Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am trying to find out further info on why the recommendations had not been put into practice by either the Tories and now labour. The only thing I've seen so far is accusations flying about instead of putting the recommendations into practice. Perhaps that should be being discussed cross party instead " The fact is that the conservatives had 2 years to implement the 20 recommendations, achieved none of them, of which some of them would have been legislative The Labour Party have had 6 months and have committed to implementing the recommendations You “could” argument that should you not give labour the same time the conservatives had before criticising them…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am trying to find out further info on why the recommendations had not been put into practice by either the Tories and now labour. The only thing I've seen so far is accusations flying about instead of putting the recommendations into practice. Perhaps that should be being discussed cross party instead The fact is that the conservatives had 2 years to implement the 20 recommendations, achieved none of them, of which some of them would have been legislative The Labour Party have had 6 months and have committed to implementing the recommendations You “could” argument that should you not give labour the same time the conservatives had before criticising them…. " Or you could argue FUCK THE TORIES, they had their chance and were voted out. Stop trying to play the same game as them, it makes you no better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At this point I couldn't care less about the recommendations. I want action, against anyone found to have been complicit in any cover ups. " Then jailed.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reform have served notice on the government for the enquiry. If they don’t then Reform will initiate the enquiry and pay for it " Excellent. Chase the fukers down. Do it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At this point I couldn't care less about the recommendations. I want action, against anyone found to have been complicit in any cover ups. "
Action the recommendations and also Investigate.
It won't happen but would be great if Maggie Oliver would be involved too.
She's the only one I've seen so far with the balls to cut through the crap.
Jess Philips to me is just another waffler with no motivation
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reform have served notice on the government for the enquiry. If they don’t then Reform will initiate the enquiry and pay for it " Of course they will. Just like they were going to take out a private prosecution re Manchester airport | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reform have served notice on the government for the enquiry. If they don’t then Reform will initiate the enquiry and pay for it Of course they will. Just like they were going to take out a private prosecution re Manchester airport " That's disingenuous to say the least. Reform did say they were going to take out a private prosecution re Manchester, but that was before they were charged. Once they were charged then there was no need to. If anything Reform's threat could well have focused a few minds at the CPS. Job done methinks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reform have served notice on the government for the enquiry. If they don’t then Reform will initiate the enquiry and pay for it " Exactly how do they do that.. No statutory authority so it looks like hot air .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am trying to find out further info on why the recommendations had not been put into practice by either the Tories and now labour. The only thing I've seen so far is accusations flying about instead of putting the recommendations into practice. Perhaps that should be being discussed cross party instead " If you would like to know more about the 20 recommendations and the government, google "Government Response to the Final Report of the Independent IICA". The document is heavy but outlines the formal acceptance of the recommendations next steps, and recommendations that needed further clarity or discussion. The political ping pong on this is crazy, and the reality is simply this government needs to continue where the last left it. There was no chance any of the recommendations would have been implemented between May 23 and the GE. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At this point I couldn't care less about the recommendations. I want action, against anyone found to have been complicit in any cover ups. " I share that view but historically but we've never had it before even when they the ones to whom we expect to do so much better have been responsible indirectly for people dying.. so I just think yes of course people must be held to account however my cynical brain says that we will get the same old seemingly tired clichés and sound bites again.. And again.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reform have served notice on the government for the enquiry. If they don’t then Reform will initiate the enquiry and pay for it " Under what powers will they do this? You really have to stop believing the Reform nonsense, they have no powers to initiate anything, no powers to appoint anyone, and no powers to gather evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At this point I couldn't care less about the recommendations. I want action, against anyone found to have been complicit in any cover ups.
Action the recommendations and also Investigate.
It won't happen but would be great if Maggie Oliver would be involved too.
She's the only one I've seen so far with the balls to cut through the crap.
Jess Philips to me is just another waffler with no motivation
"Why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reform have served notice on the government for the enquiry. If they don’t then Reform will initiate the enquiry and pay for it Exactly how do they do that.. No statutory authority so it looks like hot air .." It's why I mentioned panorama in the other thread... investigative journalism. They could gather evidence and give to the police if appropriate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At this point I couldn't care less about the recommendations. I want action, against anyone found to have been complicit in any cover ups. I share that view but historically but we've never had it before even when they the ones to whom we expect to do so much better have been responsible indirectly for people dying.. so I just think yes of course people must be held to account however my cynical brain says that we will get the same old seemingly tired clichés and sound bites again.. And again.." I'd agree with that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At this point I couldn't care less about the recommendations. I want action, against anyone found to have been complicit in any cover ups. I share that view but historically but we've never had it before even when they the ones to whom we expect to do so much better have been responsible indirectly for people dying.. so I just think yes of course people must be held to account however my cynical brain says that we will get the same old seemingly tired clichés and sound bites again.. And again.. I'd agree with that. " We need to be more french perhaps.. We are so fucking subservient it seems.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reform have served notice on the government for the enquiry. If they don’t then Reform will initiate the enquiry and pay for it Exactly how do they do that.. No statutory authority so it looks like hot air .. It's why I mentioned panorama in the other thread... investigative journalism. They could gather evidence and give to the police if appropriate. " Trouble is even when good journalists expose stuff there's always an element of yeah but .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At this point I couldn't care less about the recommendations. I want action, against anyone found to have been complicit in any cover ups. I share that view but historically but we've never had it before even when they the ones to whom we expect to do so much better have been responsible indirectly for people dying.. so I just think yes of course people must be held to account however my cynical brain says that we will get the same old seemingly tired clichés and sound bites again.. And again.. I'd agree with that. We need to be more french perhaps.. We are so fucking subservient it seems.." Too many people afraid of being cancelled. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reform have served notice on the government for the enquiry. If they don’t then Reform will initiate the enquiry and pay for it Exactly how do they do that.. No statutory authority so it looks like hot air .. It's why I mentioned panorama in the other thread... investigative journalism. They could gather evidence and give to the police if appropriate. Trouble is even when good journalists expose stuff there's always an element of yeah but .." I have no idea why the suggestion would be to use journalists... Why is this a suggestion, help me understand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reform have served notice on the government for the enquiry. If they don’t then Reform will initiate the enquiry and pay for it Exactly how do they do that.. No statutory authority so it looks like hot air .. It's why I mentioned panorama in the other thread... investigative journalism. They could gather evidence and give to the police if appropriate. Trouble is even when good journalists expose stuff there's always an element of yeah but .. I have no idea why the suggestion would be to use journalists... Why is this a suggestion, help me understand." werent it the work of a journalist why this came to light in the first place in Rotherham??? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At this point I couldn't care less about the recommendations. I want action, against anyone found to have been complicit in any cover ups.
Action the recommendations and also Investigate.
It won't happen but would be great if Maggie Oliver would be involved too.
She's the only one I've seen so far with the balls to cut through the crap.
Jess Philips to me is just another waffler with no motivation
"Not sure about that as Maggie Oliver has also said she is against another inquiry. Oliver, who left the police to speak out about the lack of protection for victims, told the Guardian: “We’ve already had a national abuse inquiry – seven years, 20 recommendations and none implemented. “We need someone who is going to do something not just talk – more empty promises and political manoeuvrings.” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At this point I couldn't care less about the recommendations. I want action, against anyone found to have been complicit in any cover ups. I share that view but historically but we've never had it before even when they the ones to whom we expect to do so much better have been responsible indirectly for people dying.. so I just think yes of course people must be held to account however my cynical brain says that we will get the same old seemingly tired clichés and sound bites again.. And again.. I'd agree with that. We need to be more french perhaps.. We are so fucking subservient it seems.. Too many people afraid of being cancelled. " I'm old school, not even sure I qualify..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reform have served notice on the government for the enquiry. If they don’t then Reform will initiate the enquiry and pay for it Exactly how do they do that.. No statutory authority so it looks like hot air .. It's why I mentioned panorama in the other thread... investigative journalism. They could gather evidence and give to the police if appropriate. Trouble is even when good journalists expose stuff there's always an element of yeah but .. I have no idea why the suggestion would be to use journalists... Why is this a suggestion, help me understand." I sort of get where your coming from in that it's preferable if an enquiry be that local or nationwide takes place it's better to be the justice system with experts in the actual issue being looked at but journalists (and groups such as good law project) have a good track record of cutting through the politics and getting to the core of what's gone on.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At this point I couldn't care less about the recommendations. I want action, against anyone found to have been complicit in any cover ups.
Action the recommendations and also Investigate.
It won't happen but would be great if Maggie Oliver would be involved too.
She's the only one I've seen so far with the balls to cut through the crap.
Jess Philips to me is just another waffler with no motivation
Not sure about that as Maggie Oliver has also said she is against another inquiry.
Oliver, who left the police to speak out about the lack of protection for victims, told the Guardian: “We’ve already had a national abuse inquiry – seven years, 20 recommendations and none implemented.
“We need someone who is going to do something not just talk – more empty promises and political manoeuvrings.”"She's pretty much hit the nail on the head.. Justice further delayed for whatever reasons is justice denied.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am trying to find out further info on why the recommendations had not been put into practice by either the Tories and now labour. The only thing I've seen so far is accusations flying about instead of putting the recommendations into practice. Perhaps that should be being discussed cross party instead If you would like to know more about the 20 recommendations and the government, google "Government Response to the Final Report of the Independent IICA". The document is heavy but outlines the formal acceptance of the recommendations next steps, and recommendations that needed further clarity or discussion. The political ping pong on this is crazy, and the reality is simply this government needs to continue where the last left it. There was no chance any of the recommendations would have been implemented between May 23 and the GE. " If you go to the IICSA website there's a section with all the Recommendations and right underneath the up to date Response. It's clear a lot of progress has already been made but it's also the IICAS was a sprawling 7 year mess of an inquiry taking in a wide range of issues with no connection apart from involving children. Any sensible Govt would take its time to work through the conclusions and choose not to accept all of them. I understand Alexis Jay defending her work but she has no legal or moral position to oppose further inquiries, and hopefully they will be more focused and time-efficient. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Everyone seems to be going around in circles on this. The national inquiry that is being requested is to look into the foreign grooming gangs that carried out these attacks, not an overall abuse inquiry. It baffles me why the fundamental ask is always conflated with other issues, it just spins out of control and the focus gets lost. Going back to the 20 recommendations ref overall abuse. I posted about this further up, the acceptance of the recommendations happened in May 23, most accepted some needed further clarity and discussion. Between that date and the Ge there was not a chance a single recommendation would have been delivered, most are complex tasks. Again I find it frustrating that people are throwing around accusations such as the last government failed to deliver a single recommendation. Our government is not serving us under a rosette, it is serving us as a government and when one hands over to the other it should continue with outstanding commitments. Starmer needs to ensure the recommendations are being progressed, and we need to have an inquiry into the specifics of the grooming gangs. I want to see what the Home Office is actually doing with the criminals, are they deported or still here, how much was spent on appeals, what the police managed them at a national level, are they monitoring them now and where.. I would like to see the national picture of all services, and not be palmed off by dismissive rhetoric. Jay and others have diverted, hence the focus fell on the recommendations not being delivered by the tories." So specifically having an enquiry wholly focused on Pakistani grooming gangs and child rapists and nothing else? What about other grooming gangs and rapists? Albanian? Nigerian? Polish? Indian? Religious groups? Do they get a free pass whilst the country demonstrates some sort of overt bias against Pakistani men? How would this help all victims and survivors if the obvious intent is only to shine a light on one demographic and one type of child exploitation? Once you start expanding the remit, you get back to the point of the first enquiry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reform have served notice on the government for the enquiry. If they don’t then Reform will initiate the enquiry and pay for it Exactly how do they do that.. No statutory authority so it looks like hot air .. It's why I mentioned panorama in the other thread... investigative journalism. They could gather evidence and give to the police if appropriate. Trouble is even when good journalists expose stuff there's always an element of yeah but .. I have no idea why the suggestion would be to use journalists... Why is this a suggestion, help me understand." Because I doubt reform, simply as an opposition party have the power to fulfil an official inquiry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reform have served notice on the government for the enquiry. If they don’t then Reform will initiate the enquiry and pay for it Exactly how do they do that.. No statutory authority so it looks like hot air .. It's why I mentioned panorama in the other thread... investigative journalism. They could gather evidence and give to the police if appropriate. Trouble is even when good journalists expose stuff there's always an element of yeah but .. I have no idea why the suggestion would be to use journalists... Why is this a suggestion, help me understand.werent it the work of a journalist why this came to light in the first place in Rotherham??? " Through a whistle blower, but cannot remember whether it was through her contacting journalists as the officials were ignoring it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At this point I couldn't care less about the recommendations. I want action, against anyone found to have been complicit in any cover ups. I share that view but historically but we've never had it before even when they the ones to whom we expect to do so much better have been responsible indirectly for people dying.. so I just think yes of course people must be held to account however my cynical brain says that we will get the same old seemingly tired clichés and sound bites again.. And again.. I'd agree with that. We need to be more french perhaps.. We