FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > John Bercow opposed to Trump addressing MPs
John Bercow opposed to Trump addressing MPs
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
As he said, parliament doesn't like sexist racists who don't believe in the rule of law or independent judiciaries, so why should they let Trump speak there?
Where is May's state visit or her invitation to address both houses of congress? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"oh well, get got his 5 minutes of fame today
he doesn't approve
I thought the Speaker had to be Neutral ? "
He is politically neutral inside the commons and also represents the commons to the outside world. He is expressing the views of MPs from both sides of the aisle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"oh well, get got his 5 minutes of fame today
he doesn't approve "
probably because he is a huge person on respecting the authority of the judiciary.. something this president doesn't...
the migrant ban is just the icing on the cake....
also when over a quarter of all mp's on all sides sign a motion asking him not to allow this... he is one to actually listen to the voices of the backbencher... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"As he said, parliament doesn't like sexist racists who don't believe in the rule of law or independent judiciaries, so why should they let Trump speak there?
Where is May's state visit or her invitation to address both houses of congress? "
LOL;
"parliament doesn't like sexist racists"
pot
kettle
Black
.
of course Westminster has no sexist, racist or indeed corrupt members of parliament, worst crime any of them have done is just pinch some expenses from the public purse,
.
sexist, racist or indeed corrupt absolutely not
this is the UK  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As he said, parliament doesn't like sexist racists who don't believe in the rule of law or independent judiciaries, so why should they let Trump speak there?
Where is May's state visit or her invitation to address both houses of congress? "
Would you approve of Putin addressing Parliament ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"As he said, parliament doesn't like sexist racists who don't believe in the rule of law or independent judiciaries, so why should they let Trump speak there?
Where is May's state visit or her invitation to address both houses of congress?
Would you approve of Putin addressing Parliament ? "
Not really, its an honour very rarely given. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"oh well, get got his 5 minutes of fame today
he doesn't approve "
I think you'll find John Bercows fame will extend well beyond 5 minutes. He is, after all, quite well known.
He's also correct, the idiot Trump shouldn't be allowed into the country never mind address Parliament or be honoured with a state visit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"oh well, get got his 5 minutes of fame today
he doesn't approve
I think you'll find John Bercows fame will extend well beyond 5 minutes. He is, after all, quite well known.
He's also correct, the idiot Trump shouldn't be allowed into the country never mind address Parliament or be honoured with a state visit."
wow;
why? why should he not be allowed to enter the UK  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"oh well, get got his 5 minutes of fame today
he doesn't approve
I think you'll find John Bercows fame will extend well beyond 5 minutes. He is, after all, quite well known.
He's also correct, the idiot Trump shouldn't be allowed into the country never mind address Parliament or be honoured with a state visit."
Oh the irony |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"wow;
why? why should he not be allowed to enter the UK "
The ‘unacceptable behaviours’ policy
In August 2005 the Home Office published an indicative list of “unacceptable behaviours”
which can also lead to exclusion by the Home Secretary. These include using any means or
medium to express views which foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence or other serious
criminal activity or seek to provoke others to commit such acts, or which foster hatred
which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK
The Home Secretary may personally decide that an individual
should be excluded from the UK because she considers that their
exclusion is justified. This personal power is normally exercised on
the grounds of national security, unacceptable behaviours, public
order or relations with a third country, but this is a matter of
policy not statute. The power is in fact broad and can be used in
any circumstances, provided it is exercised reasonably,
proportionately and consistently. An individual excluded by the
Home Secretary must be refused entry to the UK, in accordance
with paragraph 320(6) of the immigration rules.9
The introduction of the “unacceptable behaviours” policy in August
2005 broadened the scope for exercising this power (discussed further
in section 1.2 below).
There is no statutory right of appeal against an exclusion by the Home
Secretary, although affected individuals could seek a judicial review.10 A
PQ answered in early 2010 said that decisions to exclude are usually
reviewed every three years, but otherwise remain in place unless the
Home Secretary decides to lift the exclusion.11 It is open to excluded
individuals to apply to the Home Secretary for the exclusion order to be
lifted.
Furthermore, non-EEA nationals seeking permission to enter or remain
in the UK are subject to the various general grounds for refusal within
Part 9 of the Immigration Rules (as well as the specific eligibility criteria
for the relevant visa category).
12 These general grounds include
considerations related to a person’s behaviour, character, conduct or
associations.
In particular, paragraph 320(19) gives immigration staff scope to refuse
entry on grounds similar to the Home Secretary’s, by providing that
entry should “normally” be refused if
The immigration officer deems the exclusion of the person from
the United Kingdom to be conducive to the public good. For
example, because the person's conduct (including convictions
which do not fall within paragraph 320(2)), character,
associations, or other reasons, make it undesirable to grant them
leave to enter.
Home Office policy guidance to staff handling visa applications gives an
indication of the type of behaviour which might warrant refusal under
paragraph 320(19) …) While a person does not necessarily need to have been
convicted of a criminal offence, the key to establishing refusal in
this category will be the existence of reliable evidence necessary to
support the decision that the person’s behaviour calls into
question their character and/or conduct and/or associations such
that it makes it undesirable to grant them entry clearance.
A non-exhaustive list could include:
Low-level criminal activity. Association with known
criminals. Involvement with gangs. Pending prosecutions.
Extradition requests. public order risks. Prescribed
organisations. Unacceptable behaviours. Subject to a travel
ban. War crimes. Article 1F of the refugee convention.
Deliberate debiting. Proceeds of crime and finances of
questionable origins. Corruption. Relations between the UK
and elsewhere. Assisting in the invasion [sic] of the
immigration control. Hiring illegal workers. Engaging in
deceitful or dishonest dealings with Her Majesty’s
Government13
I think he qualifies in more than one way going on the above...
By the way the link is (it is to a House of Commons briefing paper):
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07035/SN07035.pdf |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"wow;
why? why should he not be allowed to enter the UK
The ‘unacceptable behaviours’ policy
In August 2005 the Home Office published an indicative list of “unacceptable behaviours”
which can also lead to exclusion by the Home Secretary. These include using any means or
medium to express views which foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence or other serious
criminal activity or seek to provoke others to commit such acts, or which foster hatred
which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK
The Home Secretary may personally decide that an individual
should be excluded from the UK because she considers that their
exclusion is justified. This personal power is normally exercised on
the grounds of national security, unacceptable behaviours, public
order or relations with a third country, but this is a matter of
policy not statute. The power is in fact broad and can be used in
any circumstances, provided it is exercised reasonably,
proportionately and consistently. An individual excluded by the
Home Secretary must be refused entry to the UK, in accordance
with paragraph 320(6) of the immigration rules.9
The introduction of the “unacceptable behaviours” policy in August
2005 broadened the scope for exercising this power (discussed further
in section 1.2 below).
