# John Bercow - right or wrong?



## chrisd (Feb 6, 2017)

So. The Speaker if the House of Commons has vetoed the invitation of Donald Trump to speak to the Commons during his visit  later on

Right or wrong?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 6, 2017)

If it's in his remit then that fine. If it is outside of his power then no. The invitation is premature and speaking to the House is an honour. He needs to earn that and not just by being the president. 

Bercow has generally been a very good speaker and I think he is representing the feelings of the house on this occasion. I would say that is part of his job.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 6, 2017)

Right - in a nutshell he believes a racist sexist bigot shouldn't speak in the HoC and IMO he is right


----------



## JohnnyDee (Feb 6, 2017)

chrisd said:



			Right or wrong?
		
Click to expand...

Totally right in my view Chris.

Watching reports on all channels they have been unanimous that it is within his power to do so.

My own view is that he is also morally correct in taking the action.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Feb 6, 2017)

playing devils advocate here, but the President of China and the Emir of Kuwait have both addressed Parliament, both countries have appalling human rights records 

surely we must be even handed


----------



## JohnnyDee (Feb 6, 2017)

PhilTheFragger said:



			playing devils advocate here, but the President of China and the Emir of Kuwait have both addressed Parliament, both countries have appalling human rights records 

surely we must be even handed
		
Click to expand...

Three wrongs don't make a right Phil. Those two should've been shown the door too. Better we stop the rot eventually than let the sore fester on indefinitely.

TouchÃ©


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Feb 6, 2017)

PhilTheFragger said:



			playing devils advocate here, but the President of China and the Emir of Kuwait have both addressed Parliament, both countries have appalling human rights records 

surely we must be even handed
		
Click to expand...


Apparently not Phil.

I despise Trump and all he stands for but equally I cannot tolerate double standards and hypocrisy. Let him address the House and let our MP's receive his speech in silence thus displaying their feelings towards him.No cries of "Hear, hear!" or waving of order papers.

 For someone as obsessed with his TV image as Trump this could prove very effective.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 6, 2017)

JohnnyDee said:



			Three wrongs don't make a right Phil. Those two should've been shown the door too. Better we stop the rot eventually than let the sore fester on indefinitely.

TouchÃ© 

Click to expand...

Surely theres only one Wong !


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 6, 2017)

I say he's wrong. We have had many brave souls die to keep our freedom of speech and spirit. Whether we like Trump or not he has the right as POTUS to have the offer extended to him. We don't have to like or listen to him just extend the position he holds, the honour of addressing the House if he wants.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 6, 2017)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I say he's wrong. We have had many brave souls die to keep our freedom of speech and spirit. Whether we like Trump or not he has the right as POTUS to have the offer extended to him. We don't have to like or listen to him just extend the position he holds, the honour of addressing the House if he wants.
		
Click to expand...

And Trump is doing his best to silence freedom of speech.  Deriding the judge who ruled his immigration ban EO as being illegal and unconstitutional and referring to him as a 'so-called judge' and tweeting earlier today that any polls that disagree with his position as Fake News.  We do value freedom of speech - he does not - and any kudos he gains from visiting the UK will simply be self-aggrandisement and ego-stroking.  We should not give him that pleasure.  More than half of the US electorate will thank us for that.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 6, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And Trump is doing his best to silence freedom of speech.  Deriding the judge who ruled his immigration ban EO as being illegal and unconstitutional and referring to him as a 'so-called judge' and tweeting earlier today that any polls that disagree with his position as Fake News.  We do value freedom of speech - he does not - and any kudos he gains from visiting the UK will simply be self-aggrandisement and ego-stroking.  We should not give him that pleasure.  More than half of the US electorate will thank us for that.
		
Click to expand...


What they do over there is up to them and their electorate. Freedom of speech cannot be allowed just when you choose to like someone.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 6, 2017)

Bunkermagnet said:



			What they do over there is up to them and their electorate. Freedom of speech cannot be allowed just when you choose to like someone.
		
Click to expand...

With Freedom of Speech must also come responsibility 

Freedom of Speech doesn't mean being allowed to spread messages of hatred , racism and sexism- Trump is guilty of them so because he can't act responsible when speaking he won't be allowed to talk his nonsense with in the HoC


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 6, 2017)

Shouldn't be up to the egotistic sycophant but if those is the rules and all that. Wife used to be quite tasty though.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Feb 6, 2017)

Bunkermagnet said:



			What they do over there is up to them and their electorate. Freedom of speech cannot be allowed just when you choose to like someone.
		
Click to expand...

Nobody is denying him freedom of speech, all he is being denied is the platform of an address to parliament which would have given more credence to his racism, sexism and lies.

I actually think Bercow is both right and wrong on this. Right that Trump should not be given this platform but wrong in that it shouldn't really be for the speaker to decide. But since the PM and government have abandoned their principles on this I suppose we should be glad that someone has at least spoken up.


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 6, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			With Freedom of Speech must also come responsibility 

Freedom of Speech doesn't mean being allowed to spread messages of hatred , racism and sexism- Trump is guilty of them so because he can't act responsible when speaking he won't be allowed to talk his nonsense with in the HoC
		
Click to expand...

What is the problem to which banning Trump from speaking in the HOC is the resolution?


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 6, 2017)

Personal  opinion has no place in an office of state - take the lead from our  head of state, the Queen who, whatever her personal views, keeps them as  just that - personal and private and totally separate from her  constitutional role. If the speaker is unable or unwilling to do this he  should resign and return to the floor of the house as an MP. In my opinion of course.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Feb 6, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			Nobody is denying him freedom of speech, all he is being denied is the platform of an address to parliament which would have given more credence to his racism, sexism and lies.

I actually think Bercow is both right and wrong on this. Right that Trump should not be given this platform but wrong in that it shouldn't really be for the speaker to decide. But since the PM and government have abandoned their principles on this I suppose we should be glad that someone has at least spoken up.
		
Click to expand...

Do we know that it is Bercow's decision alone, or is he being used as a convenient way of denying Trump the platform without the rebuke being seen to come from the House or from the PM herself?  Not saying you're wrong FD, just wonder if there is a little more to it?

Bit torn by this one, I have no love for Trump and won't miss him not being given the platform, but as others have said we seem to have allowed worse the privilege and possibly on Bercow's watch. However I suppose if we we are going to make a stand we have to start somewhere.


----------



## drdel (Feb 6, 2017)

Beyond his remit. Speaker is not supposed to be political even if his views are popular.


----------



## bluewolf (Feb 6, 2017)

The right decision, but made by the wrong person. It should have been a united stand by all parties. The Freedom of speech argument cannot be used to promote ignorance, intolerance, divisiveness and greed.


----------



## Fish (Feb 7, 2017)

Wrong, he's supposed to be neutral and should stand down.


----------



## bluewolf (Feb 7, 2017)

Fish said:



			Wrong, he's supposed to be neutral and should stand down.
		
Click to expand...

No, he's supposed to be non-partisan, but has the responsibility of looking after the integrity of the House. He's done his job.


----------



## Fish (Feb 7, 2017)

bluewolf said:



			No, he's supposed to be non-partisan, but has the responsibility of looking after the integrity of the House. He's done his job.
		
Click to expand...

Not in the past he hasn't so why change now, he's in the wrong imo and I won't change my opinion.


----------



## bluewolf (Feb 7, 2017)

Fish said:



			Not in the past he hasn't so why change now, he's in the wrong imo and I won't change my opinion.
		
Click to expand...

You don't have too mate. It's what makes the world turn &#128077;

And just because he hasn't done it before doesn't make it wrong that he has done it this time.


----------



## Fish (Feb 7, 2017)

bluewolf said:



			And just because he hasn't done it before doesn't make it wrong that he has done it this time.
		
Click to expand...

I think it does though and I'd like to know why there seems to be acceptable double standards when it suits?


----------



## bluewolf (Feb 7, 2017)

Fish said:



			I think it does though and I'd like to know why there seems to be acceptable double standards when it suits?
		
Click to expand...

So you believe that if someone has done something once, then they should follow the same path every time?

There's no double standards from me. I'd like to see all foreign despots, tyrants, fascists etc banned from addressing the house. I've no issue with political differences, but if you're message is one of intolerance, bigotry, sexism, racism etc etc etc, then I don't believe you should be treated like a welcomed dignitary..


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 7, 2017)

Wrong.

I want him to get his racist, sexist, elitest message to as many people as possible so that everyone gets to see what a despicable thug he is. The more he gets it out there the sooner his own people, who are the only ones who can remove him from office, can shut him down.

And we need more John Bercow's in parliament.


----------



## Tashyboy (Feb 7, 2017)

So John Bercow is there to protect the integrity of the house, that went tits up before he even got the job. If he was protecting the house he would nail the door shut when Corbyn walks up the path ( I would even buy the hammer and nails) , and a few others.
Re one man banning Trump from speaking, how's that supposed to be right. The whole country had a vote on Brexit, teddy got thrown out of the cot and said judges said the Houses of Parliament had to decide. Would like to see the same teddy thrower take John Bercow to court and say the MPs have to decide.
Double standards, they should let him speak and if you don't want to hear him talk grow a pair, get up and walk out.


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

I think the Speaker is guilty of grandstanding here. If he didn't want Trump to make such an address he could have been done it in a much more subtle way. He did not have to make an announcement and certainly not in the Commons. He most certainly should not have expressed a personal political opinion in doing so.
As I understand it, a State visit does not necessarily include addressing both Houses and I am not even sure such an address was requested, but I may be wrong as constitutional procedures are very complicated.
The Speaker choosing to act in this way is an attempt to embarrass the government and could be seen as swaying government policy. In this regard, quite independently from whether his opinions are seen as right or wrong, his acting in this way cannot be seen as right.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 7, 2017)

Apparently he is one of 3 on a panel who makes this judgement. He was probably a bit premature, grandstanding, but he got it out there. The other two could over rule him but I suspect whilst one may the other would not. If they did he would probably resign, causing more fuss. In parliamentary terms, he has the House with him and so the MP's would stand by him. His weakness is in allowing the Chinese Premier to speak. If you allow him then you have pretty much opened the door to anyone.

Incidentally, the Speaker is neutral in terms of people within the House, Lab, Con, Lib, SNP etc. He will say in this instance that he is protecting the integrity of the House and is still politically neutral. You can argue that one both ways.


----------



## Beezerk (Feb 7, 2017)

There will be no MP's left in Westminster going by Bercow's logic.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 7, 2017)

drdel said:



			Beyond his remit. Speaker is not supposed to be political even if his views are popular.
		
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if Bercow hadn't taken full advice on this as he takes his role very seriously.   I suspect he has a duty to the HoC - to prevent the HoC being used.

As far as I am concerned the UK would just be being used for Trumps ends - and those ends are his only - using the UK as a vanity project to bolster his popularity and detract from what he is actually doing - 'look - the UK recognises and agrees that what I am doing is right and valid' - he will spin, spin, spin and then lie about us.  

And he uses us further to undermine the EU with his goal - with Bannon - of fracturing the EU so he can strike individual deals with the EU nations.  Not caring the strains and arguments that are created between European counties as a result - and as they have to compete with each other for trade deals with the US.


----------



## sawtooth (Feb 7, 2017)

Sweep said:



			I think the Speaker is guilty of grandstanding here. If he didn't want Trump to make such an address he could have been done it in a much more subtle way. He did not have to make an announcement and certainly not in the Commons. He most certainly should not have expressed a personal political opinion in doing so.
As I understand it, a State visit does not necessarily include addressing both Houses and I am not even sure such an address was requested, but I may be wrong as constitutional procedures are very complicated.
The Speaker choosing to act in this way is an attempt to embarrass the government and could be seen as swaying government policy. In this regard, quite independently from whether his opinions are seen as right or wrong, his acting in this way cannot be seen as right.
		
Click to expand...

Anyone would think that we are dealing with another Saddam Hussein. 

Trump was elected fair and square. Half the electorate in a free, civilised society chose him as their leader. The high anti-Trump feeling especially over here is baffling.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 7, 2017)

sawtooth said:



			Anyone would think that we are dealing with another Saddam Hussein. 

Trump was elected fair and square. Half the electorate in a free, civilised society chose him as their leader. *The high anti-Trump feeling especially over here is baffling*.
		
Click to expand...

You really honestly find it baffling?  In that case I suggest you go watch some of the US politics programmes (you can get clips on their Youtube channels) and you'll hear what he is up to and how baffled and horrified *they* are - and why.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 7, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You really honestly find it baffling?  In that case I suggest you go watch some of the US politics programmes (you can get clips on their Youtube channels) and you'll hear what he is up to and how baffled and horrified *they* are - and why.
		
Click to expand...

But they voted him in, they chose him.


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I would be surprised if Bercow hadn't taken full advice on this as he takes his role very seriously.   I suspect he has a duty to the HoC - to prevent the HoC being used.

As far as I am concerned the UK would just be being used for Trumps ends - and those ends are his only - using the UK as a vanity project to bolster his popularity and detract from what he is actually doing - 'look - the UK recognises and agrees that what I am doing is right and valid' - he will spin, spin, spin and then lie about us.  

And he uses us further to undermine the EU with his goal - with Bannon - of fracturing the EU so he can strike individual deals with the EU nations.  Not caring the strains and arguments that are created between European counties as a result - and as they have to compete with each other for trade deals with the US.
		
Click to expand...

I take your point on him potentially "using" the UK, but the rest of your post is just objecting to him speaking based on your political opinion being opposed to his.
If the Houses of Commons and Lords cannot hear political opinion, then what do they do all day?


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 7, 2017)

Sweep said:



			I take your point on him potentially "using" the UK, but the rest of your post is just objecting to him speaking based on your political opinion being opposed to his.
If the Houses of Commons and Lords cannot hear political opinion, then what do they do all day?
		
Click to expand...

Democracy certainly didn't shine last night.
The devolved nations were unable to put there case across in the Brexit debate. 

Speaker allowed SNP MP's 3 minutes in a 7 hour debate. One Tory MP allowed more time to state his case than the combined group of NI, Wales and Scotland.
Salmond had a right go at the Speaker and got 'slapped down'.


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 7, 2017)

PhilTheFragger said:



			playing devils advocate here, but the President of China and the Emir of Kuwait have both addressed Parliament, both countries have appalling human rights records 

surely we must be even handed
		
Click to expand...

Those 2 may rule over countries with appalling human rights records, but there is hope (and occasionally actual progress!) of reform.

In Trump's case, he is introducing/has introduced legislation that reduces/restricts 'human rights' and is arguably (currently deemed to be) unconstitutional!

So while China and Kuwait may be progress forwards, Trump's action is definitely a retrograde step!

As Speaker, Bercow is quite entitled to express his opinion/decision on this particular matter! The actual State Visit is a completely separate matter, not any real business of The Speaker - though there are Commons debates, both for and against it, scheduled!


----------



## Crazyface (Feb 7, 2017)

PhilTheFragger said:



			playing devils advocate here, but the President of China and the Emir of Kuwait have both addressed Parliament, both countries have appalling human rights records 

surely we must be even handed
		
Click to expand...

THIS ! End of.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 7, 2017)

So someone in the political world shows some morals and common sense and gets shot down because of it 

Trump shouldn't be made to feel welcome just because he is POTUS - he should earn that respect and his views and comments and actions whilst becoming President imo don't earn that respect and the speaker said exactly that - he is a racist sexist bigot and has displayed that attitude before his campaign , during his campaign and after becoming President. 

Well done Mr Bercow - it's a shame your kind are too rare within the government


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 7, 2017)

People are mixing some things up here. Bercow, nor anyone else, is not stopping Trump coming over here. Nor is he stopping him talking in various places. All he is doing is stopping him talking in the House itself, in either of the two main chambers. That is an honour, it is not handed out willy nilly. Trump will come across and be feted as the elected President of a major ally but it doesn't mean we extend every privelege at this early stage.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 7, 2017)

Foxholer said:



			Those 2 may rule over countries with appalling human rights records, but there is hope (and occasionally actual progress!) of reform.

In Trump's case, he is introducing/has introduced legislation that reduces/restricts 'human rights' and is arguably (currently deemed to be) unconstitutional!

*So while China and Kuwait may be progress forwards, Trump's action is definitely a retrograde step!*

As Speaker, Bercow is quite entitled to express his opinion/decision on this particular matter! The actual State Visit is a completely separate matter, not any real business of The Speaker - though there are Commons debates, both for and against it, scheduled!
		
Click to expand...

Agree on all of this - and it's a good point made *here*


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 7, 2017)

It has achieved 1 distinctly unusual (maybe even unique!) thing!

Dennis Skinner actually agreed with - and congratulated Bercow!


----------



## IanM (Feb 7, 2017)

While I may have sympathy with the sentiment, I thought the Speaker was meant to remain impartial.....


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Democracy certainly didn't shine last night.
The devolved nations were unable to put there case across in the Brexit debate. 

Speaker allowed SNP MP's 3 minutes in a 7 hour debate. One Tory MP allowed more time to state his case than the combined group of NI, Wales and Scotland.
Salmond had a right go at the Speaker and got 'slapped down'.
		
Click to expand...

That is quite amusing as on Radio 5 Live at 5pm Salmond was singing his praises of Bercow to the rafters following the Speakers announcement on Trump.
I quote "4 more years for Speaker Bercow!"


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 7, 2017)

Sweep said:



			That is quite amusing as on Radio 5 Live at 5pm Salmond was singing his praises of Bercow to the rafters following the Speakers announcement on Trump.
I quote "4 more years for Speaker Bercow!"
		
Click to expand...

You can understand see why William Hague tried to do the dirty on Bercow for not towing the Tory line.


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

Foxholer said:



			Those 2 may rule over countries with appalling human rights records, but there is hope (and occasionally actual progress!) of reform.

In Trump's case, he is introducing/has introduced legislation that reduces/restricts 'human rights' and is arguably (currently deemed to be) unconstitutional!

So while China and Kuwait may be progress forwards, Trump's action is definitely a retrograde step!

As Speaker, Bercow is quite entitled to express his opinion/decision on this particular matter! The actual State Visit is a completely separate matter, not any real business of The Speaker - though there are Commons debates, both for and against it, scheduled!
		
Click to expand...

Do you really believe there is more hope of reform in China and Kuwait than in one of the worlds greatest democracies? Really? Are you actually comparing the human rights records of China and Kuwait to that of the US and coming out in favour of China and Kuwait? Seriously? For a start, Trump was democratically elected.

Do you actually think that any of these countries will change anything because they were allowed to speak to U.K. MP's and Lords?

An address to both Houses was not even requested. This is grandstanding by the Speaker and an attempt to affect government policy and sway public opinion. Therefore as no request was made he is not entitled to express his opinion as he has a duty to remain impartial.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 7, 2017)

Wondering how many leave voters are agreeing with Bercow...


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Wondering how many leave voters are agreeing with Bercow...

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't see the connection. 
To me this is about whether the Speaker was right or wrong to say what he did in the place where he said it and whether he overstepped his duties.
The fact that you attach this to the EU issue speaks volumes on your views that Brexit detrimentally affects every facet of your life.
I voted leave. I don't like Trump. The fact that he agrees with me on Brexit is one tiny, tiny part of a huge issue and nothing to do with whether he should address both Houses or not.


----------



## Fish (Feb 7, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Wondering how many leave voters are agreeing with Bercow...

Click to expand...

You want to drag Brexit into this thread now, lower than a snakes belly, as they say.


----------



## User62651 (Feb 7, 2017)

IanM said:



			While I may have sympathy with the sentiment, I thought the Speaker was meant to remain impartial.....
		
Click to expand...

Thats correct, he's the referee in there. Embarassed the Government, think he's just looking for attention, not a patch on Betty Boothroyd, she had more class.


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

Interesting article on State Visits and addressing Parliament...
http://blog.hansardsociety.org.uk/president-trumps-state-visit/


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 7, 2017)

Sweep said:



			Do you really believe there is more hope of reform in China and Kuwait than in one of the worlds greatest democracies? Really? Are you actually comparing the human rights records of China and Kuwait to that of the US and coming out in favour of China and Kuwait? Seriously? For a start, Trump was democratically elected.

Do you actually think that any of these countries will change anything because they were allowed to speak to U.K. MP's and Lords?

An address to both Houses was not even requested. This is grandstanding by the Speaker and an attempt to affect government policy and sway public opinion. Therefore as no request was made he is not entitled to express his opinion as he has a duty to remain impartial.
		
Click to expand...

I suggest you read my post again! You seem to have misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise, EXACTLY what I posted - and what I DID NOT post!

In answer to the question in your second paragraph....No, that's unlikely! But the gesture of denying Trump, albeit before it has been requested, certainly indicates reasonable opinion/interpretation of his policy. Sure, he was democratically elected. But that doesn't mean UK should approve everything he does! There are plenty of other leaders who have been 'democratically elected' where UK most certainly doesn't approve everything they do!