are so fucking subservient it seems.. Too many people afraid of being cancelled. I'm old school, not even sure I qualify.. "I'm just old, don't know what it is and couldn't give a shit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Everyone seems to be going around in circles on this. The national inquiry that is being requested is to look into the foreign grooming gangs that carried out these attacks, not an overall abuse inquiry. It baffles me why the fundamental ask is always conflated with other issues, it just spins out of control and the focus gets lost. Going back to the 20 recommendations ref overall abuse. I posted about this further up, the acceptance of the recommendations happened in May 23, most accepted some needed further clarity and discussion. Between that date and the Ge there was not a chance a single recommendation would have been delivered, most are complex tasks. Again I find it frustrating that people are throwing around accusations such as the last government failed to deliver a single recommendation. Our government is not serving us under a rosette, it is serving us as a government and when one hands over to the other it should continue with outstanding commitments. Starmer needs to ensure the recommendations are being progressed, and we need to have an inquiry into the specifics of the grooming gangs. I want to see what the Home Office is actually doing with the criminals, are they deported or still here, how much was spent on appeals, what the police managed them at a national level, are they monitoring them now and where.. I would like to see the national picture of all services, and not be palmed off by dismissive rhetoric. Jay and others have diverted, hence the focus fell on the recommendations not being delivered by the tories. So specifically having an enquiry wholly focused on Pakistani grooming gangs and child rapists and nothing else? What about other grooming gangs and rapists? Albanian? Nigerian? Polish? Indian? Religious groups? Do they get a free pass whilst the country demonstrates some sort of overt bias against Pakistani men? How would this help all victims and survivors if the obvious intent is only to shine a light on one demographic and one type of child exploitation? Once you start expanding the remit, you get back to the point of the first enquiry. " 
Is that what you read? If so, I suggest you read my post again. Where did I mention specific countries? I explicitly referred to foreign gangs, not singling out any particular demographic.
The key point here is the lack of transparency and accountability regarding how the Home Office handles foreign nationals after their release. What happens to them? Are they deported or still here? How much taxpayer money has been spent on appeals? These are critical questions we need answers to, and we don’t have them because we’re not being told.
The issue is about uncovering the national picture and ensuring all services are held accountable, not being diverted by assumptions or rhetoric | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Everyone seems to be going around in circles on this. The national inquiry that is being requested is to look into the foreign grooming gangs that carried out these attacks, not an overall abuse inquiry. It baffles me why the fundamental ask is always conflated with other issues, it just spins out of control and the focus gets lost. Going back to the 20 recommendations ref overall abuse. I posted about this further up, the acceptance of the recommendations happened in May 23, most accepted some needed further clarity and discussion. Between that date and the Ge there was not a chance a single recommendation would have been delivered, most are complex tasks. Again I find it frustrating that people are throwing around accusations such as the last government failed to deliver a single recommendation. Our government is not serving us under a rosette, it is serving us as a government and when one hands over to the other it should continue with outstanding commitments. Starmer needs to ensure the recommendations are being progressed, and we need to have an inquiry into the specifics of the grooming gangs. I want to see what the Home Office is actually doing with the criminals, are they deported or still here, how much was spent on appeals, what the police managed them at a national level, are they monitoring them now and where.. I would like to see the national picture of all services, and not be palmed off by dismissive rhetoric. Jay and others have diverted, hence the focus fell on the recommendations not being delivered by the tories. So specifically having an enquiry wholly focused on Pakistani grooming gangs and child rapists and nothing else? What about other grooming gangs and rapists? Albanian? Nigerian? Polish? Indian? Religious groups? Do they get a free pass whilst the country demonstrates some sort of overt bias against Pakistani men? How would this help all victims and survivors if the obvious intent is only to shine a light on one demographic and one type of child exploitation? Once you start expanding the remit, you get back to the point of the first enquiry. " It was covered anyway, under organised networks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community." There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry." We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
"Inquiry has been voted down. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reform have served notice on the government for the enquiry. If they don’t then Reform will initiate the enquiry and pay for it" "Under what powers will they do this? You really have to stop believing the Reform nonsense, they have no powers to initiate anything, no powers to appoint anyone, and no powers to gather evidence." But they do have the ability to set up an enquiry, invite people to give evidence, and then list the names of all those that refuse. What sort of person would refuse to assist an enquiry that could save young girls from being abused? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At this point I couldn't care less about the recommendations. I want action, against anyone found to have been complicit in any cover ups. I share that view but historically but we've never had it before even when they the ones to whom we expect to do so much better have been responsible indirectly for people dying.. so I just think yes of course people must be held to account however my cynical brain says that we will get the same old seemingly tired clichés and sound bites again.. And again.. I'd agree with that. We need to be more french perhaps.. We are so fucking subservient it seems.. Too many people afraid of being cancelled. I'm old school, not even sure I qualify..
I'm just old, don't know what it is and couldn't give a shit."If your old I'm a proper old duffer..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down. "Got to protect those Labour Councillors.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reform have served notice on the government for the enquiry. If they don’t then Reform will initiate the enquiry and pay for it Under what powers will they do this? You really have to stop believing the Reform nonsense, they have no powers to initiate anything, no powers to appoint anyone, and no powers to gather evidence. But they do have the ability to set up an enquiry, invite people to give evidence, and then list the names of all those that refuse. What sort of person would refuse to assist an enquiry that could save young girls from being abused?" The sort of person still waiting for some action on the 20 recommendations from the last enquiry into the same subject maybe? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down. "Unfortunately it was inevitable | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry." Leftists, footballers and politicians were taking knees and doing riots in UK because a black guy in the US was killed by a white cop. Now for such a horrible case of racist crime perpetrated by the grooming gangs in such a large scale in their own country, the backlash from the "anti-racist" left would be even bigger, right? Please don't tell me that's not the case 
Do they really not care about racism after all? Do they really not care about women's safety after all? That's shocking!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At this point I couldn't care less about the recommendations. I want action, against anyone found to have been complicit in any cover ups. I share that view but historically but we've never had it before even when they the ones to whom we expect to do so much better have been responsible indirectly for people dying.. so I just think yes of course people must be held to account however my cynical brain says that we will get the same old seemingly tired clichés and sound bites again.. And again.. I'd agree with that. We need to be more french perhaps.. We are so fucking subservient it seems.. Too many people afraid of being cancelled. I'm old school, not even sure I qualify..