There is no statutory right of appeal against an exclusion by the Home
Secretary, although affected individuals could seek a judicial review.10 A
PQ answered in early 2010 said that decisions to exclude are usually
reviewed every three years, but otherwise remain in place unless the
Home Secretary decides to lift the exclusion.11 It is open to excluded
individuals to apply to the Home Secretary for the exclusion order to be
lifted.
Furthermore, non-EEA nationals seeking permission to enter or remain
in the UK are subject to the various general grounds for refusal within
Part 9 of the Immigration Rules (as well as the specific eligibility criteria
for the relevant visa category).
12 These general grounds include
considerations related to a person’s behaviour, character, conduct or
associations.
In particular, paragraph 320(19) gives immigration staff scope to refuse
entry on grounds similar to the Home Secretary’s, by providing that
entry should “normally” be refused if
The immigration officer deems the exclusion of the person from
the United Kingdom to be conducive to the public good. For
example, because the person's conduct (including convictions
which do not fall within paragraph 320(2)), character,
associations, or other reasons, make it undesirable to grant them
leave to enter.
Home Office policy guidance to staff handling visa applications gives an
indication of the type of behaviour which might warrant refusal under
paragraph 320(19)…) While a person does not necessarily need to have been
convicted of a criminal offence, the key to establishing refusal in
this category will be the existence of reliable evidence necessary to
support the decision that the person’s behaviour calls into
question their character and/or conduct and/or associations such
that it makes it undesirable to grant them entry clearance.
A non-exhaustive list could include:
Low-level criminal activity. Association with known
criminals. Involvement with gangs. Pending prosecutions.
Extradition requests. public order risks. Prescribed
organisations. Unacceptable behaviours. Subject to a travel
ban. War crimes. Article 1F of the refugee convention.
Deliberate debiting. Proceeds of crime and finances of
questionable origins. Corruption. Relations between the UK
and elsewhere. Assisting in the invasion [sic] of the
immigration control. Hiring illegal workers. Engaging in
deceitful or dishonest dealings with Her Majesty’s
Government13
I think he qualifies in more than one way going on the above...
By the way the link is (it is to a House of Commons briefing paper):
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07035/SN07035.pdf"
Oh even more irony |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh even more irony"
Irony...
What that I could find and quote a British government briefing document that clearly says Trump should never be allowed into the country because of his corrupt business dealings, his ties to organised crime, his ties to the KKK and his public hate speeches... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"Oh even more irony
Irony...
What that I could find and quote a British government briefing document that clearly says Trump should never be allowed into the country because of his corrupt business dealings, his ties to organised crime, his ties to the KKK and his public hate speeches..."
Yes the irony that people are calling him to be banned because of these allegations yet criticise him for banning people from entering the USA because of the lack of information that has been requested of them to verify their background etc.
If you and others cant see the double standards then we truly live in a strange world.
I am no fan of trump but at least I can see and smell the hypocrisy, what happened to free speech? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"Oh even more irony
Irony...
What that I could find and quote a British government briefing document that clearly says Trump should never be allowed into the country because of his corrupt business dealings, his ties to organised crime, his ties to the KKK and his public hate speeches...
Yes the irony that people are calling him to be banned because of these allegations yet criticise him for banning people from entering the USA because of the lack of information that has been requested of them to verify their background etc.
If you and others cant see the double standards then we truly live in a strange world.
I am no fan of trump but at least I can see and smell the hypocrisy, what happened to free speech? "
Trump has not banned anyone for lack of information that has been requested of them. He has banned them simply because they hold the passport of a certain country. Even if they have gone through the extensive individual vetting procedures, have a green card, or have lived in the US prior to the ban. Or if you go with Giuliani's description then he had banned them for being Muslim.
Oh, and FYI 'free speech' doesn't mean we have to let any arsehole address our parliament.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh even more irony
Irony...
What that I could find and quote a British government briefing document that clearly says Trump should never be allowed into the country because of his corrupt business dealings, his ties to organised crime, his ties to the KKK and his public hate speeches...
Yes the irony that people are calling him to be banned because of these allegations yet criticise him for banning people from entering the USA because of the lack of information that has been requested of them to verify their background etc.
If you and others cant see the double standards then we truly live in a strange world.
I am no fan of trump but at least I can see and smell the hypocrisy, what happened to free speech? "
He is an elected head of government, so nothing to stop him visiting UK in his official role;
However, the privilege of addressing parliament is reserved to parliament; and there is no point in him addressing parliament if he has nothing interesting to say. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Not sure what the specific significance of the speech to our Parliament is, but, if you are prone to be a bit hysterical abou the Trump state visit you'd have to admit that some far more unsavoury regime heads have been welcomed. Robert Mugabe, the Chinese head of state, Nicolae Ceausescu to name but a few. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not sure what the specific significance of the speech to our Parliament is, but, if you are prone to be a bit hysterical abou the Trump state visit you'd have to admit that some far more unsavoury regime heads have been welcomed. Robert Mugabe, the Chinese head of state, Nicolae Ceausescu to name but a few."
You are correct about all the people you mention but all of them were invited here as a gesture of conciliation after relaxing their totalitarian megalomaniac hold on total power. In contrast Trump has been invited here after less than 2 weeks in power where he has rolled back decades of civil rights advances and is attempting to grab power from the legislator and judiciary by use of presidential decree.
The fact that our PM is pandering to Donny the Nonce is nothing short of disgusting! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Fat mouth hypocrite Bercow had no objection to Chinese President Xi Jinping's State visit and address to Parliament in 2015 in the full knowledge of this:
"Numerous human rights groups have publicized human rights issues in China that they consider the government to be mishandling, including: the death penalty (capital punishment), the one-child policy (which China had made exceptions for ethnic minorities prior to abolishing it in 2015), the political and legal status of Tibet, and neglect of freedom of the press in mainland China. Other areas of concern include the lack of legal recognition of human rights and the lack of an independent judiciary, rule of law, and due process.