----------



## drdel (Feb 7, 2017)

I thoughts the Uk was a bastion of free speech, denying the elected leader of a democractic USA the same rights we have given to other non-elected leaders insults the citizens of the USA.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 7, 2017)

drdel said:



			I thoughts the Uk was a bastion of free speech, denying the elected leader of a democractic USA the same rights we have given to other non-elected leaders insults the citizens of the USA.
		
Click to expand...

Nobody is stopping him from visiting the UK and speaking freely, provided he does not infringe our laws.

He is just a totally unsuitable person to address the HoC


----------



## Beezerk (Feb 7, 2017)

drdel said:



			I thoughts the Uk was a bastion of free speech.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry to digress but really?
The pc brigade put paid to free speech and honest/open debate years ago. The Twatter crew just take being pc to a whole new level these days.


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

Foxholer said:



			I suggest you read my post again! You seem to have misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise, EXACTLY what I posted - and what I DID NOT post!

In answer to the question in your second paragraph....No, that's unlikely! But the gesture of denying Trump, albeit before it has been requested, certainly indicates reasonable opinion/interpretation of his policy. Sure, he was democratically elected. But that doesn't mean UK should approve everything he does! There are plenty of other leaders who have been 'democratically elected' where UK most certainly doesn't approve everything they do!
		
Click to expand...

If I misinterpreted anything, it certainly wasn't deliberate.
I think you are misinterpreting the purpose of inviting someone to speak to both Houses. You cannot expect everyone in the room to agree with everything the guest says. If that were true, no-one would ever speak in either House. Inviting him to speak does not mean that the UK approves of everything he does.
I am not saying the President should be invited to address both Houses. Many Presidents have visited the UK and not addressed in this way. No invitation to do so has been extended. No request has been made. However, not wanting to hear what he has to say is not in my view a good reason to decide against inviting him.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 7, 2017)

Sweep said:



			Interesting article on State Visits and addressing Parliament...
http://blog.hansardsociety.org.uk/president-trumps-state-visit/

Click to expand...

Mexico has had twice as many state visits than the USA.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 7, 2017)

drdel said:



			I thoughts the Uk was a bastion of free speech, denying the elected leader of a democractic USA the same rights we have given to other non-elected leaders insults the citizens of the USA.
		
Click to expand...


Nobody is stopping him from speaking in the UK, nobody. They are simply stopping him from speaking in a particular location where you can only speak if invited.


----------



## IanM (Feb 7, 2017)

These days, "offence taken" is indirectly proportional to the probability of getting killed as a result of expressing the view.... ....make of that what you will.


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 7, 2017)

Sweep said:



			...
I think you are misinterpreting the purpose of inviting someone to speak to both Houses....
		
Click to expand...

Wrong - at least in this case! 
This is not about inviting him to speak! It's about NOT inviting him to speak!

I suggest you look elsewhere for any 'misinterpretation'!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Feb 7, 2017)

sawtooth said:



			Anyone would think that we are dealing with another Saddam Hussein. 

Trump was elected fair and square. Half the electorate in a free, civilised society chose him as their leader. The high anti-Trump feeling especially over here is baffling.
		
Click to expand...

Less than half  #pedantgirl


----------



## Val (Feb 7, 2017)

There was an old saying in the military about respecting the man/women or rank but not the person, that for me is very relevant in this instance. Respect his position as POTUS but you don't have to respect him.


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 7, 2017)

Maybe some rich Lawyer or Hairdresser will think Bercow is acting beyond his remit and take out a high court injunction insisting Parliament should vote on the issue.

Well, this type of thing has happened before.


----------



## IanM (Feb 7, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Maybe some rich Lawyer or Hairdresser will think Bercow is acting beyond his remit and take out a high court injunction insisting Parliament should vote on the issue.

Well, this type of thing has happened before.
		
Click to expand...


  ah ha


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Feb 7, 2017)

I'm sure there may be a person along any time now. A defender of democracy on their white charger. Any time now,,,,,,,,,now,,,,,,,,,,now. Are the cameras ready yet?


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 7, 2017)

I don't deny Bercow his opinions as he is entitled to them just like everyone else in a free country.  What I really don't like is the petulant and unprofessional way he has taken advantage of his position.  If he has an objection to Trump addressing Parliament then he should discuss his view with the other 'Keyholders' at Westminster and then an official statement could be made.  His bandstanding outburst was unstatesman like.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 7, 2017)

Sweep said:



			That is quite amusing as on Radio 5 Live at 5pm Salmond was singing his praises of Bercow to the rafters following the Speakers announcement on Trump.
I quote "4 more years for Speaker Bercow!"
		
Click to expand...

Why is it amusing....Berkow was not in the chair for the Brexit debate, his deputy was.


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Why is it amusing....Berkow was not in the chair for the Brexit debate, his deputy was.
		
Click to expand...

Oh that's such a shame.


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

Foxholer said:



			Wrong - at least in this case! 
This is not about inviting him to speak! It's about NOT inviting him to speak!

I suggest you look elsewhere for any 'misinterpretation'!
		
Click to expand...

 It's about both, but you just carry on.


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 7, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Maybe some rich Lawyer or Hairdresser will think Bercow is acting beyond his remit and take out a high court injunction insisting Parliament should vote on the issue.

Well, this type of thing has happened before.
		
Click to expand...

They could - but I'm certain they'd lose! 

He is, however, only 1 of the 3 'Keyholders' involved, so could be outvoted! I strongly suspect that it won't come that though!

I'm also pretty certain that, given his obvious strong opinion on the matter, he won't be in the Speaker's chair during either of the scheduled debates on the subject - if either/both actually happen, as I suspect 'diplomacy' will ensure that there is not a request/invitation to speak!

So a storm in a teacup really!


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 7, 2017)

Sweep said:



 It's about both, but you just carry on.
		
Click to expand...

That may be your (mis?)interpretation!

Kindly refrain from 'interpretation' of my posts! Simply read (and maybe absorb) the actual text! I try to be unambiguous, but have been known to fail that goal! If you need further explanation, feel free to question, but please DON'T ASSUME!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 7, 2017)

Sweep said:



			Sorry, I don't see the connection. 
To me this is about whether the Speaker was right or wrong to say what he did in the place where he said it and whether he overstepped his duties.
The fact that you attach this to the EU issue speaks volumes on your views that Brexit detrimentally affects every facet of your life.
I voted leave. I don't like Trump. The fact that he agrees with me on Brexit is one tiny, tiny part of a huge issue and nothing to do with whether he should address both Houses or not.
		
Click to expand...

Oh pleeeasse - you do sometimes make me laugh so.  

It was a simple question that might indicate whether there is any correlation between those who are complaining about Bercow and those who voted Leave.  And if there is a direct correlation teh question would then be Why? 

My anecdotal experience of yesterday and today is that the correlation is very strong,  So tell me - assuming that you are supportive of leaving the EU - are you supportive of the statement of Speaker Bercow?


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

Foxholer said:



			That may be your (mis?)interpretation!

Kindly refrain from 'interpretation' of my posts! Simply read (and maybe absorb) the actual text! I try to be unambiguous, but have been known to fail that goal! If you need further explanation, feel free to question, but please DON'T ASSUME!
		
Click to expand...

When you start these little spats with other forumers, do you consider for one minute that others may be bored by them?
It has been noted by others that you do seem to target people. Maybe it's my turn. Whatever, I really don't care.
Now, why don't we let everyone else get back on topic?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 7, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Nobody is stopping him from speaking in the UK, nobody. They are simply stopping him from speaking in a particular location where you can only speak if invited.
		
Click to expand...

And in a location and to an audience that he will use to his maximum advantage back in the states as justification of his policies.   Whatever our MPs and Lords think of him, he will twist the facts and lie to make it appear that both houses were in complete agreement with him.  And he is determined to wreck the EU - he and his buddy Bannon have stated that explicitly - and that would be very harmful and dangerous (IMO) to the security of the UK - and most probably also economically.


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Oh pleeeasse - you do sometimes make me laugh so.  

It was a simple question that might indicate whether there is any correlation between those who are complaining about Bercow and those who voted Leave.  And if there is a direct correlation teh question would then be Why? 

My anecdotal experience of yesterday and today is that the correlation is very strong,  So tell me - assuming that you are supportive of leaving the EU - are you supportive of the statement of Speaker Bercow?
		
Click to expand...

I think I have already explained that I voted leave, that I don't likeTrump and I am uncomfortable with the Speakers actions. Three different subjects. I think I have already made clear that I do not see any correlation between leavers and complaining about Bercow. I think the issues with the President of the US are a lot wider than the UK leaving the EU, particularly as he is a foreign national, the leader of the free world and involved in matters that relate more to the US and American people. Just because Sir Nige gets on well with him doesn't change anything in relation to this subject. You may as well ask if all those Indians who believe man walked on the moon voted for Mrs Ghandi? Does that answer your simple question?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 7, 2017)

Val said:



			There was an old saying in the military about respecting the man/women or rank but not the person, that for me is very relevant in this instance. Respect his position as POTUS but you don't have to respect him.
		
Click to expand...

In the way that Trump said he respected Putin - then went on to defend Putin's internal Russian human rights record by saying that it was no worse than the USAs.  Oh yes - the USA is just as much a killer and represser of human rights and free speech than Russia - well maybe that's Trump's vision for the USA.  Many American commentators find that comment by Trump almost treasonable in it's awfulness.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 7, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Maybe some rich Lawyer or Hairdresser will think Bercow is acting beyond his remit and take out a high court injunction insisting Parliament should vote on the issue.

Well, this type of thing has happened before.
		
Click to expand...

Wouldn't happen as the risk to May and the Tories would be too great were they to lose a vote of confidence.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 7, 2017)

Sweep said:



			I think I have already explained that I voted leave, that I don't likeTrump and I am uncomfortable with the Speakers actions. Three different subjects. I think I have already made clear that I do not see any correlation between leavers and complaining about Bercow. I think the issues with the President of the US are a lot wider than the UK leaving the EU, particularly as he is a foreign national, the leader of the free world and involved in matters that relate more to the US and American people. Just because Sir Nige gets on well with him doesn't change anything in relation to this subject. You may as well ask if all those Indians who believe man walked on the moon voted for Mrs Ghandi? Does that answer your simple question?
		
Click to expand...

You might not see any correlation - I suggest that you are not looking hard enough as you do not want there to be any correlation.


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 7, 2017)

Sweep said:



			When you start these little spats with other forumers, do you consider for one minute that others may be bored by them?
It has been noted by others that you do seem to target people. Maybe it's my turn. Whatever, I really don't care.
Now, why don't we let everyone else get back on topic?
		
Click to expand...

Rock on to your heart's content. I'm simply correcting your misinterpretation of my (on-topic!) post(s!!)! It does, indeed, get pretty boring having to do so!

I repeat... Kindly refrain from (mis)interpreting my posts! They are actually worded quite carefully!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 7, 2017)

Well it didn't last long until it turned into another forum boxing match between the same posters - it's just another extension of the Article 50 thread now


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You might not see any correlation - I suggest that you are not looking hard enough as you do not want there to be any correlation.
		
Click to expand...

I think you are looking too hard because I think you are desperate to tarnish leavers with just another brush, so we can add Trump lovers to the accusations of racist, thick, little englanders.....
Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 7, 2017)

It is pretty obvious to me that the HoC and the HoL is no longer 'fit for purpose' in a modern UK.
We desperately need an English [or English regional] parliament.

The devolved Country, Principality and Provence clearly do not not supportive the Tory party whilst England seems to be embracing it and it's further right wing UKIP. party.
Density of population will ensure that there will be little change for the next 25 years.


----------



## IanM (Feb 7, 2017)

For a thread ending, highly informed take on this, read what the Speaker of the House of Lords had to say....


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 7, 2017)

IanM said:



			For a thread ending, highly informed take on this, read what the Speaker of the House of Lords had to say....
		
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## drdel (Feb 7, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Nobody is stopping him from visiting the UK and speaking freely, provided he does not infringe our laws.

He is just a totally unsuitable person to address the HoC
		
Click to expand...

Unsuitablebe as a person is subjective. However this a State invitation and he would be here representing the USA, insult the President of a country and, by invitation, you insults its citizens.


----------



## Fish (Feb 7, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Well it didn't last long until it turned into another forum boxing match between the same posters - it's just another extension of the Article 50 thread now
		
Click to expand...

and this is where it started below and is now effectively hijacked, no doubt another 30+ posts per day from him will saturate this thread also putting other people off posting! 



SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Wondering how many leave voters are agreeing with Bercow...

Click to expand...


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 7, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			It is pretty obvious to me that the HoC and the HoL is no longer 'fit for purpose' in a modern UK.
We desperately need an English [or English regional] parliament.

The devolved Country, Principality and Provence clearly do not not supportive the Tory party whilst England seems to be embracing it and it's further right wing UKIP. party.
Density of population will ensure that there will be little change for the next 25 years.

Click to expand...



That may be your view, but I'd bet it's not shared by the majority of the UK!


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			It is pretty obvious to me that the HoC and the HoL is no longer 'fit for purpose' in a modern UK.
We desperately need an English [or English regional] parliament.

The devolved Country, Principality and Provence clearly do not not supportive the Tory party whilst England seems to be embracing it and it's further right wing UKIP. party.
Density of population will ensure that there will be little change for the next 25 years.

Click to expand...


To be fair, as an SNP supporter, you would say that.
As a member of the United Kingdom electorate, your vote counts the same as anyones, be they in England,Wales or Scotland. The matter of whether the Scottish people should remain as part of that electorate has been recently settled. Just because you and your neighbours voted against the government does not mean the HoC and HoL is not fit for purpose. It just means that the majority of the people across the UK voted for the party that as a result forms the UK government.
The irony in regard to your post is that if Labour got their act together, fewer people would vote Tory and UKIP, but fewer people would also vote SNP.


----------



## IanM (Feb 7, 2017)

Foxholer said:



			Link?
		
Click to expand...

  Lots of sources, take your pick .. Google "Speaker of house of lords on Bercow"


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Well it didn't last long until it turned into another forum boxing match between the same posters - it's just another extension of the Article 50 thread now
		
Click to expand...

Pot: "Meet the kettle over there. His name is Black"


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

Foxholer said:



			Rock on to your heart's content. I'm simply correcting your misinterpretation of my (on-topic!) post(s!!)! It does, indeed, get pretty boring having to do so!

I repeat... Kindly refrain from (mis)interpreting my posts! They are actually worded quite carefully!
		
Click to expand...

I know in your little world everything revolves around you. However, you are fond of reminding me how your English skills are superior to mine, so I suggest you put them to good use. Read the title of the thread. It isn't " Foxholer's Posts. Are they misinterpreted?"
So save yourself and the rest of us from boredom and grow up.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 7, 2017)

Why have so many of the Brexit supporting posters on here become even more angrier and abusive?
Really lowering the tone of debate on here.
Please, if you cannot debate with some restraint just sod off somewhere else.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Feb 7, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Why have so many of the Brexit supporting posters on here become even more angrier and abusive?
Really lowering the tone of debate on here.
Please, if you cannot debate with some restraint just sod off somewhere else.
		
Click to expand...

I agree!

But would also suggest that one of the keenest of Remainers (SILH) should also follow that advice. His recent posts on this and other threads have become increasingly personal and provocative.

As suggested it would be best if the thread was now closed.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Feb 7, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			It is pretty obvious to me that the HoC and the HoL is no longer 'fit for purpose' in a modern UK.
We desperately need an English [or English regional] parliament.

The devolved Country, Principality and Provence clearly do not not supportive the Tory party whilst England seems to be embracing it and it's further right wing UKIP. party.
Density of population will ensure that there will be little change for the next 25 years.

Click to expand...



I think this is very true.

The devolution around the UK is very imbalanced. I think a better approach would be to have a number of English regional assemblies and for all the devolved assemblies to have identical powers, as far as the NI peace process will allow.

Either that or just ditch the Scottish, Welsh and NI parliaments altogether, which would also get my vote....


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 7, 2017)

MetalMickie said:



			I agree!

But would also suggest that one of the keenest of Remainers (SILH) should also follow that advice. His recent posts on this and other threads have become increasingly personal and provocative.

As suggested it would be best if the thread was now closed.
		
Click to expand...

This thread is fine.......the A50 is out of control and would probably be best closed.


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 7, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Why have so many of the Brexit supporting posters on here become even more angrier and abusive?
Really lowering the tone of debate on here.
Please, if you cannot debate with some restraint just sod off somewhere else.
		
Click to expand...

Didnt know you were a Brexit supporter.  Well! you live and learn.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Feb 7, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			This thread is fine.......the A50 is out of control and would probably be best closed.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are right I was confusing the two. 

However, this one needs to be carefully monitored as there are already signs of "cross-fertilisation".


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 7, 2017)

Fish said:



			and this is where it started below and is now effectively hijacked, no doubt another 30+ posts per day from him will saturate this thread also putting other people off posting!
		
Click to expand...

You're spot on - that was the bait and the obvious candidates couldn't resist taking it


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You're spot on - that was the bait and the obvious candidates couldn't resist taking it
		
Click to expand...

Have you been arguing with yourself again?


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 7, 2017)

Sweep said:



			Have you been arguing with yourself again?
		
Click to expand...


:thup:


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			I think this is very true.

The devolution around the UK is very imbalanced. I think a better approach would be to have a number of English regional assemblies and for all the devolved assemblies to have identical powers, as far as the NI peace process will allow.

Either that or just ditch the Scottish, Welsh and NI parliaments altogether, which would also get my vote.... 

Click to expand...

I like your latter idea.
I don't see why England has to change to suit the SNP.


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			This thread is fine.......the A50 is out of control and would probably be best closed.
		
Click to expand...

The difference between this thread and the A50 thread is that Delc hasn't realised what a good wind up opportunity this thread is.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Feb 7, 2017)

Sweep said:



			I like your latter idea.
I don't see why England has to change to suit the SNP.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty jaundiced view on it, nothing to do with the SNP, notionally it would be for the benefit of England. If (and it's a big if) devolution is a good idea it should apply equally to England as it does to Scotland, Wales and NI.

Personally, I am more than fed up with all the constitutional navel-gazing but I can't help thinking that the main problem is that the original settlement was so half-arsed. Do it properly, or not at all.... IMO.


----------



## Sweep (Feb 7, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			Pretty jaundiced view on it, nothing to do with the SNP, notionally it would be for the benefit of England. If (and it's a big if) devolution is a good idea it should apply equally to England as it does to Scotland, Wales and NI.

Personally, I am more than fed up with all the constitutional navel-gazing but I can't help thinking that the main problem is that the original settlement was so half-arsed. Do it properly, or not at all.... IMO.
		
Click to expand...

But from what Doon is saying England is getting all its own way already.
I think England would benefit from only English MPs voting on exclusively English matters, but other than that more tiers of government are not needed and the only reason we would have to consider it would be because of devolution mainly in Scotland. So it would be because of the SNP.
 The vast majority of English people are happy with the way things are, even though up north we know London gets all the good stuff.
From where I sit (in England) devolution seems to be working but if the Scottish people aren't happy with it then as you say, it should be scrapped. I can't see Nicola and Alex letting that happen though but TBH I don't think they will ever be happy.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 8, 2017)

Sweep said:



			But from what Doon is saying England is getting all its own way already.
I think England would benefit from only English MPs voting on exclusively English matters, but other than that more tiers of government are not needed and the only reason we would have to consider it would be because of devolution mainly in Scotland. So it would be because of the SNP.
 The vast majority of English people are happy with the way things are, even though up north we know London gets all the good stuff.
From where I sit (in England) devolution seems to be working but if the Scottish people aren't happy with it then as you say, it should be scrapped. I can't see Nicola and Alex letting that happen though but TBH I don't think they will ever be happy.
		
Click to expand...

From what I see and read and listen to England seem to be pretty fed up with the way their country is going.
Is that not the reason why so many voted for the Tory/UKIP/ Brexit package.
Of course England would benefit from English only votes at Westminster to the detriment of the other three UK ' equal partners'.


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 8, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			From what I see and read and listen to England seem to be pretty fed up with the way their country is going.
Is that not the reason why so many voted for the Tory/UKIP/ Brexit package.
Of course England would benefit from English only votes at Westminster to the detriment of the other three UK ' equal partners'.
		
Click to expand...

Most of us voted Tory/UKIP/Brexit as we don't want the alternative in Government.

It's England who has the detrimental deal compared to the other UK countries.   I still cant understand why the SNP et al should be voting on English only matters.


----------



## Sweep (Feb 8, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			From what I see and read and listen to England seem to be pretty fed up with the way their country is going.
Is that not the reason why so many voted for the Tory/UKIP/ Brexit package.
Of course England would benefit from English only votes at Westminster to the detriment of the other three UK ' equal partners'.
		
Click to expand...

If only English MPs vote on issues that affect England only, why would that be to the detriment of Scotland, Wales or NI?
There are lots of reasons why we voted to leave the EU, but in the main they were due to problems with the EU, not because we are run from Westminster.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 8, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			From what I see and read and listen to England seem to be pretty fed up with the way their country is going.
Is that not the reason why so many voted for the Tory/UKIP/ Brexit package.
Of course England would benefit from English only votes at Westminster to the detriment of the other three UK ' equal partners'.
		