I'm just old, don't know what it is and couldn't give a shit.
If your old I'm a proper old duffer.. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. Leftists, footballers and politicians were taking knees and doing riots in UK because a black guy in the US was killed by a white cop. Now for such a horrible case of racist crime perpetrated by the grooming gangs in such a large scale in their own country, the backlash from the "anti-racist" left would be even bigger, right? Please don't tell me that's not the case
Do they really not care about racism after all? Do they really not care about women's safety after all? That's shocking!!"The George Floyd business was wild, a case of mass hysteria really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. Leftists, footballers and politicians were taking knees and doing riots in UK because a black guy in the US was killed by a white cop. Now for such a horrible case of racist crime perpetrated by the grooming gangs in such a large scale in their own country, the backlash from the "anti-racist" left would be even bigger, right? Please don't tell me that's not the case
Do they really not care about racism after all? Do they really not care about women's safety after all? That's shocking!!
The George Floyd business was wild, a case of mass hysteria really.""Mass hysteria" is the exact term. Suddenly corporates started hiring "Diversity leaders", only to throw them all out during the layoffs. If a footballer doesn't want to take the knee, he has to give explanations to the press. And all around the time of Covid. Those years were wild. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reform have served notice on the government for the enquiry. If they don’t then Reform will initiate the enquiry and pay for it " I smell shite | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down. "This is such a wrong interpretation of what happened. The Labour Party bill was all about child welfare and child protection. This is (word for word) the Conservative “reasoned amendment.” It was only ever an amendment to stop the Labour bill - talk of an enquiry didn’t even make it to the end of the very last sentence. Any MP can can table a bill for discussion in Parliament, it doesn’t have to be an amendment to an existing bill that is solely designed to kill the existing bill. “That this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing at the same time as establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down.
This is such a wrong interpretation of what happened.
The Labour Party bill was all about child welfare and child protection. This is (word for word) the Conservative “reasoned amendment.” It was only ever an amendment to stop the Labour bill - talk of an enquiry didn’t even make it to the end of the very last sentence. Any MP can can table a bill for discussion in Parliament, it doesn’t have to be an amendment to an existing bill that is solely designed to kill the existing bill.
“That this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing at the same time as establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.”"So as it stands, that amended which included establishing a national enquiry has been voted down. What did I misinterpret? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down.
This is such a wrong interpretation of what happened.
The Labour Party bill was all about child welfare and child protection. This is (word for word) the Conservative “reasoned amendment.” It was only ever an amendment to stop the Labour bill - talk of an enquiry didn’t even make it to the end of the very last sentence. Any MP can can table a bill for discussion in Parliament, it doesn’t have to be an amendment to an existing bill that is solely designed to kill the existing bill.
“That this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing at the same time as establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.”
So as it stands, that amended which included establishing a national enquiry has been voted down.
What did I misinterpret?"Read the very first sentence. This house declines to give the bill a second reading. Everything after that is just noise. The bit about the enquiry was nothing more than an add-on to the very last sentence. All that needs to happen now is for someone (anyone who chooses to) to introduce a new motion to debate and if supported table a bill for an inquiry. That would be the most reasonable way to approach the matter instead of tabling an amendment that is solely designed to halt an existing child protection bill that can be enacted into law immediately. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down.
This is such a wrong interpretation of what happened.
The Labour Party bill was all about child welfare and child protection. This is (word for word) the Conservative “reasoned amendment.” It was only ever an amendment to stop the Labour bill - talk of an enquiry didn’t even make it to the end of the very last sentence. Any MP can can table a bill for discussion in Parliament, it doesn’t have to be an amendment to an existing bill that is solely designed to kill the existing bill.
“That this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing at the same time as establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.”
So as it stands, that amended which included establishing a national enquiry has been voted down.
What did I misinterpret?
Read the very first sentence.
This house declines to give the bill a second reading.
Everything after that is just noise. The bit about the enquiry was nothing more than an add-on to the very last sentence.
All that needs to happen now is for someone (anyone who chooses to) to introduce a new motion to debate and if supported table a bill for an inquiry. That would be the most reasonable way to approach the matter instead of tabling an amendment that is solely designed to halt an existing child protection bill that can be enacted into law immediately."How did the house decline to give a second reading? Did that happen via voting by any chance? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down.
This is such a wrong interpretation of what happened.
The Labour Party bill was all about child welfare and child protection. This is (word for word) the Conservative “reasoned amendment.” It was only ever an amendment to stop the Labour bill - talk of an enquiry didn’t even make it to the end of the very last sentence. Any MP can can table a bill for discussion in Parliament, it doesn’t have to be an amendment to an existing bill that is solely designed to kill the existing bill.
“That this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing at the same time as establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.”
So as it stands, that amended which included establishing a national enquiry has been voted down.
What did I misinterpret?
Read the very first sentence.
This house declines to give the bill a second reading.
Everything after that is just noise. The bit about the enquiry was nothing more than an add-on to the very last sentence.
All that needs to happen now is for someone (anyone who chooses to) to introduce a new motion to debate and if supported table a bill for an inquiry. That would be the most reasonable way to approach the matter instead of tabling an amendment that is solely designed to halt an existing child protection bill that can be enacted into law immediately.
How did the house decline to give a second reading?
Did that happen via voting by any chance?
"Are you being contrary just for the sake of it? Read the amendment and try to look at it objectively. Was it written to kill the existing bill or was it written to support the bill but amend it with an additional feature? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down.
This is such a wrong interpretation of what happened.
The Labour Party bill was all about child welfare and child protection. This is (word for word) the Conservative “reasoned amendment.” It was only ever an amendment to stop the Labour bill - talk of an enquiry didn’t even make it to the end of the very last sentence. Any MP can can table a bill for discussion in Parliament, it doesn’t have to be an amendment to an existing bill that is solely designed to kill the existing bill.
“That this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing at the same time as establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.”
So as it stands, that amended which included establishing a national enquiry has been voted down.
What did I misinterpret?
Read the very first sentence.
This house declines to give the bill a second reading.
Everything after that is just noise. The bit about the enquiry was nothing more than an add-on to the very last sentence.