Further issues raised in regard to human rights include the severe lack of worker's rights (in particular the hukou system which restricts migrant labourers' freedom of movement), the absence of independent labour unions (which have since been changing and allegations of discrimination against rural workers and ethnic minorities, as well as the lack of religious freedom – rights groups have highlighted repression of the Christian, Tibetan Buddhist, and Falun Gong religious groups.
Some Chinese activist groups are trying to expand these freedoms, including Human Rights in China, Chinese Human Rights Defenders, and the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group. Chinese human rights attorneys who take on cases related to these issues, however, often face harassment, disbarment, and arrest." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Not sure what the specific significance of the speech to our Parliament is, but, if you are prone to be a bit hysterical abou the Trump state visit you'd have to admit that some far more unsavoury regime heads have been welcomed. Robert Mugabe, the Chinese head of state, Nicolae Ceausescu to name but a few.
You are correct about all the people you mention but all of them were invited here as a gesture of conciliation after relaxing their totalitarian megalomaniac hold on total power. In contrast Trump has been invited here after less than 2 weeks in power where he has rolled back decades of civil rights advances and is attempting to grab power from the legislator and judiciary by use of presidential decree.
The fact that our PM is pandering to Donny the Nonce is nothing short of disgusting!"
"Donny the Nonce" are we back to primary school name calling?
.
Some MP's are going to cause such a rumpus between the UK and USA that it will harm the UK and our UK citizens for many years to come, just to get there 5 minutes of fame.
If ever in recent years there's been a more pro-British president of the United States, it's Donald Trump and the ally of nations will soon be torn apart by the pc MP's and pc people of this nation.
.
Generally the speaker, who's meant to referee all of this, should keep himself above that and not interfere
.
Bercow will have to deal with "the consequences" of his comments and I suspect he will be standing down soon, perhaps early retirement with an award of a lump sum pension, walking off leaving the UK with one ally down.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Xi jinping- China
Emir of Kuwait
Kruschev - Soviet union
Some would also include a few others who it could be argued as being unsavoury, but all addressed Parliament... so why not a democratically elected leader of a democracy...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"oh well, get got his 5 minutes of fame today
he doesn't approve
probably because he is a huge person on respecting the authority of the judiciary.. something this president doesn't...
the migrant ban is just the icing on the cake....
also when over a quarter of all mp's on all sides sign a motion asking him not to allow this... he is one to actually listen to the voices of the backbencher..."
So that's 3 quarters of MP's on all sides who didn't sign the motion then, lol. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"oh well, get got his 5 minutes of fame today
he doesn't approve
I think you'll find John Bercows fame will extend well beyond 5 minutes. He is, after all, quite well known.
"
John Bercows fame stems from his wife Sally Bercows antics tarting around half of London semi dressed and having affairs behind his back, an affair with her husbands cousin no less. So yeah John Bercow is well known for that and has Sally Bercow to thank for his fame. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""Donny the Nonce" are we back to primary school name calling?
."
Sorry, please forgive me. Sexual predator and self obsessed liar President Trump
"Some MP's are going to cause such a rumpus between the UK and USA that it will harm the UK and our UK citizens for many years to come, just to get there 5 minutes of fame.
If ever in recent years there's been a more pro-British president of the United States, it's Donald Trump and the ally of nations will soon be torn apart by the pc MP's and pc people of this nation."
Ah yes that would be the America first president who says that if a trade deal stops being more beneficial to the US it should be terminated with 30 days notice. I think you and I have very different ideas about what pro British means.
"Generally the speaker, who's meant to referee all of this, should keep himself above that and not interfere.
Bercow will have to deal with "the consequences" of his comments and I suspect he will be standing down soon, perhaps early retirement with an award of a lump sum pension, walking off leaving the UK with one ally down.
"
You really should have paid more attention to your English history in school. If you had you would not have made such a crass and totally incorrect statement. Speaker Bercow has upheld the finest tradition of the speaker and has spoken for the house and informed the First Lord of The Treasury (Her Majesties apointed representative in parliament) of the Houses displeasure.
Let me remind you that some 475 years ago another Speaker of the House, one Speaker William Lenthall said to Charles 1: "May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here" Of course Charles (a bit like your here Trump) thought he was the law and we all know how that ended on the 30th January 1649... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"oh well, get got his 5 minutes of fame today
he doesn't approve
probably because he is a huge person on respecting the authority of the judiciary.. something this president doesn't...
the migrant ban is just the icing on the cake....
also when over a quarter of all mp's on all sides sign a motion asking him not to allow this... he is one to actually listen to the voices of the backbencher..."
The national interests override the individual feelings of MP's and Bircow is meant to not have opinions,he is the referee of the commons no more no less |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Bircow is meant to not have opinions,he is the referee of the commons no more no less"
Did you bother to read my post above or are you one of those who believes opinion is more important than fact?
The Speakers job is to speak for the house. The clue is in the name!
The speaker does act as referee within the house but the invitation given to Trump was not from a member of parliament it was from the monarchs chief minister and it was the monarchs chief minister who said that Trump should address parliament, therefore when the Mr Speaker informed the Monarch's Chief Minister in the House that the House did not believe that President Trump should address the house he was doing his job and upholding a fine tradition.
That a quarter of the house actually put their names to a document refusing the Crowns demand says much. I would not be surprised if in the fullness of time it transpires that for every member that signed there were another 2 who asked the speaker to speak for them.
That May decided to push parliament to issue such an invitation when a petition to have the state visit cancelled of nearly 2 million signatures raised in 5 days has forced the government to make time to debate the issue in parliament on the 20th of the month shows that not only is she authoritarian in the extreme but that her judgement is very questionable. But then, all but the most partisan already acknowledge that she is more than slightly to the right of Attila The Hun and very similar to Donny small Hands when it comes to accepting criticism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"oh well, get got his 5 minutes of fame today
he doesn't approve
I think you'll find John Bercows fame will extend well beyond 5 minutes. He is, after all, quite well known.
John Bercows fame stems from his wife Sally Bercows antics tarting around half of London semi dressed and having affairs behind his back, an affair with her husbands cousin no less. So yeah John Bercow is well known for that and has Sally Bercow to thank for his fame. "
Right 
So his power to stop Trump addressing parliament comes from his fame does it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"oh well, get got his 5 minutes of fame today
he doesn't approve
I think you'll find John Bercows fame will extend well beyond 5 minutes. He is, after all, quite well known.
John Bercows fame stems from his wife Sally Bercows antics tarting around half of London semi dressed and having affairs behind his back, an affair with her husbands cousin no less. So yeah John Bercow is well known for that and has Sally Bercow to thank for his fame.
