Peter Bone, the Conservative MP for Wellingborough, is exagerating a little I think…
Mr Speaker, 373,000 Daily Express readers want it, 80% of Conservative Members support it, the Deputy Prime Minister would love it, and my wife demands it. The British people, Conservative supporters, the leader of the Liberal party and especially Mrs Bone cannot all be wrong. Prime Minister: may we have a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain in the European Union?
60% of Daily Express readers is the British people is it? Hardly? Sales of the Express is about 7% of all national daily newspaper sales.
(My maths is shit so the percentages may be a little out, but you get the idea)
Ministers are expected to publish plans to enable same-sex couples to “marry” in church, the BBC has learned.
Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone is to propose lifting the ban on civil partnerships taking place in religious settings in England and Wales.
There are no plans to compel religious organisations to hold ceremonies and the Church of England has said it would not allow its churches to be used.
Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the change was “long overdue”.
Civil partnership ceremonies are currently entirely secular.
As far as I know, and I’m willing to be corrected on this point, churches religious temples of whatever denomination aren’t obligated to marry anyone, hetero or not, so I don’t see why they should be complelled to marry same-sex couples.
I don’t know why civil partnerships are referred to as such and can’t be refered to a marriages as that is what they are. They are no different to a heterosexual civil marriage. Both are secular and both bring the same entitlements in law with them.
Why should there be a ban on civil partnerships being conducted in the first place? Surely it is up to the church/synogogue/whatever who they allow to marry there and if a couple are legally allowed to marry, or ‘marry’, then what is the problem?
Charlie Flowers once claimed to be doing the work of Nadine Dorries. No, he didn’t claim to be a researcher, but a thug harrassing and threatening Tim Ireland. Nadine has said nothing about it.
Well, it seems someone else has decided to join in on the action, not against Tim, but someone else Nadine sees as a mortal enemy, Ms Humphrey Cushion.
. @humphreycushion Enjoy your day tweeting. Remember Nadine and I might be watching you! ;) (closely) and oh lastly FUCK OFF #blocked
It’s not as if @DarkblondAngel is unknown to Nadine, infact the tweets between each other I’ve seen between them, before Nadine quit Twitter (again) could be described as quite chummy. Will Nadine denounce this latest bit of imtimidation and bullying like she didn’t with Charlie Flowers? Probably not.
At least these people aren’t hired thugs, but I’m guessing this isn’t an example of the ‘Big Society’ the Tories’ will be trumpeting.
If Vince Cable, for expressing his opposition to the Murdoch take over of BSkyB, is unsuitable to decide whether it is appropriate or not, then surely Jeremy Hunt is as well.
Apart from privately meeting James Murdoch, Jeremy as openly said he has no objection to the deal. This statemnet might not be as inflamatory as Cables’ ‘war’, but still shows that he has preconceived ideas about it.
The business secretary is supposed to look at the reports/evidence or whatever and then make his mind up. Jeremy Hunt and Vince Cable are two sides of the same coin. Cable is coming at it from the side of opposition and would need a great deal of persuasion to approve the deal. Jeremy Hunt is coming at it from the other direction and would need persuadeing that it is a bad idea. Both are going to be influenced not just by whether this deal is good for the media as a whole and the plurity of the press but also by their chosen ideology, party pressure and of course, what they think the public want.
The business secretary is supposed to be ‘quasi-judicial’ in these cases, but just like the home secretary when it comes to reveiwing whether to release prisoners with a minimum sentence, they never could independent of party politics.
At least with an organisation like OFCOM/monopolies commission (or whoever it is) in this case, or a proper judge in the case of prisoners, there won’t be the consideration of trying to please the electorate, the party, lobbyists, businesses. With a non-political organisation looking at it a better decision can be made. Of course what that organisation is and how it’s put together is another discussion.
Personal bias will never be iradicated, but why add to it?
I missed this the other day, Vince Cable changing his mind about granting an export licence for a drug used in some American states for executing Death row prisoners…
Mr Cable initially said he could not restrict exports – but lawyers from Leigh and Day, working with Reprieve, subsequently established that no European supplies to the US were being used in medicine – meaning that they were only going to death row.
Furthermore, one of the manufacturers identified in the legal action said it did not oppose the government imposing export restrictions.