All that needs to happen now is for someone (anyone who chooses to) to introduce a new motion to debate and if supported table a bill for an inquiry. That would be the most reasonable way to approach the matter instead of tabling an amendment that is solely designed to halt an existing child protection bill that can be enacted into law immediately.
How did the house decline to give a second reading?
Did that happen via voting by any chance?
Are you being contrary just for the sake of it? Read the amendment and try to look at it objectively.
Was it written to kill the existing bill or was it written to support the bill but amend it with an additional feature?"Why do you refuse to answer the question? The amendment was voted down, I don't believe I'm making that up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down.
This is such a wrong interpretation of what happened.
The Labour Party bill was all about child welfare and child protection. This is (word for word) the Conservative “reasoned amendment.” It was only ever an amendment to stop the Labour bill - talk of an enquiry didn’t even make it to the end of the very last sentence. Any MP can can table a bill for discussion in Parliament, it doesn’t have to be an amendment to an existing bill that is solely designed to kill the existing bill.
“That this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing at the same time as establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.”
So as it stands, that amended which included establishing a national enquiry has been voted down.
What did I misinterpret?
Read the very first sentence.
This house declines to give the bill a second reading.
Everything after that is just noise. The bit about the enquiry was nothing more than an add-on to the very last sentence.
All that needs to happen now is for someone (anyone who chooses to) to introduce a new motion to debate and if supported table a bill for an inquiry. That would be the most reasonable way to approach the matter instead of tabling an amendment that is solely designed to halt an existing child protection bill that can be enacted into law immediately.
How did the house decline to give a second reading?
Did that happen via voting by any chance?
Are you being contrary just for the sake of it? Read the amendment and try to look at it objectively.
Was it written to kill the existing bill or was it written to support the bill but amend it with an additional feature?
Why do you refuse to answer the question?
The amendment was voted down, I don't believe I'm making that up. "OK so it appears objectivity has left the room. There is a difference between amending something and killing it. I don’t believe that you can’t see that. It was voted down because to vote for it would mean that the child protection bill as a whole would have been killed off. That was the idea of the so-called amendment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down.
This is such a wrong interpretation of what happened.
The Labour Party bill was all about child welfare and child protection. This is (word for word) the Conservative “reasoned amendment.” It was only ever an amendment to stop the Labour bill - talk of an enquiry didn’t even make it to the end of the very last sentence. Any MP can can table a bill for discussion in Parliament, it doesn’t have to be an amendment to an existing bill that is solely designed to kill the existing bill.
“That this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing at the same time as establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.”
So as it stands, that amended which included establishing a national enquiry has been voted down.
What did I misinterpret?
Read the very first sentence.
This house declines to give the bill a second reading.
Everything after that is just noise. The bit about the enquiry was nothing more than an add-on to the very last sentence.
All that needs to happen now is for someone (anyone who chooses to) to introduce a new motion to debate and if supported table a bill for an inquiry. That would be the most reasonable way to approach the matter instead of tabling an amendment that is solely designed to halt an existing child protection bill that can be enacted into law immediately.
How did the house decline to give a second reading?
Did that happen via voting by any chance?
Are you being contrary just for the sake of it? Read the amendment and try to look at it objectively.
Was it written to kill the existing bill or was it written to support the bill but amend it with an additional feature?
Why do you refuse to answer the question?
The amendment was voted down, I don't believe I'm making that up.
OK so it appears objectivity has left the room.
There is a difference between amending something and killing it. I don’t believe that you can’t see that.
It was voted down because to vote for it would mean that the child protection bill as a whole would have been killed off. That was the idea of the so-called amendment.
"Thanks for confirming it was voted down. In future don't assume whether I do or don't know the reasons, I didn't offer them. It was a simple statement of it being voted down, a correct one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down.
This is such a wrong interpretation of what happened.
The Labour Party bill was all about child welfare and child protection. This is (word for word) the Conservative “reasoned amendment.” It was only ever an amendment to stop the Labour bill - talk of an enquiry didn’t even make it to the end of the very last sentence. Any MP can can table a bill for discussion in Parliament, it doesn’t have to be an amendment to an existing bill that is solely designed to kill the existing bill.
“That this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing at the same time as establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.”
So as it stands, that amended which included establishing a national enquiry has been voted down.
What did I misinterpret?
Read the very first sentence.
This house declines to give the bill a second reading.
Everything after that is just noise. The bit about the enquiry was nothing more than an add-on to the very last sentence.
All that needs to happen now is for someone (anyone who chooses to) to introduce a new motion to debate and if supported table a bill for an inquiry. That would be the most reasonable way to approach the matter instead of tabling an amendment that is solely designed to halt an existing child protection bill that can be enacted into law immediately.
How did the house decline to give a second reading?
Did that happen via voting by any chance?
Are you being contrary just for the sake of it? Read the amendment and try to look at it objectively.
Was it written to kill the existing bill or was it written to support the bill but amend it with an additional feature?
Why do you refuse to answer the question?
The amendment was voted down, I don't believe I'm making that up.
OK so it appears objectivity has left the room.
There is a difference between amending something and killing it. I don’t believe that you can’t see that.
It was voted down because to vote for it would mean that the child protection bill as a whole would have been killed off. That was the idea of the so-called amendment.
Thanks for confirming it was voted down.
In future don't assume whether I do or don't know the reasons, I didn't offer them.
It was a simple statement of it being voted down, a correct one. "The inquiry was not voted down. An amendment to kill a valuable and urgently required child protection bill was voted down. Now anyone in Parliament can start the process of debating and introducing a bill to have a national inquiry without the need to sabotage something that was really needed and which is now (thankfully) on the cusp of being enacted into law - no thanks to the opportunists who tried to cynically sabotage it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Everyone seems to be going around in circles on this. The national inquiry that is being requested is to look into the foreign grooming gangs that carried out these attacks, not an overall abuse inquiry. It baffles me why the fundamental ask is always conflated with other issues, it just spins out of control and the focus gets lost. Going back to the 20 recommendations ref overall abuse. I posted about this further up, the acceptance of the recommendations happened in May 23, most accepted some needed further clarity and discussion. Between that date and the Ge there was not a chance a single recommendation would have been delivered, most are complex tasks. Again I find it frustrating that people are throwing around accusations such as the last government failed to deliver a single recommendation. Our government is not serving us under a rosette, it is serving us as a government and when one hands over to the other it should continue with outstanding commitments. Starmer needs to ensure the recommendations are being progressed, and we need to have an inquiry into the specifics of the grooming gangs. I want to see what the Home Office is actually doing with the criminals, are they deported or still here, how much was spent on appeals, what the police managed them at a national level, are they monitoring them now and where.. I would like to see the national picture of all services, and not be palmed off by dismissive rhetoric. Jay and others have diverted, hence the focus fell on the recommendations not being delivered by the tories. So specifically having an enquiry wholly focused on Pakistani grooming gangs and child rapists and nothing else? What about other grooming gangs and rapists? Albanian? Nigerian? Polish? Indian? Religious groups? Do they get a free pass whilst the country demonstrates some sort of overt bias against Pakistani men? How would this help all victims and survivors if the obvious intent is only to shine a light on one demographic and one type of child exploitation? Once you start expanding the remit, you get back to the point of the first enquiry. "
Further inquiries are just going to kick the van down the road. And could be racist, as their driver, as that older suggestion highlighted. Plenty of opportunity to take the action, as well as have the Conservatives shutting up, after their dismissal results | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down.
