General Chat

OK, I give in but this is my final post on this thread which is supposed to be about Freedom of speech.

If we have still got Freedom of speech Why does parliament still have a law for MP's to say what ever they like whilst debating in parliament without fear of prosecution

And that is my last over and out :-D

Roy

Roy - why are you annoyed? No-one has taken away your right to present your opinion on here. It's a debate isn't it? Which means everyone can present an opinion.

Roy you seem some what cross? Do you feel your point is not being put across?

THANK YOU MUFFY.enjoy your curry.x :-D

Bit late to add perhaps but I was on the phone...

"RamblingRose, If you posted a debate about incest and then being asked to remove it, and you did remove it then to me that was against your right to Freedom of speech,"

No it wasn't against my right, because it was entirely my decision to remove it, in consideration of a reasonable suggestion that it was possible that it might hurt someone who 'might' be a member...it was a publicly reported case where two people met unaware they were related that prompted thread,

Waiving my right to free speech at my own discretion in fact
:-D

SueMaid and Hayley, I am not annoyed or Cross,

I have had my say and voiced my opinion,

and frankly it is my opinion whether you agree or disagree does not bother me as I am an open minded type of bloke who thinks everyone has a right to their own opinion

As a Yorkshireman i speak my mind and if people disagree then that's fine and up to them and does not bother me either way

Roy

As long as speaking one's mind isn't an excuse for being rude then that's fine.

A lot of good thoughts on here and I have really come too late to add anything because it has mostly been said. In my opinion it is difficult to have real freedom of speech on a forum such as this because the T&Cs are so wide that anyone can curtail that freedom by pressing the delightful report button and saying the 'such and such' offends them because XYZ. Genes then have no real reason to retain the thread if in any way there is a chance that the complaint can be upheld.

It is late and that is a bit muddly but I know what I mean :-D

Absolutey Roy, your opionion your right to voice it. I thought you was getting cross and couldnt understand why., neybother I must of misread it some how :-D

SueMaid, If i wanted to be PC about things, i could read your post

ref; (As long as speaking one's mind isn't an excuse for being rude)
As that was a responce to my post about being a Yorkshireman i speak my mind

could be mis understood for
because i am a Yorkshireman speaking my mind it must/could be rude?

But being a open minded type of bloke i am sure you ment it in good heart, So i am not offended :-D


Hayley, The problem with this type of media is that often things can be misread/misunderstood and thats why often you need to be open minded when reading post's instead of rushing to clickon the RR button like some members often have

But no one yet has commented on my post,

If we have still got Freedom of speech Why does parliament still have a law for MP's to say what ever they like whilst debating in parliament without fear of prosecution

Roy

No - that wasn't my point Roy. By the way I'm a Yorkshire woman and all my side of the family are from Leeds so if you think I'm having a go that would be silly of me :-D

My comment was a generalisation only.

1.Freedom of speech; (members speaking in the House are not liable for defamation)

that gives them the freedom to criticise the opposition without being called to court for it, which lets face it is a necessity....

SueMaid, I was just making a point, I thought i made that clear

Roy

In reply to your comment Roy I havent a clue :-D

they also get cheep booze in the bar and thats wrong to

specifically

"In the United Kingdom, it allows members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to speak freely during ordinary parliamentary proceedings without fear of legal action on the grounds of slander, contempt of court or breaching the Official Secrets Act.[1][2] It also means that members of Parliament cannot be arrested on civil matters for statements made or acts undertaken as an MP within the grounds of the Palace of Westminster, on the condition that such statements or acts occur as part of a proceeding in Parliament—for example, as a question to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. This allows Members to raise questions or debate issues which could slander an individual, interfere with an ongoing court case or threaten to reveal state secrets,"

and the rest of the page

Privileges of the UK House of CommonsThe ancient and undoubted rights and privileges of the Commons are claimed by the Speaker at the beginning of each new Parliament. The privileges are only codified in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice and the House itself is the only judge of its own privileges. Most of those specifically claimed are practically obsolete, but others remain very real:

1.Freedom of speech; (members speaking in the House are not liable for defamation)
2.Freedom from arrest in civil matters (practically obsolete);[3]
3.Access of the Commons to the Crown (via the Speaker); and
4.That the most favourable construction should be placed upon the deliberations of the Commons.
Privileges not specifically mentioned:

1.Right of the House to regulate its own composition; (although election petitions are now determined by the ordinary Courts)
2.Right of the House to regulate its own internal proceedings, both as to matters and procedures;
3.Right to punish members and “strangers” for breach of privilege and contempt;
4.Right of freedom from interference (although members are no longer immune from all civil actions)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege

Roy

So for a made up example, in the House, Cameron could question a labour MP on the supply of weapons (during a previous parliament) to a middle east dictator and who was involved in it without :

a) having definite proof that it happened at all
b) being prosecuted for defamationof character for saying it was Tony Blair if it wasn't (or indeed if it was)
c) revealing state secrets
d) accusing the labour mp of lying

sorry he can't use the word "lying" unparliamentary language...perhaps 'economical with the truth'?

:-D

'Many words will offend or amuse some patriotic or esoteric soul'.

(Cannot remember who said this.)

I come back to my original point If we have freedom of speech in this country why would such Privileges need to be granted to MP's

And that's me finished with this debate as i have nothing else to add

Roy