Right
So his power to stop Trump addressing parliament comes from his fame does it? "
Read back through the thread, it was TinaS who commented first on his 'fame' being more than a 5 minute wonder. I merely expanded on that and much of his fame stems from his wife's sexual exploits, affairs and antics when she posed for photos half naked draped in a white towel in front of the houses of Parliament. Rather than upholding the integrity and reputation of Parliament the Bercow family have lowered the tone and tarnished Parliament. Maybe next time they visit America John could get Sally to pose half naked in front of the White House? He'll have to keep a close eye on her though in case any passing yanks catch her eye.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Bircow is meant to not have opinions,he is the referee of the commons no more no less
Did you bother to read my post above or are you one of those who believes opinion is more important than fact?
The Speakers job is to speak for the house. The clue is in the name!
The speaker does act as referee within the house but the invitation given to Trump was not from a member of parliament it was from the monarchs chief minister and it was the monarchs chief minister who said that Trump should address parliament, therefore when the Mr Speaker informed the Monarch's Chief Minister in the House that the House did not believe that President Trump should address the house he was doing his job and upholding a fine tradition.
That a quarter of the house actually put their names to a document refusing the Crowns demand says much. I would not be surprised if in the fullness of time it transpires that for every member that signed there were another 2 who asked the speaker to speak for them.
That May decided to push parliament to issue such an invitation when a petition to have the state visit cancelled of nearly 2 million signatures raised in 5 days has forced the government to make time to debate the issue in parliament on the 20th of the month shows that not only is she authoritarian in the extreme but that her judgement is very questionable. But then, all but the most partisan already acknowledge that she is more than slightly to the right of Attila The Hun and very similar to Donny small Hands when it comes to accepting criticism. "
so 1/4 of the house signed saying they dont want trump to address parliment.
that means 3/4 of the house aint to fissed if he does.
2 million people signed a petition saying to cancel trumps state visit.
That means 68 million are not too fussed if he does come (bare in mind it only takes seconds to sign the onlind petition) so if theyreally was bothered im sure there would be millions more.
and you say mays judgment is terrible... seems like majority of both the country and members of parliment are with her in numbers on these 2 topics.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"oh well, get got his 5 minutes of fame today
he doesn't approve
I think you'll find John Bercows fame will extend well beyond 5 minutes. He is, after all, quite well known.
John Bercows fame stems from his wife Sally Bercows antics tarting around half of London semi dressed and having affairs behind his back, an affair with her husbands cousin no less. So yeah John Bercow is well known for that and has Sally Bercow to thank for his fame.
Right
So his power to stop Trump addressing parliament comes from his fame does it?
Read back through the thread, it was TinaS who commented first on his 'fame' being more than a 5 minute wonder. I merely expanded on that and much of his fame stems from his wife's sexual exploits, affairs and antics when she posed for photos half naked draped in a white towel in front of the houses of Parliament. Rather than upholding the integrity and reputation of Parliament the Bercow family have lowered the tone and tarnished Parliament. Maybe next time they visit America John could get Sally to pose half naked in front of the White House? He'll have to keep a close eye on her though in case any passing yanks catch her eye. "
So you don't think it has anything at all to do with the fact that he is the speaker of the house of commons?
Would anyone be interested in publishing pictures of his wife if he wasn't the speaker of the house? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Bircow is meant to not have opinions,he is the referee of the commons no more no less
Did you bother to read my post above or are you one of those who believes opinion is more important than fact?
The Speakers job is to speak for the house. The clue is in the name!
The speaker does act as referee within the house but the invitation given to Trump was not from a member of parliament it was from the monarchs chief minister and it was the monarchs chief minister who said that Trump should address parliament, therefore when the Mr Speaker informed the Monarch's Chief Minister in the House that the House did not believe that President Trump should address the house he was doing his job and upholding a fine tradition.
That a quarter of the house actually put their names to a document refusing the Crowns demand says much. I would not be surprised if in the fullness of time it transpires that for every member that signed there were another 2 who asked the speaker to speak for them.
That May decided to push parliament to issue such an invitation when a petition to have the state visit cancelled of nearly 2 million signatures raised in 5 days has forced the government to make time to debate the issue in parliament on the 20th of the month shows that not only is she authoritarian in the extreme but that her judgement is very questionable. But then, all but the most partisan already acknowledge that she is more than slightly to the right of Attila The Hun and very similar to Donny small Hands when it comes to accepting criticism.
so 1/4 of the house signed saying they dont want trump to address parliment.
that means 3/4 of the house aint to fissed if he does.
2 million people signed a petition saying to cancel trumps state visit.
That means 68 million are not too fussed if he does come (bare in mind it only takes seconds to sign the onlind petition) so if theyreally was bothered im sure there would be millions more.
and you say mays judgment is terrible... seems like majority of both the country and members of parliment are with her in numbers on these 2 topics.
"
I just saw a Labour MP speak on the news saying "John Bercow spoke for the British people".
????????????????????
No he DOESN'T speak for the British people! He spoke for a very small percentage of the British population who signed a petition and he spoke for a minority of MP's in the house of Commons (only 1/4 who signed the motion).
Also just saw the speaker of the House of Lords on the news and it appears the idiot Bercow has broken Parliamentary protocol because he did not get agreement from the speaker of the House of Lords before his little outburst. John Bercow has had to make an apology to the speaker of the house of Lords and rightly so. If Trump is to make a speech in Westminster it also comes under the consideration of the speaker of the house of Lords. The speaker of the house of Lords said he is keeping an 'open mind' on this issue and will consider it more if a request is made to speak either from Donald Trump or from Teresa May and the government.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
""Donny the Nonce" are we back to primary school name calling?
.
Sorry, please forgive me. Sexual predator and self obsessed liar President Trump "
Keyboard Warrior
"
Some MP's are going to cause such a rumpus between the UK and USA that it will harm the UK and our UK citizens for many years to come, just to get there 5 minutes of fame.
If ever in recent years there's been a more pro-British president of the United States, it's Donald Trump and the ally of nations will soon be torn apart by the pc MP's and pc people of this nation.
Ah yes that would be the America first president who says that if a trade deal stops being more beneficial to the US it should be terminated with 30 days notice. I think you and I have very different ideas about what pro British means."
So you prefer to be standing at the "Back of the Queue" Last in line
"
Generally the speaker, who's meant to referee all of this, should keep himself above that and not interfere.