This is such a wrong interpretation of what happened.
The Labour Party bill was all about child welfare and child protection. This is (word for word) the Conservative “reasoned amendment.” It was only ever an amendment to stop the Labour bill - talk of an enquiry didn’t even make it to the end of the very last sentence. Any MP can can table a bill for discussion in Parliament, it doesn’t have to be an amendment to an existing bill that is solely designed to kill the existing bill.
“That this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing at the same time as establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.”
So as it stands, that amended which included establishing a national enquiry has been voted down.
What did I misinterpret?
Read the very first sentence.
This house declines to give the bill a second reading.
Everything after that is just noise. The bit about the enquiry was nothing more than an add-on to the very last sentence.
All that needs to happen now is for someone (anyone who chooses to) to introduce a new motion to debate and if supported table a bill for an inquiry. That would be the most reasonable way to approach the matter instead of tabling an amendment that is solely designed to halt an existing child protection bill that can be enacted into law immediately.
How did the house decline to give a second reading?
Did that happen via voting by any chance?
Are you being contrary just for the sake of it? Read the amendment and try to look at it objectively.
Was it written to kill the existing bill or was it written to support the bill but amend it with an additional feature?
Why do you refuse to answer the question?
The amendment was voted down, I don't believe I'm making that up.
OK so it appears objectivity has left the room.
There is a difference between amending something and killing it. I don’t believe that you can’t see that.
It was voted down because to vote for it would mean that the child protection bill as a whole would have been killed off. That was the idea of the so-called amendment.
Thanks for confirming it was voted down.
In future don't assume whether I do or don't know the reasons, I didn't offer them.
It was a simple statement of it being voted down, a correct one.
The inquiry was not voted down. An amendment to kill a valuable and urgently required child protection bill was voted down.
Now anyone in Parliament can start the process of debating and introducing a bill to have a national inquiry without the need to sabotage something that was really needed and which is now (thankfully) on the cusp of being enacted into law - no thanks to the opportunists who tried to cynically sabotage it."Well this is getting boring... The inquiry which was contained in the amendment was voted down. Spin it whichever way you please but that fact won't be changed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There should be more prosecutions and compensation paid by the perpetrators to the victims. A national public inquiry should still happen because there are still areas that haven't been investigated, there are abusers still active and nothing is being done. " You don't need statutory inquiries for investigations to take place. You need investigations | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down.
This is such a wrong interpretation of what happened.
The Labour Party bill was all about child welfare and child protection. This is (word for word) the Conservative “reasoned amendment.” It was only ever an amendment to stop the Labour bill - talk of an enquiry didn’t even make it to the end of the very last sentence. Any MP can can table a bill for discussion in Parliament, it doesn’t have to be an amendment to an existing bill that is solely designed to kill the existing bill.
“That this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing at the same time as establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.”
So as it stands, that amended which included establishing a national enquiry has been voted down.
What did I misinterpret?
Read the very first sentence.
This house declines to give the bill a second reading.
Everything after that is just noise. The bit about the enquiry was nothing more than an add-on to the very last sentence.
All that needs to happen now is for someone (anyone who chooses to) to introduce a new motion to debate and if supported table a bill for an inquiry. That would be the most reasonable way to approach the matter instead of tabling an amendment that is solely designed to halt an existing child protection bill that can be enacted into law immediately.
How did the house decline to give a second reading?
Did that happen via voting by any chance?
Are you being contrary just for the sake of it? Read the amendment and try to look at it objectively.
Was it written to kill the existing bill or was it written to support the bill but amend it with an additional feature?
Why do you refuse to answer the question?
The amendment was voted down, I don't believe I'm making that up.
OK so it appears objectivity has left the room.
There is a difference between amending something and killing it. I don’t believe that you can’t see that.
It was voted down because to vote for it would mean that the child protection bill as a whole would have been killed off. That was the idea of the so-called amendment.
Thanks for confirming it was voted down.
In future don't assume whether I do or don't know the reasons, I didn't offer them.
It was a simple statement of it being voted down, a correct one.
The inquiry was not voted down. An amendment to kill a valuable and urgently required child protection bill was voted down.
Now anyone in Parliament can start the process of debating and introducing a bill to have a national inquiry without the need to sabotage something that was really needed and which is now (thankfully) on the cusp of being enacted into law - no thanks to the opportunists who tried to cynically sabotage it.
Well this is getting boring...
The inquiry which was contained in the amendment was voted down. Spin it whichever way you please but that fact won't be changed. "I didn’t know if you were deliberately being obtuse, or didn’t have a clear understanding of how a uk legal bill is put together…. Sadly I think it’s the latter…. If you kill a bill at “second stage” there is no further discussion of that bill! literally no report or committee stages, no amendments, no going to the House of Lords, no further voting, no anything!!! So anything after that first statement that the Conservative put in the rest of the amendment is moot… bill dies because there that amendmend bill would never go past second reading It was a poison pill because the conservatives could say “well they wanted to do something “ hoping everyone forgets the first couple of words, Fancy window dressing on a corpse…… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down.
This is such a wrong interpretation of what happened.
The Labour Party bill was all about child welfare and child protection. This is (word for word) the Conservative “reasoned amendment.” It was only ever an amendment to stop the Labour bill - talk of an enquiry didn’t even make it to the end of the very last sentence. Any MP can can table a bill for discussion in Parliament, it doesn’t have to be an amendment to an existing bill that is solely designed to kill the existing bill.