Click to expand...


UKIP aside it wasn't a vote based on the normal party divides...


----------



## FairwayDodger (Feb 8, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			It's England who has the detrimental deal compared to the other UK countries.   I still cant understand why the SNP et al should be voting on English only matters.
		
Click to expand...

I agree and that's one of the issues with the way power was devolved. England doesn't have a parliament, though, so if the uk parliament is dealing with English matters all uk MPs get to vote.

Trying to turn Westminster into an English parliament by restricting the rights of non-English MPs would only exacerbate the poor situation at present and provide a rallying call for the nats. 

You need your own parliament or preferably, given the nature of the country, a set of regional assemblies.


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 8, 2017)

Sweep said:



			I know in your little world everything revolves around you. *However, you are fond of reminding me how your English skills are superior to mine*, so I suggest you put them to good use. Read the title of the thread. It isn't " Foxholer's Posts. Are they misinterpreted?"
So save yourself and the rest of us from boredom and grow up.
		
Click to expand...

:rofl: :rofl:

And the bold bit is simply wrong - again!!

But feel to have a 'last word' - as it seems you must! Mine's 'Zzzzzzzz' in anticipation!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 8, 2017)

I watched the film, _A Man for all Seasons_ last night (not watched for many years and a superb film) - and something Sir Thomas More said to Cardinal Wolsey really struck home in the context of Speaker Bercow's stance, and the stance of MPs in the Art50 vote

_Well . . . I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties . . . they lead their country by a short route to chaos._

In this pronouncement from Act One, scene two, More tears apart Wolseyâ€™s common-sense approach to politics. Wolsey believes a person should take the most convenient and advantageous option in political matters, but More believes a statesmanâ€™s duty is to weigh his â€œown private conscienceâ€ because doing so will ultimately lead to the common good.

Rather sums up my feelings on both the Speaker and MPs voting on Art50.

And Paul Scofield's performance as Sir Thomas More is stunning


----------



## drdel (Feb 8, 2017)

The 'core' of the thread asked if he was "right or wrong". Since his position is defined as being neutral the answer is now easy.

The HoC is split along party lines as to whether he should have commented in the way he did. Thus by deduction the 'political' split obviously shows he wasn't neutral so therefore went beyond his remit.

The rightness or otherwise of his views are not the issue; his expressing them from his 'seat' is.


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 8, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I watched the film, _A Man for all Seasons_ last night (not watched for many years and a superb film) - and something Sir Thomas More said to Cardinal Wolsey really struck home in the context of Speaker Bercow's stance, and the stance of MPs in the Art50 vote

*Well . . . I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties . . . they lead their country by a short route to chaos.*

In this pronouncement from Act One, scene two, More tears apart Wolseyâ€™s common-sense approach to politics. Wolsey believes a person should take the most convenient and advantageous option in political matters, but More believes a statesmanâ€™s duty is to weigh his â€œown private conscienceâ€ because doing so will ultimately lead to the common good.

Rather sums up my feelings on both the Speaker and MPs voting on Art50.

And Paul Scofield's performance as Sir Thomas More is stunning
		
Click to expand...

That takes me back decades!! We, unknown to us at the time, had a very liberal English faculty!

I'd be interested to know how you compare the view of the italicised quote (that i've bold-ened)  with the way your MP (and others) voted in the Brexit Article 50 vote! Or was that deliberate/the whole point?!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 8, 2017)

drdel said:



			The 'core' of the thread asked if he was "right or wrong". Since his position is defined as being neutral the answer is now easy.

The HoC is split along party lines as to whether he should have commented in the way he did. Thus by deduction the 'political' split obviously shows he wasn't neutral so therefore went beyond his remit.

The rightness or otherwise of his views are not the issue; his expressing them from his 'seat' is.
		
Click to expand...

Unless it is the Speaker's duty to act in the best interest of the HoC as a whole; to protect it's integrity, from being misrepresented; and from it falling into disrepute and attracting opprobrium.  In which case, given the furore in the country and abroad in respect of President Trump-Bannon - he is doing his duty to the House.


----------



## drdel (Feb 8, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Unless it is the Speaker's duty to act in the best interest of the HoC as a whole; to protect it's integrity, from being misrepresented; and from it falling into disrepute and attracting opprobrium.  In which case, given the furore in the country and abroad in respect of President Trump-Bannon - he is doing his duty to the House.
		
Click to expand...

He did not feel that need or worry when other dubious characters addressed the House which in my mind is hypocritical. 

Your views seem at odds with those of Lord Fowler; a rather experienced Parliamentarian.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 8, 2017)

Foxholer said:



			That takes me back decades!! We, unknown to us at the time, had a very liberal English faculty!

I'd be interested to know how you compare the view of the italicised quote (that i've bold-ened)  with the way your MP (and others) voted in the Brexit Article 50 vote! Or was that deliberate/the whole point?! 

Click to expand...

Yes indeed - why I mentioned the Art50 vote in my post.  And I will contact my MP and remind him of these words. Because I think they spell out a warning very relevant to today.

I think the Speaker could not conscience Trump addressing the HoC given his clearly honestly felt responsibility to the HoC.    If he is forced in any way to retract I think he will resign.

As an individual I cannot live a lie.  If I am unable to be honest with and to myself; then I cannot expect others to be honest and that undermines my ability to trust in them.  If I sit with dishonesty; if I act against my conscience; if I act against what I know to be the right thing - even although in doing sol may be more problematic for me than what I might want to do - this will not sit well with me and it will undermine me.  

However if I look in honesty at a situation and do what my conscience tells me is the right thing to do - and if I act in accordance with that - even if I don't want to as it may cause me problems - then I know and have faith that the eventual outcome overall will be better - not just or even necessarily for myself - but for others.  The greater good.

And so I can absolutely understand why Speaker Bercow has acted as he has.  And why I believe that it will be difficult for MPs who vote against their conscience and what they think to be right in the long term for the UK.  

But that's just me. And I appreciate that most will think it absurd that I always try and do the right thing when that may hurt me in the short term - but I can and do because I have faith in the eventual outcome being for the better (all not very well explained - but there you go - it's not easy to explain).


----------



## Foxholer (Feb 8, 2017)

drdel said:



*The HoC is split along party lines* as to whether he should have commented in the way he did. Thus by deduction the 'political' split obviously shows he wasn't neutral so therefore went beyond his remit.
		
Click to expand...

Is it?

He has definitely been challenged/criticised by *some* Conservative MPs, but as he was elected as a Conservative MP and it's not all conservative MPs that are opposed to his comments, then, I believe, your 'deduction' is not valid! I don't believe it was a valid 'deduction in the first place!


Re


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 8, 2017)

drdel said:



			He did not feel that need or worry when other dubious characters addressed the House which in my mind is hypocritical. 

Your views seem at odds with those of Lord Fowler; a rather experienced Parliamentarian.
		
Click to expand...

We can all be hypocritical - but that does not stop us trying to do the right thing today, even if we know that we may not have lived our values in the past.  'Whatabootery' is no argument for not doing the right thing today and it is a lazy argument to self-justify doing the wrong thing.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Feb 8, 2017)

So little in Bercow's career to date to suggest that he is a man of the highest integrity.

Far more to suggest that he continues to hold a grudge for the way his rise to the top in the Tory party was brought to a halt by the emergence of the Cameron/Osborne/May generation.

If I really thought his actions had been motivated by his moral outrage I would have some sympathy with him but I am afraid his actions and utterances over the years leave me sceptical.


----------



## drdel (Feb 8, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



*We can all be hypocritical *- but that does not stop us trying to do the right thing today, even if we know that we may not have lived our values in the past.  'Whatabootery' is no argument for not doing the right thing today and it is a lazy argument to self-justify doing the wrong thing.
		
Click to expand...

Not in my book - yes you can learn by mistakes and move forward but this is not that sort of situation.  

Surely you can admit it is pretty clear that Bercow's comments were opportunistic grandstanding and nothing more.

Had he truly had a change of mindset and considered his values he would have followed normal protocol and liaised with Lord Fowler as is the established mechanism before speaking from the chair.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 8, 2017)

drdel said:



			Not in my book - yes you can learn by mistakes and move forward but this is not that sort of situation.  

Surely you can admit it is pretty clear that Bercow's comments were opportunistic grandstanding and nothing more.

Had he truly had a change of mindset and considered his values he would have followed normal protocol and liaised with Lord Fowler as is the established mechanism before speaking from the chair.
		
Click to expand...

I believe he has simply followed his conscience on this.  The USA is not China or any other (more than) dubious regime.  We love and respect the USA for it's peoples, history and what it has contributed and continues to contribute - but we clearly tell Trump that what he is, and what he says and does, is not what we expect of the one person who is supposed to represent and embody the ideals and values enshrined in the constitution of the USA.


----------



## Sweep (Feb 8, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Yes indeed - why I mentioned the Art50 vote in my post.  And I will contact my MP and remind him of these words.
		
Click to expand...

You mention A50 and the EU in every post &#128512;
I bet your MP can't wait for the postman to arrive. &#128077;


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 8, 2017)

Sweep said:



			You mention A50 and the EU in every post &#128512;
I bet your MP can't wait for the postman to arrive. &#128077;
		
Click to expand...

I am sure that my MP - Mr Hunt - values my thoughts


----------



## drdel (Feb 8, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I believe he has simply followed his conscience on this.  The USA is not China or any other (more than) dubious regime.  We love and respect the USA for it's peoples, history and what it has contributed and continues to contribute - but we clearly tell Trump that what he is, and what he says and does, is not what we expect of the one person who is supposed to represent and embody the ideals and values enshrined in the constitution of the USA.
		
Click to expand...


Why are you deflecting my observations to an argument over Donald Trump? I'm not crossing swords or otherwise on your views about the POTUS. This thread is about Speaker Bercow and the correctness of his making biased political comments in the HoC (on which he did not consult in advance as the protocol requires).


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 8, 2017)

drdel said:



			Why are you deflecting my observations to an argument over Donald Trump? I'm not crossing swords or otherwise on your views about the POTUS. This thread is about Speaker Bercow and the correctness of his making biased political comments in the HoC (on which he did not consult in advance as the protocol requires).
		
Click to expand...

I just think he acted as his conscience and duty of care to the HoC demanded.