Bercow will have to deal with "the consequences" of his comments and I suspect he will be standing down soon, perhaps early retirement with an award of a lump sum pension, walking off leaving the UK with one ally down.
.
.
You really should have paid more attention to your English history in school. If you had you would not have made such a crass and totally incorrect statement. """Speaker Bercow has upheld the finest tradition of the speaker and has spoken for the house""" and informed the First Lord of The Treasury (Her Majesties apointed representative in parliament) of the Houses displeasure.
Let me remind you that some 475 years ago another Speaker of the House, one Speaker William Lenthall said to Charles 1: "May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here" Of course Charles (a bit like your here Trump) thought he was the law and we all know how that ended on the 30th January 1649..."
Perhaps if he is the "Speaker" he should have spoken to Norman Fowler first out of courtesy.
You also waffle on saying he spoke for the house, who exactly in the house "did" he speak for, and who did he decide to ignore.
Guess you are still living in the 1600's
Why Should I pay attention to English History at School, English history would not provide a 6 figure salary, healthy pension and good living, so eh no, I will ignore your advice sonny.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
The speaker of the house of lords can keep an open mind all he wants, but it wont make a blind bit of difference because the speaker of the house of commons has already vetoed it. That's the end of it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Bircow is meant to not have opinions,he is the referee of the commons no more no less
Did you bother to read my post above or are you one of those who believes opinion is more important than fact?
The Speakers job is to speak for the house. The clue is in the name!
The speaker does act as referee within the house but the invitation given to Trump was not from a member of parliament it was from the monarchs chief minister and it was the monarchs chief minister who said that Trump should address parliament, therefore when the Mr Speaker informed the Monarch's Chief Minister in the House that the House did not believe that President Trump should address the house he was doing his job and upholding a fine tradition.
That a quarter of the house actually put their names to a document refusing the Crowns demand says much. I would not be surprised if in the fullness of time it transpires that for every member that signed there were another 2 who asked the speaker to speak for them.
That May decided to push parliament to issue such an invitation when a petition to have the state visit cancelled of nearly 2 million signatures raised in 5 days has forced the government to make time to debate the issue in parliament on the 20th of the month shows that not only is she authoritarian in the extreme but that her judgement is very questionable. But then, all but the most partisan already acknowledge that she is more than slightly to the right of Attila The Hun and very similar to Donny small Hands when it comes to accepting criticism.
so 1/4 of the house signed saying they dont want trump to address parliment.
that means 3/4 of the house aint to fissed if he does.
2 million people signed a petition saying to cancel trumps state visit.
That means 68 million are not too fussed if he does come (bare in mind it only takes seconds to sign the onlind petition) so if theyreally was bothered im sure there would be millions more.
and you say mays judgment is terrible... seems like majority of both the country and members of parliment are with her in numbers on these 2 topics.
I just saw a Labour MP speak on the news saying "John Bercow spoke for the British people".
????????????????????
No he DOESN'T speak for the British people! He spoke for a very small percentage of the British population who signed a petition and he spoke for a minority of MP's in the house of Commons (only 1/4 who signed the motion).
Also just saw the speaker of the House of Lords on the news and it appears the idiot Bercow has broken Parliamentary protocol because he did not get agreement from the speaker of the House of Lords before his little outburst. John Bercow has had to make an apology to the speaker of the house of Lords and rightly so. If Trump is to make a speech in Westminster it also comes under the consideration of the speaker of the house of Lords. The speaker of the house of Lords said he is keeping an 'open mind' on this issue and will consider it more if a request is made to speak either from Donald Trump or from Teresa May and the government.
"
to be honest if I was trump I wouldnt even want to address the house of parliment. .. tbe behaviour of our mps when in parliment makes us a laughing stock.
full of hooora henrys shouting and cheering.
Most of my overseas friends when they see our parliment in session on tv they think its an embarrassment.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The speaker of the house of lords can keep an open mind all he wants, but it wont make a blind bit of difference because the speaker of the house of commons has already vetoed it. That's the end of it."
We'll see about that. Many MP's are saying now John Bercow has over stepped the mark and has failed to remain neutral. It's not the end of this story by a long shot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"so 1/4 of the house signed saying they dont want trump to address parliment.
that means 3/4 of the house aint to fissed if he does.
2 million people signed a petition saying to cancel trumps state visit.
That means 68 million are not too fussed if he does come (bare in mind it only takes seconds to sign the onlind petition) so if theyreally was bothered im sure there would be millions more.
and you say mays judgment is terrible... seems like majority of both the country and members of parliment are with her in numbers on these 2 topics.
"
Isn't it funny how some can claim the only people who count are those that vote when it suits their cause but when it doesn't then suddenly all the people who didn't vote need to be listened to...
Seems some are more than happy to flipflop the rules to gain the result they want. I think there is a name for that sort of behaviour...
Could it be corrupt? It is most certainly unprincipled. But then having principles, integrity and probity seem to be rather unfashionable in present society. Guess its what you get in a greed is good culture. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The speaker of the house of lords can keep an open mind all he wants, but it wont make a blind bit of difference because the speaker of the house of commons has already vetoed it. That's the end of it.
We'll see about that. Many MP's are saying now John Bercow has over stepped the mark and has failed to remain neutral. It's not the end of this story by a long shot. "
Oh shit, yeah sorry, I forgot you don't give a shit about the constitution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The speaker of the house of lords can keep an open mind all he wants, but it wont make a blind bit of difference because the speaker of the house of commons has already vetoed it. That's the end of it.
We'll see about that. Many MP's are saying now John Bercow has over stepped the mark and has failed to remain neutral. It's not the end of this story by a long shot.
Oh shit, yeah sorry, I forgot you don't give a shit about the constitution. "
John Bercow has proved his own blatant disregard for the rules of Parliament on this matter by failing to consult and get agreement from the speaker of The House of Lords, so it's a bit rich of you to start banging on about rules, laws and the constitution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"so 1/4 of the house signed saying they dont want trump to address parliment.
that means 3/4 of the house aint to fissed if he does.
2 million people signed a petition saying to cancel trumps state visit.
That means 68 million are not too fussed if he does come (bare in mind it only takes seconds to sign the onlind petition) so if theyreally was bothered im sure there would be millions more.
and you say mays judgment is terrible... seems like majority of both the country and members of parliment are with her in numbers on these 2 topics.
Isn't it funny how some can claim the only people who count are those that vote when it suits their cause but when it doesn't then suddenly all the people who didn't vote need to be listened to...
