General Chat

Be quiet Dizzi, or I'll RR your post :-D :-D :-D

Wow, this thread took off, last time I looked it was falling off the page.

First, in answer to SueMaid's post. When I said the PC brigade were a bunch of do-gooders, I certainly didn't mean those who genuinely speak out against racism, sexism and all the other 'isms'. That's one thing. I abhor all those isms, especially racism.

The one's I am talking about are those that object to our calling Christmas 'Christmas', for fear of offending those of other religions, dictating instead that we should call it the 'winter festival' or some such nonsense. There was a TV interview with some Muslims in Luton on this very subject, and they actually said, they're not offended by Christmas, in fact they love mince pies!

There have even been debates on here in the past, I remember one about disabled people, and posts were being RR'd because someone THOUGHT it would be offensive to disabled people. It wasn't, and many of the then disabled people who took part in that thread said so. It was just some busybody being offended on BEHALF of disabled people just in case.

That's the do-gooders I'm talking about.

Roy, take a deep breath and express your opinion. You are allowed to. That's freedom of speech.

As for the MP's I see where Roy is coming from, but I also see the need to debate openly and frankly, even using some terms that wouldn't normally be used, at least in public. After all, like it or not, they are running the country, some things just need to be said. I can in fact see both sides to this point.

Now, going to bed soon. If this thread isn't here tomorrow, I'll see you when I get off the norty step...the late night RR brigade are due in soon, probably sunk enough gin by now :-D :-D :-D :-D (just kidding)

Dizzi maybe the RR er is in bed sleeping like a baby
tomorrow really maybe another day

IS THIS A DEBATE ON THE FREEDOM OF SPEACH

GETTING WORRIED I UNDERSTOOD MOST OF IT

AND SHUSH



NO RR'S

They, and we, all have freedom of speech...what 'we' don't have that they do is immunity from prosecution if we get it 'wrong'.

They need immunity to go about the business of government effectively.

I think on the last count that would be the 4th time you've said that Roy :-D :-D

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

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

(Cannot remember who said this.)

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

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

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,"

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

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

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

Roy

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....

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.

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

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

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

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

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