----------



## Sweep (Feb 8, 2017)

I think we possibly have the wrong attitude to many things these days.
We have become the threee wise monkeys.
We can't stand to see the suffering around us, like in Aleppo so we close our eyes and see no evil. Sadly the suffering goes on.
We daren't say what needs to be said in case we offend the professionally offended and it's not PC, so we speak no evil. Sadly these things still need to be said.
And now we are afraid we might not want to hear what the President of the United States has to say, so we close our ears and hear no evil. Sadly this won't solve anything. The policies his detractors despise will still be in place.

Many of the problems of the world can be solved if everyone kept talking and listening. Nothing good is achieved when you stop doing so. Yet 3 weeks into his Presidency we have already made up our minds. We don't want to hear anymore. In fact we are so desperate not to listen we are making it clear we will not invite him to an event that never even existed. 

Human nature is a funny thing. When you refuse to listen to people they usually react by not listening to you. Yet still we will turn our backs, close our eyes and ears and pretend it will all go away. It won't. Maybe there is another way. The three wise monkey approach is not going to solve anything.


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 8, 2017)

Bercow is a grade A knob... Getting one thing right in his life doesn't change the fact of him being a total utter waste of space...

It's totally down to folk [like him], who reside within the political classes, we are in the mess we are...

Bring on the revolution...


----------



## Fish (Feb 8, 2017)

MegaSteve said:



			Bercow is a grade A supercilious knob... Getting one thing right in his life doesn't change the fact of him being a total utter waste of space...

It's totally down to more knobs [like him], who reside within the political classes, we are in the mess we are...

Bring on the revolution...
		
Click to expand...

Corrected that for you &#128077;


----------



## IanM (Feb 8, 2017)

Sweep has nailed it... when I was in Uni we had a debating Society... now if you are deemed "inappropriate" to the acceptable profile you get banned.  They won't engage in debate as they cant argue...

The term "whatabootery" has been used in several places in similar threads.. (love the expression!) but it misses the central point... for example... Bercow hosted Kuwait... gay rights NIL, womens' right nil. travel ban based on relgion YES!   etc etc (and are they another country who has taken zero Syrian refugees too? not sure!) 

.... Offense taken? Zero.        Trump?  Oooh he's horrid! BAN!  

Let him come and make a big  twit of himself!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 8, 2017)

Oh the Daily Mail makes me laugh sometimes - and despair - and todays Leader Comment combines both...

_In banning Donald Trump from addressing Parliament, *without any authority from MPs or consultation with the Lords, *the exhibitionist Mr Bercow has set himself up as the master of the Commons, not its servant._

And this coming from the same newspaper that ranted endlessly and furiously over Gina Miller, the High Court and the Supreme Court forcing the government to seek parliamentary approval for Art50

and it goes on to rant...

_Leave aside Mr Bercowâ€™s hypocrisy in welcoming visitors from totalitarian North Korea and China, while snubbing the elected representative of *our freedom-loving ally*, the US._

oh the hypocrisy...oh yes - the hypocrisy.

And some ask why I make links...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...queak-Bercow-embarrassment.html#ixzz4Y6ltWWz6

If the DM really cared about our special relationship then as I posted earlier 
_
...we clearly tell Trump that what he is, and what he says and does, is not what we expect of the one person who is supposed to represent and embody the ideals and values enshrined in the constitution of the USA._

Because our special relationship is based upon shared values and respect of law and the judiciary in our governance - and Trump's performance to date just does not stand up to any scrutiny - and he should be told very clearly as Speaker Bercow has now done - but that the government has spectacularly failed to do (and we know why) that by his words and actions he absolutely undermines that special relationship.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 8, 2017)

IanM said:



			Sweep has nailed it... when I was in Uni we had a debating Society... now if you are deemed "inappropriate" to the acceptable profile you get banned.  They won't engage in debate as they cant argue...

The term "whatabootery" has been used in several places in similar threads.. (love the expression!) but it misses the central point... for example... Bercow hosted Kuwait... gay rights NIL, womens' right nil. travel ban based on relgion YES!   etc etc (and are they another country who has taken zero Syrian refugees too? not sure!) 

.... Offense taken? Zero.        Trump?  Oooh he's horrid! BAN!  

Let him come and make a big  twit of himself!
		
Click to expand...

Nobody is stopping him coming...and he will make a big twit of himself - but if we have learned nothing from the last weeks and months - we should have learned that he will spin whatever reaction he gets in the UK to his benefit - even at the expense of the UK and our parliament if needs must.  

Because Trump's constituency is America - America First!, America First! America First! was his chant at the inauguration.  And if we have learned nothing else about Trump since January 20th we must have learned that he means what he says.

May and Fox can speak as much as they like with Trump - our parliament should keep at long spoon distance.

Well done Speaker Bercow


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 8, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Oh the Daily Mail makes me laugh sometimes - and despair - and todays Leader Comment combines both...

_In banning Donald Trump from addressing Parliament, *without any authority from MPs or consultation with the Lords, *the exhibitionist Mr Bercow has set himself up as the master of the Commons, not its servant._

And this coming from the same newspaper that ranted endlessly and furiously over Gina Miller, the High Court and the Supreme Court forcing the government to seek parliamentary approval for Art50

and it goes on to rant...

_Leave aside Mr Bercowâ€™s hypocrisy in welcoming visitors from totalitarian North Korea and China, while snubbing the elected representative of *our freedom-loving ally*, the US._

oh the hypocrisy...oh yes - the hypocrisy.

And some ask why I make links...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...queak-Bercow-embarrassment.html#ixzz4Y6ltWWz6

If the DM really cared about our special relationship then as I posted earlier 
_
...we clearly tell Trump that what he is, and what he says and does, is not what we expect of the one person who is supposed to represent and embody the ideals and values enshrined in the constitution of the USA._

Because our special relationship is based upon shared values and respect of law and the judiciary in our governance - and Trump's performance to date just does not stand up to any scrutiny - and he should be told very clearly as Speaker Bercow has now done - but that the government has spectacularly failed to do (and we know why) that by his words and actions he absolutely undermines that special relationship.
		
Click to expand...

Respect for the judiciary - just in...


http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/08/trum...ce-claims-courts-seem-to-be-so-political.html


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 8, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Oh the Daily Mail makes me laugh sometimes - and despair - and todays Leader Comment combines both...

_In banning Donald Trump from addressing Parliament, *without any authority from MPs or consultation with the Lords, *the exhibitionist Mr Bercow has set himself up as the master of the Commons, not its servant._

And this coming from the same newspaper that ranted endlessly and furiously over Gina Miller, the High Court and the Supreme Court forcing the government to seek parliamentary approval for Art50

and it goes on to rant...

_Leave aside Mr Bercowâ€™s hypocrisy in welcoming visitors from totalitarian North Korea and China, while snubbing the elected representative of *our freedom-loving ally*, the US._

oh the hypocrisy...oh yes - the hypocrisy.

And some ask why I make links...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...queak-Bercow-embarrassment.html#ixzz4Y6ltWWz6

If the DM really cared about our special relationship then as I posted earlier 
_
...we clearly tell Trump that what he is, and what he says and does, is not what we expect of the one person who is supposed to represent and embody the ideals and values enshrined in the constitution of the USA._

Because our special relationship is based upon shared values and respect of law and the judiciary in our governance - and Trump's performance to date just does not stand up to any scrutiny - and he should be told very clearly as Speaker Bercow has now done - but that the government has spectacularly failed to do (and we know why) that by his words and actions he absolutely undermines that special relationship.
		
Click to expand...

Oh Dear!  Can you not see the gerrymandering similarity between someone trying to frustrate the democratic decision of the people and Bercow deciding personally to frustrate the relationship between the UK Government and the POTUS.

I guess my question is wasting a few minutes that I will never get back though.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 8, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Oh Dear!  Can you not see the gerrymandering similarity between someone trying to frustrate the democratic decision of the people and Bercow deciding personally to frustrate the relationship between the UK Government and the POTUS.

I guess my question is wasting a few minutes that I will never get back though.
		
Click to expand...

The Speaker is doing his duty protecting the HoC from being abused.  What is difficult to understand about that?  But if you don't want to understand that then fair enough.

And I was actually posting about the DMs rant and it's rank hypocrisy in respect of consulting parliament - though you neatly (or not) avoided addressing that.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Feb 8, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The Speaker is doing his duty protecting the HoC from being abused.  What is difficult to understand about that?  But if you don't want to understand that then fair enough.

And I was actually posting about the DMs rant and it's rank hypocrisy in respect of consulting parliament - though you neatly (or not) avoided addressing that.
		
Click to expand...

Not a question of doing his duty so much as posturing and grandstanding. Had he been doing his duty he would have first consulted the other relevant parties.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 8, 2017)

As i asked the question, and havent commented as of yet, my view is

Bercow is a total knob, he is hated in the HOC by large sections, he should NOT have spoken out of turn without the people who decide such matters agreeing the decision first and as bad, or worse than Trump, have addressed the House and as the POTUS he should be welcomed to speak and quite possibly make a fool of himself. 

Id also add that how one voted in the referendum has absolutely no bearing on people's views on Bercow!


----------



## drdel (Feb 8, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The Speaker is doing his duty protecting the HoC from being abused.  What is difficult to understand about that?  But if you don't want to understand that then fair enough.

And I was actually posting about the DMs rant and it's rank hypocrisy in respect of consulting parliament - though you neatly (or not) avoided addressing that.
		
Click to expand...

A professional respects the protocols and mechanisms associated with his position. If Bercow held his views as firmly as we are to believe they did not come from out of the blue yonder; he could have followed the correct process.

Admit it he was wrong to do what it did in the way he did it - this is the core and the rest of your arguments are fluff and flannel.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 8, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			The Speaker is doing his duty protecting the HoC from being abused.  What is difficult to understand about that?  But if you don't want to understand that then fair enough.
		
Click to expand...

Do the members of the HOC need "protecting", i should imagine that they're all used to dealing with abuse. Bercow hasnt read Trump's speech so has no idea whether it is good, bad or indifferent


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 8, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			It is pretty obvious to me that the HoC and the HoL is no longer 'fit for purpose' in a modern UK.
We desperately need an English [or English regional] parliament.

The devolved Country, Principality and Provence clearly do not not supportive the Tory party whilst England seems to be embracing it and it's further right wing UKIP. party.
Density of population will ensure that there will be little change for the next 25 years.

Click to expand...


It became unfit for purpose when it devolved and formed all these little state chambers where irrelevant people made themselves soooo important and started costing the tax payer a fortune and became a drain on the economy.


----------



## Old Skier (Feb 8, 2017)

chrisd said:



			Id also add that how one voted in the referendum has absolutely no bearing on people's views on Bercow!
		
Click to expand...

It takes a twisted tortured mind.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 8, 2017)

Old Skier said:



			It takes a twisted tortured mind.
		