Seems some are more than happy to flipflop the rules to gain the result they want. I think there is a name for that sort of behaviour...
Could it be corrupt? It is most certainly unprincipled. But then having principles, integrity and probity seem to be rather unfashionable in present society. Guess its what you get in a greed is good culture. "
what are you blabbering on about.
listen when over half the mps sign a form rejecting trump to address parliment then fine.
when over 35 million sign a petition stoping trumps state visit then fine...both will then have merit.
until then....1/4 of parliment is a minority
2 million petition signatures is a vast vast minority.
theres nothing else to say about it.
trumps coming for a state visit end of story. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The speaker of the house of lords can keep an open mind all he wants, but it wont make a blind bit of difference because the speaker of the house of commons has already vetoed it. That's the end of it.
We'll see about that. Many MP's are saying now John Bercow has over stepped the mark and has failed to remain neutral. It's not the end of this story by a long shot.
Oh shit, yeah sorry, I forgot you don't give a shit about the constitution.
John Bercow has proved his own blatant disregard for the rules of Parliament on this matter by failing to consult and get agreement from the speaker of The House of Lords, so it's a bit rich of you to start banging on about rules, laws and the constitution. "
He would have to consult with the Lord Great Chamberlain and speaker of the house of lords in order to grant permission, as all three need to agree. However he doesn't need to consult with anyone if he is going to veto it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The speaker of the house of lords can keep an open mind all he wants, but it wont make a blind bit of difference because the speaker of the house of commons has already vetoed it. That's the end of it.
We'll see about that. Many MP's are saying now John Bercow has over stepped the mark and has failed to remain neutral. It's not the end of this story by a long shot.
Oh shit, yeah sorry, I forgot you don't give a shit about the constitution.
John Bercow has proved his own blatant disregard for the rules of Parliament on this matter by failing to consult and get agreement from the speaker of The House of Lords, so it's a bit rich of you to start banging on about rules, laws and the constitution.
He would have to consult with the Lord Great Chamberlain and speaker of the house of lords in order to grant permission, as all three need to agree. However he doesn't need to consult with anyone if he is going to veto it. "
what is the betting he resigns tomorrow? The dick was out of order |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The speaker of the house of lords can keep an open mind all he wants, but it wont make a blind bit of difference because the speaker of the house of commons has already vetoed it. That's the end of it.
We'll see about that. Many MP's are saying now John Bercow has over stepped the mark and has failed to remain neutral. It's not the end of this story by a long shot.
Oh shit, yeah sorry, I forgot you don't give a shit about the constitution.
John Bercow has proved his own blatant disregard for the rules of Parliament on this matter by failing to consult and get agreement from the speaker of The House of Lords, so it's a bit rich of you to start banging on about rules, laws and the constitution.
He would have to consult with the Lord Great Chamberlain and speaker of the house of lords in order to grant permission, as all three need to agree. However he doesn't need to consult with anyone if he is going to veto it.
what is the betting he resigns tomorrow? The dick was out of order"
It's party of his constitutional duty to decide (with two others) who gets to address parliament.
Is there any part of the UK constitution that you guys like?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The speaker of the house of lords can keep an open mind all he wants, but it wont make a blind bit of difference because the speaker of the house of commons has already vetoed it. That's the end of it.
We'll see about that. Many MP's are saying now John Bercow has over stepped the mark and has failed to remain neutral. It's not the end of this story by a long shot.
Oh shit, yeah sorry, I forgot you don't give a shit about the constitution.
John Bercow has proved his own blatant disregard for the rules of Parliament on this matter by failing to consult and get agreement from the speaker of The House of Lords, so it's a bit rich of you to start banging on about rules, laws and the constitution.
He would have to consult with the Lord Great Chamberlain and speaker of the house of lords in order to grant permission, as all three need to agree. However he doesn't need to consult with anyone if he is going to veto it.
what is the betting he resigns tomorrow? The dick was out of order
It's party of his constitutional duty to decide (with two others) who gets to address parliament.
Is there any part of the UK constitution that you guys like? "
he didn't decide with 2 others though did he? And you can decide who gets to address parliament without standing up and giving an insulting rant |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The speaker of the house of lords can keep an open mind all he wants, but it wont make a blind bit of difference because the speaker of the house of commons has already vetoed it. That's the end of it.
We'll see about that. Many MP's are saying now John Bercow has over stepped the mark and has failed to remain neutral. It's not the end of this story by a long shot.
Oh shit, yeah sorry, I forgot you don't give a shit about the constitution.
John Bercow has proved his own blatant disregard for the rules of Parliament on this matter by failing to consult and get agreement from the speaker of The House of Lords, so it's a bit rich of you to start banging on about rules, laws and the constitution.
He would have to consult with the Lord Great Chamberlain and speaker of the house of lords in order to grant permission, as all three need to agree. However he doesn't need to consult with anyone if he is going to veto it.
what is the betting he resigns tomorrow? The dick was out of order
It's party of his constitutional duty to decide (with two others) who gets to address parliament.
Is there any part of the UK constitution that you guys like?
he didn't decide with 2 others though did he? And you can decide who gets to address parliament without standing up and giving an insulting rant"
You need all three to say yes for it to happen, he said no. How complicated is that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The speaker of the house of lords can keep an open mind all he wants, but it wont make a blind bit of difference because the speaker of the house of commons has already vetoed it. That's the end of it.
We'll see about that. Many MP's are saying now John Bercow has over stepped the mark and has failed to remain neutral. It's not the end of this story by a long shot.
Oh shit, yeah sorry, I forgot you don't give a shit about the constitution.
John Bercow has proved his own blatant disregard for the rules of Parliament on this matter by failing to consult and get agreement from the speaker of The House of Lords, so it's a bit rich of you to start banging on about rules, laws and the constitution.
He would have to consult with the Lord Great Chamberlain and speaker of the house of lords in order to grant permission, as all three need to agree. However he doesn't need to consult with anyone if he is going to veto it.
what is the betting he resigns tomorrow? The dick was out of order
It's party of his constitutional duty to decide (with two others) who gets to address parliament.
Is there any part of the UK constitution that you guys like?
he didn't decide with 2 others though did he? And you can decide who gets to address parliament without standing up and giving an insulting rant
You need all three to say yes for it to happen, he said no. How complicated is that? "
So what has he apologised for?