“That this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing at the same time as establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.”
So as it stands, that amended which included establishing a national enquiry has been voted down.
What did I misinterpret?
Read the very first sentence.
This house declines to give the bill a second reading.
Everything after that is just noise. The bit about the enquiry was nothing more than an add-on to the very last sentence.
All that needs to happen now is for someone (anyone who chooses to) to introduce a new motion to debate and if supported table a bill for an inquiry. That would be the most reasonable way to approach the matter instead of tabling an amendment that is solely designed to halt an existing child protection bill that can be enacted into law immediately.
How did the house decline to give a second reading?
Did that happen via voting by any chance?
Are you being contrary just for the sake of it? Read the amendment and try to look at it objectively.
Was it written to kill the existing bill or was it written to support the bill but amend it with an additional feature?
Why do you refuse to answer the question?
The amendment was voted down, I don't believe I'm making that up.
OK so it appears objectivity has left the room.
There is a difference between amending something and killing it. I don’t believe that you can’t see that.
It was voted down because to vote for it would mean that the child protection bill as a whole would have been killed off. That was the idea of the so-called amendment.
Thanks for confirming it was voted down.
In future don't assume whether I do or don't know the reasons, I didn't offer them.
It was a simple statement of it being voted down, a correct one.
The inquiry was not voted down. An amendment to kill a valuable and urgently required child protection bill was voted down.
Now anyone in Parliament can start the process of debating and introducing a bill to have a national inquiry without the need to sabotage something that was really needed and which is now (thankfully) on the cusp of being enacted into law - no thanks to the opportunists who tried to cynically sabotage it.
Well this is getting boring...
The inquiry which was contained in the amendment was voted down. Spin it whichever way you please but that fact won't be changed.
I didn’t know if you were deliberately being obtuse, or didn’t have a clear understanding of how a uk legal bill is put together….
Sadly I think it’s the latter….
If you kill a bill at “second stage” there is no further discussion of that bill! literally no report or committee stages, no amendments, no going to the House of Lords, no further voting, no anything!!!
So anything after that first statement that the Conservative put in the rest of the amendment is moot… bill dies because there that amendmend bill would never go past second reading
It was a poison pill because the conservatives could say “well they wanted to do something “ hoping everyone forgets the first couple of words,
Fancy window dressing on a corpse……
"I’m confident that most people do not understand bills or amendments of bills. I’m even more confident that only 1% of people understand why this amendment was introduced into this bill and not stand alone, and you’ve also missed the why….. F&F is correct that the amendment was voted down, it is clear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Latest opinion poll, 76% of public would support an Inquiry." Depends how the question was framed. If the question was: A 7 year long enquiry into grooming and child sexual exploitation that cost £200 million was concluded in 2022 and the government are about to act on the recommendations made in the subsequent report. Do you think we should have another enquiry before the recommendations of the first enquiry have been enacted? Might get a different response than Do you think the Government should launch an enquiry into the Pakistani gangs that have r***d tens/hundreds of thousands of innocent white girls? The opinion poll is meaningless unless those questioned are armed with objective facts. And this would be hard considering the number of people who still don’t understand what happened in Parliament on Tuesday. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down.
This is such a wrong interpretation of what happened.
The Labour Party bill was all about child welfare and child protection. This is (word for word) the Conservative “reasoned amendment.” It was only ever an amendment to stop the Labour bill - talk of an enquiry didn’t even make it to the end of the very last sentence. Any MP can can table a bill for discussion in Parliament, it doesn’t have to be an amendment to an existing bill that is solely designed to kill the existing bill.
“That this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing at the same time as establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.”
So as it stands, that amended which included establishing a national enquiry has been voted down.
What did I misinterpret?
Read the very first sentence.
This house declines to give the bill a second reading.
Everything after that is just noise. The bit about the enquiry was nothing more than an add-on to the very last sentence.
All that needs to happen now is for someone (anyone who chooses to) to introduce a new motion to debate and if supported table a bill for an inquiry. That would be the most reasonable way to approach the matter instead of tabling an amendment that is solely designed to halt an existing child protection bill that can be enacted into law immediately.
How did the house decline to give a second reading?
Did that happen via voting by any chance?
Are you being contrary just for the sake of it? Read the amendment and try to look at it objectively.
Was it written to kill the existing bill or was it written to support the bill but amend it with an additional feature?
Why do you refuse to answer the question?
The amendment was voted down, I don't believe I'm making that up.
OK so it appears objectivity has left the room.
There is a difference between amending something and killing it. I don’t believe that you can’t see that.
It was voted down because to vote for it would mean that the child protection bill as a whole would have been killed off. That was the idea of the so-called amendment.
Thanks for confirming it was voted down.
In future don't assume whether I do or don't know the reasons, I didn't offer them.
It was a simple statement of it being voted down, a correct one.
The inquiry was not voted down. An amendment to kill a valuable and urgently required child protection bill was voted down.
Now anyone in Parliament can start the process of debating and introducing a bill to have a national inquiry without the need to sabotage something that was really needed and which is now (thankfully) on the cusp of being enacted into law - no thanks to the opportunists who tried to cynically sabotage it.
Well this is getting boring...
The inquiry which was contained in the amendment was voted down. Spin it whichever way you please but that fact won't be changed.
I didn’t know if you were deliberately being obtuse, or didn’t have a clear understanding of how a uk legal bill is put together….
Sadly I think it’s the latter….
If you kill a bill at “second stage” there is no further discussion of that bill! literally no report or committee stages, no amendments, no going to the House of Lords, no further voting, no anything!!!
So anything after that first statement that the Conservative put in the rest of the amendment is moot… bill dies because there that amendmend bill would never go past second reading
It was a poison pill because the conservatives could say “well they wanted to do something “ hoping everyone forgets the first couple of words,
Fancy window dressing on a corpse……
I’m confident that most people do not understand bills or amendments of bills.
I’m even more confident that only 1% of people understand why this amendment was introduced into this bill and not stand alone, and you’ve also missed the why…..