Click to expand...

Correct!!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Feb 8, 2017)

So another thread dissolves into nothing but insults and derogatory comments from the same people.

If people don't like what someone posts then ignore it as opposed to rounding on the posters just to post derogatory comments about the poster

Add this thread to the list along with Article 50 and the Trump thread


----------



## chrisd (Feb 8, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So another thread dissolves into nothing but insults and derogatory comments from the same people.

If people don't like what someone posts then ignore it as opposed to rounding on the posters just to post derogatory comments about the poster

Add this thread to the list along with Article 50 and the Trump thread
		
Click to expand...

I dont want to pick fault but just by writing this you aren't practicing what you preach!


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 9, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So another thread dissolves into nothing but insults and derogatory comments from the same people.

If people don't like what someone posts then ignore it as opposed to rounding on the posters just to post derogatory comments about the poster

Add this thread to the list along with Article 50 and the Trump thread
		
Click to expand...

Oh the irony!  The flaming irony in that post


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 9, 2017)

And so we hear today that Wikipedia will no longer accept contributions referencing the Daily Mail

The editors described the arguments for a ban as â€œcentred on the Daily Mailâ€™s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabricationâ€.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

Isn't it a pity that it gets to this with the most read daily newspaper in the country.  And there we go as Paul Dacre leads his vitiolic, vitupertive and abusive personal denegration and assault on Speaker Bercow.  But no doubt there will be some who put Wikipedias stance down as what would be expected from such a leftie bunch.


----------



## IanM (Feb 9, 2017)

So what you are saying is that you/they disagree with their viewpoint on John Bercow... why is their view less valid than yours? Indeed , the speaker of the Lords didn't support Bercow's comment either.  (Although his language was less sensationalist) 

Disagree - get banned.  The issue isn't "Daily Mail" good or bad.  The issue is that quoting a Newspaper is just that.  Quoting a Newspaper... the editorial stance of that paper is a given, take it or leave it.  

Newspapers.... don't like?  Don't buy.  Simple.


----------



## Sweep (Feb 9, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And so we hear today that Wikipedia will no longer accept contributions referencing the Daily Mail

The editors described the arguments for a ban as â€œcentred on the Daily Mailâ€™s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabricationâ€.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

Isn't it a pity that it gets to this with the most read daily newspaper in the country.  And there we go as Paul Dacre leads his vitiolic, vitupertive and abusive personal denegration and assault on Speaker Bercow.  But no doubt there will be some who put Wikipedias stance down as what would be expected from such a leftie bunch.
		
Click to expand...

The Daily Mail is given far too much importance nationally and especially on here. I am afraid that you, Delc and especially HK just fall for their brand of sensationalist journalism. You can see how it makes your blood boil and that is what they intend to do. They take popular centre right views and give them a twist and they do it for one reason. It creates controversy and conversation which leads to selling newspapers. It works. In an admittedly rapidly declining market they are number 1 which is a result given that a few years ago they were just a daily paper aimed at women readers. The Express has tried to follow but having spent years concentrating on Princess Diana, miracle health cures and extreme weather they can't get close.
As a Lettie you should concern yourself more with the rapid decline of the Observer and especially the Guardian which is resorting to begging its readership for money. That can only be because no-one wants to read left wing, pseudo intelligent, Islington based nonsense anymore.
There are reasons why people want to read the DM and it isn't that they agree with everything it says. More likely it's because it addresses issues that concerns them and whilst they may think the DM is a bit extreme they agree with its sentiments. They believe the left has too far in giving everything to anyone other than those who work for it and that the left has gone soft on terrorists, hate preachers, health tourists etc. They believe in respect for all but that PC has gone too far. They want someone to stand up for the working people and middle England. It is not just a UK issue. It's exactly why Trump was elected in America. It is not a massive swing to the right, it's a reaction to the left moving further left.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 9, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And so we hear today that Wikipedia will no longer accept contributions referencing the Daily Mail

The editors described the arguments for a ban as â€œcentred on the Daily Mailâ€™s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabricationâ€.
		
Click to expand...

Oh the irony of Wikipedia doubting the factual validity of the DM.....


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 9, 2017)

chrisd said:



			As i asked the question, and havent commented as of yet, my view is

Bercow is a total knob, he is hated in the HOC by large sections, he should NOT have spoken out of turn without the people who decide such matters agreeing the decision first and as bad, or worse than Trump, have addressed the House and as the POTUS he should be welcomed to speak and quite possibly make a fool of himself. 

Id also add that *how one voted in the referendum has absolutely no bearing on people's views on Bercow*!
		
Click to expand...

You know that for a fact?...I may disagree - and I suspect that I have as much evidence as you do.  Though I do have some given the many callers I have listened to on the subject over the last few days. And though there were some who made it clear or stated they voted Remain who disagreed with what Speaker has said - almost all who said or made clear that they voted to Leave disagreed.  But that might just be coincidence and not representative.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 9, 2017)

Old Skier said:



			It takes a twisted tortured mind.
		
Click to expand...

Not really - it just takes listening to what people say.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 9, 2017)

IanM said:



			So what you are saying is that you/they disagree with their viewpoint on John Bercow... why is their view less valid than yours? Indeed , the speaker of the Lords didn't support Bercow's comment either.  (Although his language was less sensationalist) 

Disagree - get banned.  The issue isn't "Daily Mail" good or bad.  The issue is that quoting a Newspaper is just that.  Quoting a Newspaper... the editorial stance of that paper is a given, take it or leave it.  

Newspapers.... don't like?  Don't buy.  Simple.
		
Click to expand...

That I don't like what the DM says does not stop me reading it. In fact I'm surprised that you suggest I should.

Perhaps DM readers could do with reading the Guardian from time to time.


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 9, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You know that for a fact?...I may disagree - and I suspect that I have as much evidence as you do.  Though I do have some given the many callers I have listened to on the subject over the last few days. And though there were some who made it clear or stated they voted Remain who disagreed with what Speaker has said - almost all who said or made clear that they voted to Leave disagreed.  But that might just be coincidence and not representative.
		
Click to expand...

And your point is what exactly?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 9, 2017)

IanM said:



			So what you are saying is that you/they disagree with their viewpoint on John Bercow... why is their view less valid than yours? Indeed , the speaker of the Lords didn't support Bercow's comment either.  (Although his language was less sensationalist) 

Disagree - get banned.  The issue isn't "Daily Mail" good or bad.  The issue is that quoting a Newspaper is just that.  Quoting a Newspaper... the editorial stance of that paper is a given, take it or leave it.  

Newspapers.... don't like?  Don't buy.  Simple.
		
Click to expand...

Their language and attacks on Bercow is rabble rousing, irresponsible, intemperate and frankly reprehensible.  But what do they care.  They have a huge readership and Dacre gets to say and print what he thinks.  And Wikipedia thinks what he gets printed has a reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication.

Isn't it comforting to know that so many of the the British electorate get their political steer from that paper.  Well not for me it isn't.

And was it not the DM who ranted about the 'he doesn't look like a child' refugee?  And so yesterday the Tories sneak in the news that they are halting acceptance of under 10s lone-children refugees - because we can't find foster homes for any more.  Really?  350 children out of 3000 we agreed to take.  And that's that.  Done deal.  Paul Dacre and his readers satisfied.  These under 10s can fend for themselves - we just can't cope.  Isn't that just fine, well it will be with DM readers - can't have these '_burly lads aged anywhere between 15 and 21'_ pretending they are children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hildren-lied-age-officials.html#ixzz4YBdPgJ5s


----------



## chrisd (Feb 9, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You know that for a fact?...I may disagree - and I suspect that I have as much evidence as you do.  Though I do have some given the many callers I have listened to on the subject over the last few days. And though there were some who made it clear or stated they voted Remain who disagreed with what Speaker has said - almost all who said or made clear that they voted to Leave disagreed.  But that might just be coincidence and not representative.
		
Click to expand...

To be honest i dont know it "for a fact" any more than you. Almost everything on these threads are unsubstantiated guess work but after a few postings saying the same thing you'd think they were facts. Lets be honest, you dont know that Brexit won't be a roaring success and i dont know if its going to end up as the worst thing we ever did - if we "knew for a fact" we wouldn't all engage in endless discussion.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 9, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			And your point is what exactly?
		
Click to expand...

From what I can glean it appears to me that the main opposition to what Bercow has said comes from those who voted to Leave the EU.  I cannot *prove *it - but neither have I seen any evidence presented that suggests otherwise.


----------



## Sweep (Feb 9, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Their language and attacks on Bercow is rabble rousing, irresponsible, intemperate and frankly reprehensible.  But what do they care.  They have a huge readership and Dacre gets to say and print what he thinks.  And Wikipedia thinks what he gets printed has a reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication.

Isn't it comforting to know that so many of the the British electorate get their political steer from that paper.  Well not for me it isn't.

And was it not the DM who ranted about the 'he doesn't look like a child' refugee?  And so yesterday the Tories sneak in the news that they are halting acceptance of under 10s lone-children refugees - because we can't find foster homes for any more.  Really?  350 children out of 3000 we agreed to take.  And that's that.  Done deal.  Paul Dacre and his readers satisfied.  These under 10s can fend for themselves - we just can't cope.  Isn't that just fine, well it will be with DM readers - can't have these '_burly lads aged anywhere between 15 and 21'_ pretending they are children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hildren-lied-age-officials.html#ixzz4YBdPgJ5s

Click to expand...

See what I mean? Your blood is boiling but you cannot blame all the worlds ills on the Daily Mail.
You say people get their political steer from the DM but I doubt they influence that many and the same can be said about the Guardian. Is it just that the DM does a better job?
Do you really believe government policy is influenced by the DM? ( and btw he didn't look like a child and isn't it part of the job of a journalist to highlight where there is injustices?)


----------



## Sweep (Feb 9, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			From what I can glean it appears to me that the main opposition to what Bercow has said comes from those who voted to Leave the EU.  I cannot *prove *it - but neither have I seen any evidence presented that suggests otherwise.
		
Click to expand...

So, in other words it's just your gut feeling and nothing else.
It could be that leavers are stronger believers in democracy but other than that They are two different subjects.


----------



## IanM (Feb 9, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			From what I can glean it appears to me that the main opposition to what Bercow has said comes from those who voted to Leave the EU.  I cannot *prove *it - but neither have I seen any evidence presented that suggests otherwise.
		
Click to expand...