His position is now untenable, he will be gone, through stupidity and vanity |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
if he is going back to primary school name calling, I suggest he stands for MP in the next election.
Seeing as primary school behaviour seems to be the modus operandi for PMQ's every Wednesday.
I'm waiting for one of them in the chamber to shout out "my dad's bigger than your dad"  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"if he is going back to primary school name calling, I suggest he stands for MP in the next election.
Seeing as primary school behaviour seems to be the modus operandi for PMQ's every Wednesday.
I'm waiting for one of them in the chamber to shout out "my dad's bigger than your dad" "
The man-child's Corbyn and Cameron already had an exchange over the despatch box on what their parents think. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atcoupleCouple
over a year ago
Suffolk - East Anglia |
"oh well, get got his 5 minutes of fame today
he doesn't approve
I thought the Speaker had to be Neutral ?
He is politically neutral inside the commons and also represents the commons to the outside world. He is expressing the views of MPs from both sides of the aisle."
Riiiiiiight. Do you really believe that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Doesn't matter if the Speaker has to be Neutral or not,
.
as long as no one mentions
""Clinton Oliver""
.
Now please remove all sun newspapers from the Commons tea room before MP's arrive
.
now; back to selling antiques |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"what are you blabbering on about.
listen when over half the mps sign a form rejecting trump to address parliment then fine.
when over 35 million sign a petition stoping trumps state visit then fine...both will then have merit.
until then....1/4 of parliment is a minority
2 million petition signatures is a vast vast minority.
theres nothing else to say about it.
trumps coming for a state visit end of story."
but when 17 and a bit million of 55+ million sign up to leave the EU that's a majority.
Do you see a contradiction there? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"what are you blabbering on about.
listen when over half the mps sign a form rejecting trump to address parliment then fine.
when over 35 million sign a petition stoping trumps state visit then fine...both will then have merit.
until then....1/4 of parliment is a minority
2 million petition signatures is a vast vast minority.
theres nothing else to say about it.
trumps coming for a state visit end of story.
but when 17 and a bit million of 55+ million sign up to leave the EU that's a majority.
Do you see a contradiction there?"
It was a majority within the terms of the referendum.
I know many who didn't vote; some through apathy and some through ignorance and speaking to them now, they still haven't changed their position. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The speaker of the house of lords can keep an open mind all he wants, but it wont make a blind bit of difference because the speaker of the house of commons has already vetoed it. That's the end of it.
We'll see about that. Many MP's are saying now John Bercow has over stepped the mark and has failed to remain neutral. It's not the end of this story by a long shot.
Oh shit, yeah sorry, I forgot you don't give a shit about the constitution.
John Bercow has proved his own blatant disregard for the rules of Parliament on this matter by failing to consult and get agreement from the speaker of The House of Lords, so it's a bit rich of you to start banging on about rules, laws and the constitution.
He would have to consult with the Lord Great Chamberlain and speaker of the house of lords in order to grant permission, as all three need to agree. However he doesn't need to consult with anyone if he is going to veto it. "
You are completely wrong on your assumption that all 3 need agreement to address the Royal gallery in Westminster. It's been reported in the press today that all 3 need agreement for Donald Trump to speak in Westminster Hall, but only the speaker of the Lords and the Queens representative, the Lord Great Chamberlain need agreement to grant permission for Donald Trump to address the Royal Gallery. Bercow can be cut out the loop if Trump wishes to address the Royal gallery. It's also reported in the press today that MP's are gathering numbers together now in a bid to oust John Bercow as speaker of the commons for breaking his impartiality on this matter in his little outburst the other day. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The speaker of the house of lords can keep an open mind all he wants, but it wont make a blind bit of difference because the speaker of the house of commons has already vetoed it. That's the end of it.
We'll see about that. Many MP's are saying now John Bercow has over stepped the mark and has failed to remain neutral. It's not the end of this story by a long shot.
Oh shit, yeah sorry, I forgot you don't give a shit about the constitution.
John Bercow has proved his own blatant disregard for the rules of Parliament on this matter by failing to consult and get agreement from the speaker of The House of Lords, so it's a bit rich of you to start banging on about rules, laws and the constitution.
He would have to consult with the Lord Great Chamberlain and speaker of the house of lords in order to grant permission, as all three need to agree. However he doesn't need to consult with anyone if he is going to veto it.
what is the betting he resigns tomorrow? The dick was out of order
It's party of his constitutional duty to decide (with two others) who gets to address parliament.
Is there any part of the UK constitution that you guys like?
he didn't decide with 2 others though did he? And you can decide who gets to address parliament without standing up and giving an insulting rant
You need all three to say yes for it to happen, he said no. How complicated is that? "
Wrong! You only need agreement of the Speaker of the House of Lords and the great Royal Chamberlain to address the Royal gallery in Westminster. It appears you don't understand the UK constitution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not sure what the specific significance of the speech to our Parliament is, but, if you are prone to be a bit hysterical abou the Trump state visit you'd have to admit that some far more unsavoury regime heads have been welcomed. Robert Mugabe, the Chinese head of state, Nicolae Ceausescu to name but a few."
even north Koreans have had dinner with the speaker. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I said it wasn't the end of this story and it most certainly isn't. A motion of no confidence has been brought against Commons speaker John Bercow and he is facing calls to step down. The motion has been called by a Conservative back bencher. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I said it wasn't the end of this story and it most certainly isn't. A motion of no confidence has been brought against Commons speaker John Bercow and he is facing calls to step down. The motion has been called by a Conservative back bencher. "
The nasty party eating their own yet again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I said it wasn't the end of this story and it most certainly isn't. A motion of no confidence has been brought against Commons speaker John Bercow and he is facing calls to step down. The motion has been called by a Conservative back bencher.
The nasty party eating their own yet again."
No, a member of the Conservative party doing the right thing. Again |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I said it wasn't the end of this story and it most certainly isn't. A motion of no confidence has been brought against Commons speaker John Bercow and he is facing calls to step down. The motion has been called by a Conservative back bencher.
The nasty party eating their own yet again.
No, a member of the Conservative party doing the right thing. Again"
Bercow? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I said it wasn't the end of this story and it most certainly isn't. A motion of no confidence has been brought against Commons speaker John Bercow and he is facing calls to step down. The motion has been called by a Conservative back bencher.
The nasty party eating their own yet again.
No, a member of the Conservative party doing the right thing. Again
Bercow? "
it says a lot about you if you think he did the right thing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I said it wasn't the end of this story and it most certainly isn't. A motion of no confidence has been brought against Commons speaker John Bercow and he is facing calls to step down. The motion has been called by a Conservative back bencher.
