|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 25, 2024 16:54:24 GMT
I wholeheartedly agree. But such identity politics is the stock-in-trade of the left with whom you agree. To a degree I AGREE I dislike the Far Left as much as I dislike The Tories, the far Left in my opinion should be banished for good from The Labour Party. I have no time for envy politics, or the Socialist nonsense about profits and private enterprise been dirty words. Get rid of "Working Class" and instead insert the words "Ordinary People" which encompasses everyone who works hard, including the middle class, the self employed, the small business person AND the factory worker. And if Labour did that then they might be electable.
But then pigs might fly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 25, 2024 16:56:23 GMT
The problem with the Tories isn’t that they are too right wing . It’s because they are not committed enough to be conservatives.
Labour is and will be the party of identity politics . A leftie pointing at Tories and screaming ‘ culture wars’ ….risible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 25, 2024 18:10:47 GMT
To breech the rules of democracy requires the rules to be broken, the Speaker Of The House broke no rules, but he did deviate from what you could term as "Standard Protocol". We have been given the reasons as to why The Speaker decided to break with the standard procedure, and those reasons were the same reasons for which the Labour Party said they lobbied the Speaker to choose THEIR motion instead of the SNP motion. The safety of MPs Now, here s the problem, you can either choose to believe the Speaker, or you can choose to believe the alternative theory, which is that Sir Lindsay Hoyle decided to help the Labour Party. The idea that ... It is not the job of the Speaker to protect MPs or assist in their safety is a stupid suggestion, of course it is.
No it is not - it is the job of the Police to protect MP's from violence just as they do for the rest of society. The Speaker is control parliament and ensure that the rules are followed. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Feb 25, 2024 18:40:32 GMT
In any organisation or institution, it is always the responsibility of EVERYONE within that institution or organisation to ensure the safety of others and use "Due Diiligence".
This is always the case, regardless of whether this is, or is not in your job description
To say that it is not the job of The Speaker to make an effort to safeguard MPs, is like saying it is not in someones job description to call 999 and ask for an ambulance in the case of an accident.
No matter who we are, no matter what our job is, we are all surely going to make every effort, where we can, and where its possible to safeguard others.
The speaker made a COMMON SENSE decision, which he was fully entitled to do, and he broke no rules
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 25, 2024 18:45:52 GMT
In any organisation or institution, it is always the responsibility of EVERYONE within that institution or organisation to ensure the safety of others and use "Due Diiligence". This is always the case, regardless of whether this is, or is not in your job description To say that it is not the job of The Speaker to make an effort to safeguard MPs, is like saying it is not in someones job description to call 999 and ask for an ambulance in the case of an accident. No matter who we are, no matter what our job is, we are all surely going to make every effort, where we can, and where its possible to safeguard others. The speaker made a COMMON SENSE decision, which he was fully entitled to do, and he broke no rules Now you’re are making stuff up that nobody is going to buy. It’s been explained to you and you are constructing a subjective scenario that you want to see to refute real life. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 25, 2024 18:50:22 GMT
In any organisation or institution, it is always the responsibility of EVERYONE within that institution or organisation to ensure the safety of others and use "Due Diiligence". This is always the case, regardless of whether this is, or is not in your job description To say that it is not the job of The Speaker to make an effort to safeguard MPs, is like saying it is not in someones job description to call 999 and ask for an ambulance in the case of an accident. No matter who we are, no matter what our job is, we are all surely going to make every effort, where we can, and where its possible to safeguard others. The speaker made a COMMON SENSE decision, which he was fully entitled to do, and he broke no rules Which I suppose is why he admitted he had done wrong and has apologised for it.. The decisions taken in Parliament should never ( repeat never) be taken under threat of violence by extremist groups outside of Parliament. If MP's are feeling unsafe then it is the responsibility of the Police to ensure their safety - it is not, and never has been, the duty of the Speaker. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 25, 2024 18:51:19 GMT
In any organisation or institution, it is always the responsibility of EVERYONE within that institution or organisation to ensure the safety of others and use "Due Diiligence".This is always the case, regardless of whether this is, or is not in your job description To say that it is not the job of The Speaker to make an effort to safeguard MPs, is like saying it is not in someones job description to call 999 and ask for an ambulance in the case of an accident. No matter who we are, no matter what our job is, we are all surely going to make every effort, where we can, and where its possible to safeguard others. The speaker made a COMMON SENSE decision, which he was fully entitled to do, and he broke no rules How come the government or 'organisation or institution' isn't using the same 'Due Diligence' when protecting UK people, the speaker of the house all of a sudden has to police members of Parliament, while the rest of us have to rely on pure luck that any of these illegal migrants aren't terrorists, murderers, rapists and we become their victims.
Why is the life of MP any more significant than the general public, why should they be given special treatment.
|
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Feb 25, 2024 19:24:07 GMT
Prevention is always the better course, preventing a possible or potential attack upon someone, preventing the police to have to later intervene in a dangerous or life threataning situation.
The Speaker has never apologised for the decision he made, he has not said that he made the wrong decision.
He apologised for the situation which ensued in The House Of Commons and stated that "it was not the outcome that he had hoped for, or wanted".
