Most unparliamentary language!!

Oh Matron!Not sure if this is the best way to get called by Mr Speaker in future. Of course wearing the above T-shirt in the chamber may catch his eye… or not.

2 Responses to Most unparliamentary language!!

  1. I read this story yesterday and wondered why it had taken so long to get from the Commons tearoom into the Daily Mail.

    I think it is about time that this uncivilised bunch start setting a good example.

    Claire Perry is not the sharpest pencil in the box in spite of the Daily Mail claim that she is "one of the brightest" of the new intake of MPs. She was easily put down in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) debate and vote on the UK's failure to implement the ECtHR judgment in my case. And made a fool of herself again when the Speaker did allow her to speak in the motion and debate and vote to deny convicted prisoners the vote.

    What concerns me is that normally the Speaker is flanked by lawyers and when an illegality occurs they inform the Speaker and the matter is corrected. But, in the motion and debate and vote the lawyers were absent. Why was this? I know enough about constitutional law, administrative law and public law to know that the whole thing is legally invalid. Is this why the lawyers were absent?

    "That this House notes the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v the United Kingdom in which it held that there had been no substantive debate by members of the legislature on the continued justification for maintaining a general restriction on the right of prisoners to vote;

    acknowledges the treaty obligations of the UK;

    is of the opinion that legislative decisions of this nature should be a matter for democratically-elected lawmakers;

    and supports the current situation in which no prisoner is able to vote except those imprisoned for contempt, default or on remand".

    Why did Mr Speaker not call "Order, order" when David Davis misled the House? Whatever is behind the Tory plotters to unseat the Speaker, if he should go then it should be because he has failed to do his job. For example, any reading of Hirst v UK (No2) will show that it was not held by the Court as claimed by David Davis. That was merely part of my argument which was accepted by the Court. Moreover, it is an obvious contradiction to acknowledge the UK's treaty obligations and then support the current ban which is contrary to the UK's treaty obligations.

    If the UK does not care about its image abroad then continue in this vein. If it does care about its image abroad then it is time for a rethink.

    • operanut1972 says:

      If you can't understand why you shouldn't have the vote when in prison then you really are trully delusional. Does the person you killed get the right to vote no, and neither should you, you horrible peice of vermin.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: