the Istanbul Convention makes it

explicitly clear that it’s fine to discriminate against men.

Does it? Does it really, just by saying it isn’t fine to discriminate against women?

No. It’s a non-sequitur. It doesn’t follow that it is fine to discriminate against men, just because it isn’t fine to discriminate against women. Non-discrimination against either is not mutually exclusive. It would be interesting to challenge Mr Davies on which part of the Istanbul Convention suggests this is true.

The Shame of Shipley eventually shut up after speaking for 78 minutes, when a Motion of Closure (bringing a debate to the vote) was passed. At the vote itself, the Bill was approved by 135 votes to two against. This was the Second Reading, which means the Bill will be considered by a Parliamentary committee and the House of Lords before returning to the Commons for a third time.

The government in fact supports the Bill, and 36 Tory MPs voted for it after Mr Davies was finally forced to sit down.

The “morons” on Twitter have been taking their revenge, of course:

Yes indeed. How do the people of Shipley sleep, after having inflicted this multiply-meandering pest on the rest of us?

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:



  1. NMac December 16, 2016 at 5:03 pm - Reply

    Is there no way loathsome individuals like Davies can be ordered to shut up? You can’t tell me that he had anything constructive to say at all, never mind being allowed to spout bigoted nonsense for well over an hour.

    • Mike Sivier December 16, 2016 at 5:26 pm - Reply

      There is a growing movement to end filibustering.

      • ghost whistler December 16, 2016 at 10:36 pm - Reply

        Do they have power? If not then it matters not one jot how many people want an end to it because it will never happen unless the people of this country get up off their knees and take it. That is the only way things will change.

        • Mike Sivier December 26, 2016 at 12:52 pm - Reply

          You may be surprised…

  2. chriskitcher December 16, 2016 at 5:05 pm - Reply

    Surely it would be very pleasing to see domestic violence inflicted on this creature for a start. Such perverse logic that he used once again demonstrates the need for some form of intelligence testing for MP’s.

    • Mike Sivier December 16, 2016 at 5:25 pm - Reply

      No – I would not want to see violence inflicted, even on a creature such as this.
      Correct solution is to take him away to a place where he can do no further harm, and attempt to re-educate him to become a worthwhile member of society.
      This may prove a hard task.

      • Chris Kitcher December 16, 2016 at 6:40 pm - Reply

        Not a chance with a creature such as this. Surely the infliction of abuse and violence would at least bring a sense of actuality to it?

  3. Barry Davies December 16, 2016 at 6:33 pm - Reply

    I find it odd that a bill to protect women comes form an agreement in Istanbul where they have very little protection, but he is correct the group overall most likely to suffer violence is young men.It seems however that any reference to doing anything to help males in general, and white males in particular other than the gbt ones is always derided. Yes we should be attempting to cut violence but in all areas.

    • Mike Sivier December 26, 2016 at 12:53 pm - Reply

      So you agree that any legislation to cut any violence is a good thing?

  4. nivekd December 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm - Reply

    Shame of Shipley? I think the word you were looking for did begin with ‘Sh’ but ends in ‘t’. And it’s got four letters. The other letter is ‘i’.

    • Mike Sivier December 26, 2016 at 12:52 pm - Reply

      No swearing allowed on this site!

  5. ghost whistler December 16, 2016 at 7:33 pm - Reply

    Yet this piece of **** is repeatedly elected.

    Just goes to show that representative democracy doesn’t work. Why do people need a scumbag like this to speak for them? All he does is abuse his position.

    Why is the left even playing their game?

    • Mike Sivier December 26, 2016 at 12:51 pm - Reply

      Cut out the swearing. I’ve cut it from this comment; next time I’ll cut YOU out.

  6. Jane Owens December 16, 2016 at 8:37 pm - Reply

    Gosh, what an inordinately stupid man is Philip Davies. No doubt, his ego renders him blissfully unaware of his intellectual failings.

  7. Justin December 16, 2016 at 11:09 pm - Reply

    I never particurly liked this particular form of vermin that somehow manages to convince himself that he is actually worth listening to,but seeing some of the quotes that you have used from his speech goes to show what a imbecile he is and even more concerning was the fact that he was allowed to carry on saying it by a speaker, people like this that talk a load of rubbish to just hear there voice should be subject to a gagging clause or more preferably just thrown out of the house as it is not only clear that he is useless, he is probably incompetent and arrogant as well, then again that seems to be the ideal qualifications to become a useless tory mp nowadays, I also like the Comment Mike made about re-educating him, perhaps we need to send guys like him of to the North Korea Re-education Institute, preferably one way

  8. Joan Edington December 17, 2016 at 7:19 pm - Reply

    This guy ought to be kicked out of parliament. He seems to make a career of fillibustering bills he doesn’t like and he normally gets away with it. In his maiden speech, seemingly, he said he intended his future speeches to be brief too. I wonder what he considers to be a long one.

  9. Dez December 18, 2016 at 11:04 am - Reply

    What a moron….. obviously born on planet Pratt. However that said one has to go beyond the moron and ask just who or what is operating his strings to want to sabotage something that is so obviously required ……obvious that is to humans.

  10. casalealex December 18, 2016 at 9:11 pm - Reply

    The Procedure Committee in the 2010-15 Parliament considered the procedures of the House on Private Members’ Bills and published a report on the matter in September 2013, to which the Government responded. In March 2014 the Committee produced a further report in light of the Government’s response. The central recommendation of this report was that it should be possible to timetable or programme Private Members’ Bills.

    The previous administration did not respond to the report before the General Election.

    It is understood that the Procedure Committee in this Parliament plans to consider the matter further. WHEN????

    Leader of the House


  11. Dez December 26, 2016 at 1:03 pm - Reply

    Glad to see the House is still operating at lightening speed to put an end to obvious timewasting of important and much needed quality parliamentary time. The speaker I would have thought could have put an end to such obvious moronic activity…unless of course not allowed or speaker was asleep with boredom.

Leave A Comment