...which is a bit like saying, I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of God, and I haven't seen any evidence that suggests otherwise.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Feb 9, 2017)

chrisd said:



			To be honest i dont know it "for a fact" any more than you. Almost everything on these threads are unsubstantiated guess work but after a few postings saying the same thing you'd think they were facts. Lets be honest, you dont know that Brexit won't be a roaring success and i dont know if its going to end up as the worst thing we ever did - if we "knew for a fact" we wouldn't all engage in endless discussion.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. I suspect we all know deep down that it will likely be somewhere between the two extremes but "my option will be marginally better than yours" doesn't have the same appeal to debate.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 9, 2017)

Could be on the Trump thread or this one - but for me it adds to why Speaker Bercow is correct -* I think what they say is very important*

I'll just suggest some might like to listen to this from _Morning Joe_ today - on Trumps views on the Judiciary the free press - and they refer to the constitution and Magna Carta.  It's 20mins but makes interesting listening. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQaOUiuXMHE&list=PLDIVi-vBsOEy6jMSt_r_SMj9F5tuqdtKe&index=6

Bear in mind that Joe Scarborough is a Republican (ex-Congressman) and Mika Brzezinski is a Democrat (her father is Zbigniew Brzezinski - Pres. Carters NSA).  Now this is how many American political commentators see Trump and what he is doing and the risks he presents - and as they say - what he is saying is deeply disturbing. Also mention  of Judge Gorsuch's views on what Trump is saying and Yemen (what Trump is saying and doing ...'it's really and truly dangerous)

And given they refer back to Magna Carta - their thoughts on judiciary independence and the importance of the role of the judiciary are telling I think in the context of our own Art50 debate.

_Morning Joe_ is the most watched US cable political news programme.  Day 20 and Mika and Joe are exhausted trying to come to terms with, unravel and understand what Trump is doing in creating his own reality.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 9, 2017)

Loved Mika's comment at the end
_
"I hope -- it's stupidity at this point -- I'm really -- I'm banking on that -- because otherwise we are in really big trouble - I'm not kidding"_


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 9, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Could be on the Trump thread or this one - but for me it adds to why Speaker Bercow is correct -* I think what they say is very important*

I'll just suggest some might like to listen to this from _Morning Joe_ today - on Trumps views on the Judiciary the free press - and they refer to the constitution and Magna Carta.  It's 20mins but makes interesting listening. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQaOUiuXMHE&list=PLDIVi-vBsOEy6jMSt_r_SMj9F5tuqdtKe&index=6

Bear in mind that Joe Scarborough is a Republican (ex-Congressman) and Mika Brzezinski is a Democrat (her father is Zbigniew Brzezinski - Pres. Carters NSA).  Now this is how many American political commentators see Trump and what he is doing and the risks he presents - and as they say - what he is saying is deeply disturbing. Also mention  of Judge Gorsuch's views on what Trump is saying and Yemen (what Trump is saying and doing ...'it's really and truly dangerous)

And given they refer back to Magna Carta - their thoughts on judiciary independence and the importance of the role of the judiciary are telling I think in the context of our own Art50 debate.

_Morning Joe_ is the most watched US cable political news programme.  Day 20 and Mika and Joe are exhausted trying to come to terms with, unravel and understand what Trump is doing in creating his own reality.
		
Click to expand...

The important issue with Bercow is that he apears to be shooting from the hip and not abiding by accepted Parliamentary standards.  We have just been through a drawn out procedure with A50 over people wanting procedures regarding parliament to be adhered to so what's different about this one.


----------



## Fish (Feb 9, 2017)

Vote of no confidence being tabled and once that starts getting some support, it's likely he'll stand down of his own accord.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 10, 2017)

Anyone bothered watching the 20min segment from Morning Joe.  When you hear explained in detail the very serious concerns that many political commentators in the US have about their president - then ask about whether he needs his ego stroked by being invited to address the joint houses - or whether he needs a good slap from us - telling him that his behaviour, words and actions are totally inconsistent with the values and beliefs that have made the UK and the USA great friends and partners - and which underpin why we have had a 'special relationship' in the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQaOUiuXMHE

Because none of us make friends or get close to people whose values are at odds with our own - and if we have to for pragmatic reasons then we make very, very clear our concerns and reservations and keep them at arms length and absolutely no closer than we have to.  We may invite them into our house for a chat - we do not offer them dinner and a bed for the night.  And if that person does not change and continues to act contrary to what is important to us - then we scrap the relationship.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Feb 10, 2017)

Whenever Trump says his double word warning like... this is 'very very' serious.
He reminds me of a cross 4 year old child going ' but mummy, it's really really sore'


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 10, 2017)

I don't think that most folk here really know what's been going on with Trump over the last 20days. We get little snippets on the news - but I have been keeping pretty close - and many are truly aghast and worried.   When you get an understanding - I found it very easy to support Speaker Bercow

This is why I ask those who might say Bercow is wrong - to actually watch the clip I've posted the link to.  Joe Scarborough is actually accused of trying to make sense of what Trump is doing - when what Trump is doing is completely ignorant nonsense - it is just not possible to make sense of what he is saying and doing.  And many folks across the pond do actually believed he is slightly (more or less) unhinged - and will become every more so as he fights to control and beat the system - and fails.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 10, 2017)

Whatever the rights or wrong on this and many other contentious issues running on here, the constant castigation of anything those "so informed" of anything other than their own thoughts and ideas has left me totally agnostic to the whole lots of the running threads. Reasoned debate appears to be swept aside in the "I am right" world this and certain others threads have taken.
I suspect many are like me, in that the constant shouting in your ear has left you deaf to all sides.


----------



## spongebob59 (Feb 10, 2017)

For those who missed 'This week' last night :

https://twitter.com/bbcthisweek/status/829841142158024704


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 10, 2017)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Whatever the rights or wrong on this and many other contentious issues running on here, the constant castigation of anything those "so informed" of anything other than their own thoughts and ideas has left me totally agnostic to the whole lots of the running threads. Reasoned debate appears to be swept aside in the "I am right" world this and certain others threads have taken.
I suspect many are like me, in that the constant shouting in your ear has left you deaf to all sides.
		
Click to expand...

Just try watching the clip and tell us what you think.  That's all I'm saying.  Without needing to know anything else the clip would have convinced me that Speaker Bercow is right.  Trump needs a 'good slap' from the UK if we are going to be his friend.  Not getting invited to address the joint houses is a 'good slap'.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 10, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Just try watching the clip and tell us what you think.  That's all I'm saying.  Without needing to know anything else the clip would have convinced me that Speaker Bercow is right.  Trump needs a 'good slap' from the UK if we are going to be his friend.  Not getting invited to address the joint houses is a 'good slap'.
		
Click to expand...


I can't hear you


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 10, 2017)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I can't hear you

Click to expand...

You don't need to.  Just listen to the clip.


----------



## drdel (Feb 10, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Just try watching the clip and tell us what you think.  That's all I'm saying.  Without needing to know anything else the clip would have convinced me that Speaker Bercow is right.  Trump needs a 'good slap' from the UK if we are going to be his friend.  Not getting invited to address the joint houses is a 'good slap'.
		
Click to expand...


You insist on arguing the Bercow is right because he agrees with your sentiments. The real point however is the Bercow is Speaker of the HoC- a post that relies on keeping the Standards of the HoC by the convention that the 'job' is politically neutral. 

As a direct consequence of Bercow speaking beyond his remit he was wrong. It is not material to the thread's debate whether Trump needs a slap or Brexit is right or wrong - Bercow is not speaking for the Government or the UK.  

When he took the position of Speaker he agreed to the T&Cs of the role and that does not entitle him to use the 'Chair' of the HoC to express his personal opinions - if he wants to broadcast his view then resign, become elected as an MP and shout what he likes from where he likes.


----------



## chrisd (Feb 10, 2017)

drdel said:



			You insist on arguing the Bercow is right because he agrees with your sentiments. The real point however is the Bercow is Speaker of the HoC- a post that relies on keeping the Standards of the HoC by the convention that the 'job' is politically neutral. 

As a direct consequence of Bercow speaking beyond his remit he was wrong. It is not material to the thread's debate whether Trump needs a slap or Brexit is right or wrong - Bercow is not speaking for the Government or the UK.  

When he took the position of Speaker he agreed to the T&Cs of the role and that does not entitle him to use the 'Chair' of the HoC to express his personal opinions - if he wants to broadcast his view then resign, become elected as an MP and shout what he likes from where he likes.
		
Click to expand...

This ^^^^^^^^


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 10, 2017)

Really can't understand why anyone feels the need to attempt to 'big up' Bercow...

He represents, more completely than most, all that is wrong with the 'political classes'... The very people that 'delivered' Trump to where he is...


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 10, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You don't need to.  Just listen to the clip.
		
Click to expand...

Is there any point? because it seems the arguement goes on ad nausem until I or anyone agrees with you.
No, I think I shall pass on this and any other of the long winded repetition feasts.
Still deaf.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 10, 2017)

All I know about Trump is what I can understand by watching and listening to US news and politics programmes.  Pointless trying to inform the debate using proper sources rather than just my opinion.  Which is all I have been trying to do.

I'm out.


----------



## Fish (Feb 10, 2017)

drdel said:



			You insist on arguing the Bercow is right because he agrees with your sentiments. The real point however is the Bercow is Speaker of the HoC- a post that relies on keeping the Standards of the HoC by the convention that the 'job' is politically neutral. 

As a direct consequence of Bercow speaking beyond his remit he was wrong. It is not material to the thread's debate whether Trump needs a slap or Brexit is right or wrong - Bercow is not speaking for the Government or the UK.  

When he took the position of Speaker he agreed to the T&Cs of the role and that does not entitle him to use the 'Chair' of the HoC to express his personal opinions - if he wants to broadcast his view then resign, become elected as an MP and shout what he likes from where he likes.
		
Click to expand...

^^^ This basically wraps it up for me


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 10, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			All I know about Trump is what I can understand by watching and listening to US news and politics programmes.  Pointless trying to inform the debate using proper sources rather than just my opinion.  Which is all I have been trying to do.

I'm out.
		
Click to expand...


What you should be trying to understand is why, despite very early signs Clinton was not electable, the Democrats kept her as their candidate... No way should the election have been lost to Trump... He didn't 'win' they simply 'lost' it... Hopefully this is one huge wake up call and they come to their senses for next time round... They need to listen to the people and actually hear what they are being told... Perhaps ignoring the Hollywood luvvies for the next four years might be a good move also...


----------



## SocketRocket (Feb 10, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			All I know about Trump is what I can understand by watching and listening to US news and politics programmes.  Pointless trying to inform the debate using proper sources rather than just my opinion.  Which is all I have been trying to do.

I'm out.
		
Click to expand...

Will you be bemoaning Brexit in the "Articles for Sale' now?


----------