MPs HAVE been threatened, some have been threatened on-line on social media, others have had threatening letters and e-mails, others have had angry mobs outside of their homes and constituency offices, they have received death threats, there have been instances of vandalism, and in one instance a fire bomb.
Sorry, but to say that The Speaker, GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO, should not make a decision which gives MPs greater safety is not only very stupid, its also irresponsible.
To say its "not his job" is also unbelievably stupid
Whether any of us like it or not ... there is no evidence that Sir Lindsay Hoyle based his decision upon helping the Labour Party, just the same as there is no evidence that he based his decision on the safety of MPs.
To say he did what he did to help the Labour Party is 100% conjecture, you choose whether to take his word, or NOT to take his word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 25, 2024 19:28:38 GMT
Prevention is always the better course, preventing a possible or potential attack upon someone, preventing the police to have to later intervene in a dangerous or life threataning situation. The Speaker has never apologised for the decision he made, he has not said that he made the wrong decision. He apologised for the situation which ensued in The House Of Commons and stated that "it was not the outcome that he had hoped for, or wanted". MPs HAVE been threatened, some have been threatened on-line on social media, others have had threatening letters and e-mails, others have had angry mobs outside of their homes and constituency offices, they have received death threats, there have been instances of vandalism, and in one instance a fire bomb. Sorry, but to say that The Speaker, GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO, should not make a decision which gives MPs greater safety is not only very stupid, its also irresponsible. To say its "not his job" is also unbelievably stupid Whether any of us like it or not ... there is no evidence that Sir Lindsay Hoyle based his decision upon helping the Labour Party, just the same as there is no evidence that he based his decision on the safety of MPs.To say he did what he did to help the Labour Party is 100% conjecture, you choose whether to take his word, or NOT to take his word. Well he best come clean and tell us, then we will know what is motive was, until then we assume he was 'helping the Labour party' ..... let us see the evidence directly from Hoyle, then we will stop speculating. |
|
Nemo
Full Member
Posts: 102
|
Post by Nemo on Feb 25, 2024 19:49:16 GMT
Prevention is always the better course, preventing a possible or potential attack upon someone, preventing the police to have to later intervene in a dangerous or life threataning situation. The Speaker has never apologised for the decision he made, he has not said that he made the wrong decision. He apologised for the situation which ensued in The House Of Commons and stated that "it was not the outcome that he had hoped for, or wanted". MPs HAVE been threatened, some have been threatened on-line on social media, others have had threatening letters and e-mails, others have had angry mobs outside of their homes and constituency offices, they have received death threats, there have been instances of vandalism, and in one instance a fire bomb. Sorry, but to say that The Speaker, GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO, should not make a decision which gives MPs greater safety is not only very stupid, its also irresponsible. To say its "not his job" is also unbelievably stupid Whether any of us like it or not ... there is no evidence that Sir Lindsay Hoyle based his decision upon helping the Labour Party, just the same as there is no evidence that he based his decision on the safety of MPs.To say he did what he did to help the Labour Party is 100% conjecture, you choose whether to take his word, or NOT to take his word. Well he best come clean and tell us, then we will know what is motive was, until then we assume he was 'helping the Labour party' ..... let us see the evidence directly from Hoyle, then we will stop speculating. I'm not sure if we will ever know. I suspect that the police advised him to some extent but he could hardly say "the police can't guarantee our safety so I'm doing....". We are dealing with a lunatic mob which realizes that it can get away wilh their behavior because they are waving a certain type of flag.
The mob were at it again in Bradford earlier today over a shopkeeper selling CoCa Cola:
If they can't protect MPs it's hard luck on the rest of us
Meanwhile, back in our capital, Londonistan, the Islamic Protection Service threaten to arrest a Christian for reading from the Bible in public:
It's a hate crime apparently!
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 25, 2024 19:55:59 GMT
Well he best come clean and tell us, then we will know what is motive was, until then we assume he was 'helping the Labour party' ..... let us see the evidence directly from Hoyle, then we will stop speculating. I'm not sure if we will ever know. I suspect that the police advised him to some extent but he could hardly say "the police can't guarantee our safety so I'm doing....". We are dealing with a lunatic mob which realizes that it can get away wilh their behavior because they are waving a certain type of flag.
The mob were at it again in Bradford earlier today over a shopkeeper selling CoCa Cola:
If they can't protect MPs it's hard luck on the rest of us
Meanwhile, back in our capital, Londonistan, the Islamic Protection Service threaten to arrest a Christian for reading from the Bible in public:
It's a hate crime apparently!
Well that's even more worrying these so called ...." We are dealing with a lunatic mob which realizes that it can get away wilh their behavior because they are waving a certain type of flag".
You do realize these people are Labour voters ^^^, that's very very disturbing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 25, 2024 22:22:26 GMT
Prevention is always the better course, preventing a possible or potential attack upon someone, preventing the police to have to later intervene in a dangerous or life threataning situation. The Speaker has never apologised for the decision he made, he has not said that he made the wrong decision.Did you actually bother listening to his apology? 'I have a duty of care to protect people - it is the protection that led me make a wrong decision.'The guy literally admits he did wrong and still you pretend he did the right thing..  |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Feb 25, 2024 23:48:41 GMT
On the Brightside they are turning against those who are peacefully protesting which really will turn them into a mob baying for blood. Politicians I shit them.
|
|