The review is being brought o behalf of two death row prisoners by Reprieve who…
Reprieve uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners, from death row to Guantánamo Bay.
We investigate, we litigate and we educate, working on the frontline, providing legal support to prisoners unable to pay for it themselves. We promote the rule of law around the world, and secure each person’s right to a fair trial. And in doing so, we save lives.
Without looking into them further, they sound quite an admirable organisation.
But, on the the point of using Legal Aid for this review, fair enough. The UK government, in allowing this export, is complicit in the execution of prisoners. These two guys on death row do not have the means to challenge Vinces’ decision. It is a UK company, enabled by the UK government that is knowingly providing the means for these executions to go ahead. It is only right that this should be challenged.
The UK doesn’t extradite to suspects to countries when, if found guilty, the result is execution. So what is the difference between exporting people to their deaths and exporting the means when it is known it will be used for executions? None.
“Sodium thiopental is a medicine. Its primary use is as an anaesthetic … Legitimate trade of medical value would be affected by any restriction on the export of this product from the UK.” Any ban would be ineffective, he added, because supplies could be obtained from elsewhere.
Try changing what’s being exported from a drug to weapons. Would the government allow the export of weapons, whose primary and legitimate use is for defence against invaders, to a country that was shooting up it’s own people? (Ok, the government probably does, but you get the idea.)
And the reason that supplies could be obtained from eslewhere anyway is just risable that it hardly needs rebutting. The point would be that we, as a country would not be part of something that we are supposedly against.
This then, the actions that Reprieve are taking and how it is funded, I think is A Good Thing.
The man convicted of “menace” for threatening to blow up an airport in a Twitter joke has lost his appeal.
Paul Chambers, a 27-year-old accountant whose online courtship with another user of the microblogging site led to the “foolish prank”, had hoped that a crown court would dismiss his conviction and £1,000 fine without a full hearing.
But Judge Jacqueline Davies instead handed down a devastating finding at Doncaster which dismissed Chambers’s appeal on every count. After reading out his comment from the site – “Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!” – she found that it contained menace and Chambers must have known that it might be taken seriously.
I’m not sure what I can add that hasn’t been said elsewhere. So I say anymore except to point you to Scepticisle and the Heresiarch.
Oh, and this business with Gareth F Compton. Yeah, I said I’d be bloody upset if someone ask for me to stoned to death, but would I call the cops? If it was on Twitter and a one off, a opposed to series of comments like that, then no. OK, Gareth maybe a dick and a hypocrit, but still, just like Paul Chambers, he doesn’t deserve more than a ticking off.
Long-term benefit claimants could be forced to do manual labour under proposals to be outlined by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.
He is due to outline plans for four-week placements doing jobs like gardening and litter clearing.
He said the message would be: “Play ball or it’s going to be difficult.”
Heh. The lazy shitters are gonna have to do more than just wander down the dole office once a fortnight for their housekeeping/pub money now. They’re gonna have have to do what they’re most scared of – work.
Jobseekers will have to do compulsory work, at least 30 hours per week…
Under the plan, claimants thought to need “experience of the habits and routines of working life” could be put on 30-hour-a-week placements.
Anyone refusing to take part or failing to turn up on time to work could have their £65 Jobseekers’ Allowance stopped for at least three months.
I see a flaw.
If people are made to work, it is not voulantry. If the £65 a week job seekers allowance can be revoked if the claimant fucks up in any way with regard to this ‘work placement’, it could be argued that the allowance is wages for the work. With me so far?
£65 allowance, or wages, a week divided by a 30 hour working week equals £2.17 an hour.
The minimum wage for over 21 year olds is £5.93.
The coalition is proposing to employ people on short term contracts for less than half the national minimum wage.
Prisoners are to get the right to vote as the government is poised to throw in the towel in a long-running legal tussle with the European court of human rights, it emerged today.
It is understood that the coalition is to confirm that it is ready to change the law to remove the voting ban on more than 70,000 inmates of British jails.
You know what I say?
Fuck ‘em.
If someone doesn’t play by the rules why should they get to say what the rules are?
If it’s all about human rights, how about bringing to an end overcrowding? That’ll do more for the prisoners than the chuffing vote.