F&F is correct that the amendment was voted down, it is clear."The reason why the language is important is that a bill killed at second reading stage means it can not be brought up again in the life of that parliamentary session That’s why it was voted against… after that very first sentence , everything else staining their own amendment was basically null and void!… it looking like you are doing something without actually doing anything! If the conservatives were being “genuine” what they could have done is abstain at second reading stage… allowing the original bill (which was a child safety and protection bill) to be fleshed out at report and committee stages) and then when that was done add your “enquiry motion” as an amendment at 3rd reading Get the positive progress of the original legislation without killing an entire bill Which they “could “ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Latest opinion poll, 76% of public would support an Inquiry. Depends how the question was framed. If the question was: A 7 year long enquiry into grooming and child sexual exploitation that cost £200 million was concluded in 2022 and the government are about to act on the recommendations made in the subsequent report. Do you think we should have another enquiry before the recommendations of the first enquiry have been enacted? Might get a different response than Do you think the Government should launch an enquiry into the Pakistani gangs that have r***d tens/hundreds of thousands of innocent white girls? The opinion poll is meaningless unless those questioned are armed with objective facts. And this would be hard considering the number of people who still don’t understand what happened in Parliament on Tuesday." Excellent post | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The issue is with Pakistani heritage gangs because they have been convicted of operating r@pe and torture gangs targeting white girls in dozens of towns and cities. There is no parallel with any other community. There is no parallel in British legal history of one ethnic group targeting another group on such a scale, with such brutality and over such a long period. It is a unique pattern of crime that warrants a stand alone Inquiry. We will know for sure if we have a national inquiry
Inquiry has been voted down.
This is such a wrong interpretation of what happened.
The Labour Party bill was all about child welfare and child protection. This is (word for word) the Conservative “reasoned amendment.” It was only ever an amendment to stop the Labour bill - talk of an enquiry didn’t even make it to the end of the very last sentence. Any MP can can table a bill for discussion in Parliament, it doesn’t have to be an amendment to an existing bill that is solely designed to kill the existing bill.
“That this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing at the same time as establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.”
So as it stands, that amended which included establishing a national enquiry has been voted down.
What did I misinterpret?
Read the very first sentence.
This house declines to give the bill a second reading.
Everything after that is just noise. The bit about the enquiry was nothing more than an add-on to the very last sentence.
All that needs to happen now is for someone (anyone who chooses to) to introduce a new motion to debate and if supported table a bill for an inquiry. That would be the most reasonable way to approach the matter instead of tabling an amendment that is solely designed to halt an existing child protection bill that can be enacted into law immediately.
How did the house decline to give a second reading?
Did that happen via voting by any chance?
Are you being contrary just for the sake of it? Read the amendment and try to look at it objectively.
Was it written to kill the existing bill or was it written to support the bill but amend it with an additional feature?
Why do you refuse to answer the question?
The amendment was voted down, I don't believe I'm making that up.
OK so it appears objectivity has left the room.
There is a difference between amending something and killing it. I don’t believe that you can’t see that.
It was voted down because to vote for it would mean that the child protection bill as a whole would have been killed off. That was the idea of the so-called amendment.
Thanks for confirming it was voted down.
In future don't assume whether I do or don't know the reasons, I didn't offer them.
It was a simple statement of it being voted down, a correct one.
The inquiry was not voted down. An amendment to kill a valuable and urgently required child protection bill was voted down.
Now anyone in Parliament can start the process of debating and introducing a bill to have a national inquiry without the need to sabotage something that was really needed and which is now (thankfully) on the cusp of being enacted into law - no thanks to the opportunists who tried to cynically sabotage it.
Well this is getting boring...
The inquiry which was contained in the amendment was voted down. Spin it whichever way you please but that fact won't be changed.
I didn’t know if you were deliberately being obtuse, or didn’t have a clear understanding of how a uk legal bill is put together….
Sadly I think it’s the latter….
If you kill a bill at “second stage” there is no further discussion of that bill! literally no report or committee stages, no amendments, no going to the House of Lords, no further voting, no anything!!!
So anything after that first statement that the Conservative put in the rest of the amendment is moot… bill dies because there that amendmend bill would never go past second reading
It was a poison pill because the conservatives could say “well they wanted to do something “ hoping everyone forgets the first couple of words,
Fancy window dressing on a corpse……
I’m confident that most people do not understand bills or amendments of bills.
I’m even more confident that only 1% of people understand why this amendment was introduced into this bill and not stand alone, and you’ve also missed the why…..
F&F is correct that the amendment was voted down, it is clear.
The reason why the language is important is that a bill killed at second reading stage means it can not be brought up again in the life of that parliamentary session
That’s why it was voted against… after that very first sentence , everything else staining their own amendment was basically null and void!… it looking like you are doing something without actually doing anything!
If the conservatives were being “genuine” what they could have done is abstain at second reading stage… allowing the original bill (which was a child safety and protection bill) to be fleshed out at report and committee stages) and then when that was done add your “enquiry motion” as an amendment at 3rd reading
Get the positive progress of the original legislation without killing an entire bill
Which they “could “ "Language is of course important, but understanding the bill beyond the emotive is equally important. You are being drawn in by the emotive language of the labour party, the bill and the inclusion of the amendment. This is why I'm confident that only 1% of people understand the overall position of the changes in this bill. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are being drawn in by the emotive language of the labour party, the bill and the inclusion of the amendment. This is why I'm confident that only 1% of people understand the overall position of the changes in this bill." But is it emotive when the intention was to destroy a bill? If that is the case the question is then are we actually trying to do something by destroying a perfectly good bill that has intentions of doing good things for children……. Or are just trying to look good in the court of public opinion of people who don’t actually know but think it “sounded good “ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are being drawn in by the emotive language of the labour party, the bill and the inclusion of the amendment. This is why I'm confident that only 1% of people understand the overall position of the changes in this bill. But is it emotive when the intention was to destroy a bill? If that is the case the question is then are we actually trying to do something by destroying a perfectly good bill that has intentions of doing good things for children……. Or are just trying to look good in the court of public opinion of people who don’t actually know but think it “sounded good “ " There was certainly political brinkmanship at work, which I don't agree with. The bill makes changes changes to the education system, especially academy freedom, and teacher pay flexibility. I'm not saying the amendment should not have been voted down, I'm pointing out that there is a lot of emotive misinformation being used to argue mostly the wrong points. Labour showed a level of naivety and the tories their cards in how they are going to try and manage a large labour majority. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are being drawn in by the emotive language of the labour party, the bill and the inclusion of the amendment. This is why I'm confident that only 1% of people understand the overall position of the changes in this bill. But is it emotive when the intention was to destroy a bill? If that is the case the question is then are we actually trying to do something by destroying a perfectly good bill that has intentions of doing good things for children……. Or are just trying to look good in the court of public opinion of people who don’t actually know but think it “sounded good “ " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
