This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Coronavirus (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
  georgenorman  15 Dec 21 1.22pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It's the duty of every MP to do their constitutional duty! Which is to use their conscience to determine what is in the best interests of their constituents. Opposing the government is secondary. Actually, the first constitutional duty of MPs is to act in the interests of the country.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| steeleye20 Croydon 15 Dec 21 1.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
'The Opposition's duty is to oppose' - Margaret Thatcher. How could an opposition not oppose Johnson's brexit deal? And on covid has the government been successful? Of course not. Starmer does not hold the government to account. His appeal to patriotism is like most of such appeals - the moral bankruptcy he accuses the PM of.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 Dec 21 1.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
That’s the point. If people can’t find what they’re looking for, within reason of course, how are they to have an opinion? Not everyone is looking for confirmation of their views. I couldn't access your link as I don't accept advertising cookies. Nevertheless I read the headline. It's misleading. Google doesn't censor. It restricts access to illegal sites and those which are designed to cause harm, by stealing your identity. If a government requires Google to remove content, which many do, then it's that government which is censoring and not Google. They are merely obeying the law. YouTube, which is owned by Google, is in another category. There they must be aware of that which is not only legal, but what could be harmful. Posting warnings is normally all that's needed, but removal of content that could encourage others to cause harm makes good sense to me.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 15 Dec 21 2.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Jeremy Corbyn has voted against the vaccine passport and compulsory jabs for NHS staff, after saying the measures would be 'counterproductive' and 'create division'.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 Dec 21 2.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Actually, the first constitutional duty of MPs is to act in the interests of the country. This is true, but normally the interests of their constituents are closely related, if not identical. Although some in the devolved administrations would disagree.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 15 Dec 21 2.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Jeremy Corbyn has voted against the vaccine passport and compulsory jabs for NHS staff, after saying the measures would be 'counterproductive' and 'create division'. LOL, hardly a surprise Corbyn voting against something, he made a career out of that. If he had become PM he probably would have voted against himself in the commons.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 Dec 21 2.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
'The Opposition's duty is to oppose' - Margaret Thatcher. How could an opposition not oppose Johnson's brexit deal? And on covid has the government been successful? Of course not. Starmer does not hold the government to account. His appeal to patriotism is like most of such appeals - the moral bankruptcy he accuses the PM of.
It was by far not the only thing that Margaret Thatcher was as certain about as she was wrong. She also said "there is no such thing as society", an attitude which seems to permeate a small group of posters here. Corbyn's lack of leadership over Brexit is why it happened the way it did. If he had opposed it, or resigned because he couldn't, and allowed someone else to lead a concerted effort to force a confirmatory second vote, then we would have renegotiated. We would either have stayed in, on better terms, left but remained in association and still in the single market, or obtained a better deal. As it was, we didn't "Get Brexit done". Brexit has done us.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  15 Dec 21 2.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I couldn't access your link as I don't accept advertising cookies. Nevertheless I read the headline. It's misleading. Google doesn't censor. It restricts access to illegal sites and those which are designed to cause harm, by stealing your identity. If a government requires Google to remove content, which many do, then it's that government which is censoring and not Google. They are merely obeying the law. YouTube, which is owned by Google, is in another category. There they must be aware of that which is not only legal, but what could be harmful. Posting warnings is normally all that's needed, but removal of content that could encourage others to cause harm makes good sense to me. Google produced an 85 page document - The Good Censor which said they have “undertaken a shift towards censorship”.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 15 Dec 21 2.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Google produced an 85 page document - The Good Censor which said they have “undertaken a shift towards censorship”. A leaked, internal, discussion document? Perhaps read this:-
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 15 Dec 21 2.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
From the perspective of the NHS staff themselves, what will they do. I wonder how many will leave. Personally I wouldn't accept such powers over me.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 15 Dec 21 3.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
This is true, but normally the interests of their constituents are closely related, if not identical. Although some in the devolved administrations would disagree. In some constituencies it is quite the opposite.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 15 Dec 21 3.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies. Well, they wouldn’t make it public would they?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.