The nasty party eating their own yet again.
No, a member of the Conservative party doing the right thing. Again
Bercow?
it says a lot about you if you think he did the right thing"
It does, it says that I don't want racist, sexist people who attack an independent judiciary |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I said it wasn't the end of this story and it most certainly isn't. A motion of no confidence has been brought against Commons speaker John Bercow and he is facing calls to step down. The motion has been called by a Conservative back bencher.
The nasty party eating their own yet again.
No, a member of the Conservative party doing the right thing. Again
Bercow?
it says a lot about you if you think he did the right thing
It does, it says that I don't want racist, sexist people who attack an independent judiciary "
and your lack of understanding of politics in this country and your contempt for democracy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"I said it wasn't the end of this story and it most certainly isn't. A motion of no confidence has been brought against Commons speaker John Bercow and he is facing calls to step down. The motion has been called by a Conservative back bencher.
The nasty party eating their own yet again.
No, a member of the Conservative party doing the right thing. Again"
the government hate him... but most backbenchers actually like him because he is very good at getting ministers to the commons for statements on current and important issues....
the government tried this last time by using a sneeky backdoor loophole (insired by then leader of the house william hague try and stab him in the back.... this time i hope if they try it (and they will fail) they are big enough to look him in the eye....
there are enough people on all sides that signed that motion asking him not to allow trump to speak that it will not happen..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I said it wasn't the end of this story and it most certainly isn't. A motion of no confidence has been brought against Commons speaker John Bercow and he is facing calls to step down. The motion has been called by a Conservative back bencher.
The nasty party eating their own yet again.
No, a member of the Conservative party doing the right thing. Again
the government hate him... but most backbenchers actually like him because he is very good at getting ministers to the commons for statements on current and important issues....
the government tried this last time by using a sneeky backdoor loophole (insired by then leader of the house william hague try and stab him in the back.... this time i hope if they try it (and they will fail) they are big enough to look him in the eye....
there are enough people on all sides that signed that motion asking him not to allow trump to speak that it will not happen....."
it is not a case of liking him or not. What he did was wrong. Maybe read what Nadhim Zahawi said about it and who he wanted to look in the eye |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I said it wasn't the end of this story and it most certainly isn't. A motion of no confidence has been brought against Commons speaker John Bercow and he is facing calls to step down. The motion has been called by a Conservative back bencher.
The nasty party eating their own yet again.
No, a member of the Conservative party doing the right thing. Again
Bercow?
it says a lot about you if you think he did the right thing
It does, it says that I don't want racist, sexist people who attack an independent judiciary
and your lack of understanding of politics in this country and your contempt for democracy"
You won't be surprised that I'm not going to take politics lessons from someone who doesn't even know if the UK has a constitution or not |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I said it wasn't the end of this story and it most certainly isn't. A motion of no confidence has been brought against Commons speaker John Bercow and he is facing calls to step down. The motion has been called by a Conservative back bencher.
The nasty party eating their own yet again.
No, a member of the Conservative party doing the right thing. Again
the government hate him... but most backbenchers actually like him because he is very good at getting ministers to the commons for statements on current and important issues....
the government tried this last time by using a sneeky backdoor loophole (insired by then leader of the house william hague try and stab him in the back.... this time i hope if they try it (and they will fail) they are big enough to look him in the eye....
there are enough people on all sides that signed that motion asking him not to allow trump to speak that it will not happen....."
1/4 of MP's signed that motion Fabio, so that's 3/4 who didn't, more than enough to get Bercow out I'd say. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I said it wasn't the end of this story and it most certainly isn't. A motion of no confidence has been brought against Commons speaker John Bercow and he is facing calls to step down. The motion has been called by a Conservative back bencher.
The nasty party eating their own yet again.
No, a member of the Conservative party doing the right thing. Again
the government hate him... but most backbenchers actually like him because he is very good at getting ministers to the commons for statements on current and important issues....
the government tried this last time by using a sneeky backdoor loophole (insired by then leader of the house william hague try and stab him in the back.... this time i hope if they try it (and they will fail) they are big enough to look him in the eye....
there are enough people on all sides that signed that motion asking him not to allow trump to speak that it will not happen.....
1/4 of MP's signed that motion Fabio, so that's 3/4 who didn't, more than enough to get Bercow out I'd say. "
Theyve been trying to get Bercow for years. This will fail as have all the other shenanigans (and rightly so) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I said it wasn't the end of this story and it most certainly isn't. A motion of no confidence has been brought against Commons speaker John Bercow and he is facing calls to step down. The motion has been called by a Conservative back bencher.
The nasty party eating their own yet again.
No, a member of the Conservative party doing the right thing. Again
the government hate him... but most backbenchers actually like him because he is very good at getting ministers to the commons for statements on current and important issues....
the government tried this last time by using a sneeky backdoor loophole (insired by then leader of the house william hague try and stab him in the back.... this time i hope if they try it (and they will fail) they are big enough to look him in the eye....
there are enough people on all sides that signed that motion asking him not to allow trump to speak that it will not happen.....
1/4 of MP's signed that motion Fabio, so that's 3/4 who didn't, more than enough to get Bercow out I'd say.
Theyve been trying to get Bercow for years. This will fail as have all the other shenanigans (and rightly so)"
Duddridge wrote to Theresa May earlier in the week asking if she would give ministers a free vote if a motion of no confidence were tabled.
Duddridge tabled the motion just before the February recess, meaning parliament will not be able to vote on it until MPs return on February 20. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Duddridge wrote to Theresa May earlier in the week asking if she would give ministers a free vote if a motion of no confidence were tabled.
Duddridge tabled the motion just before the February recess, meaning parliament will not be able to vote on it until MPs return on February 20."
Are you suggesting that the government are attempting to manipulate an outraged astroturf reaction to the speaker of the House voicing the Houses reservations in order to silence objections to Mays toadying up to Trump and his obnoxiousness?
Should we be watching for the anti Bercow stories in the scum and vile whipping up 'public outrage' over the next 10 days? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"Duddridge wrote to Theresa May earlier in the week asking if she would give ministers a free vote if a motion of no confidence were tabled.
Duddridge tabled the motion just before the February recess, meaning parliament will not be able to vote on it until MPs return on February 20.
Are you suggesting that the government are attempting to manipulate an outraged astroturf reaction to the speaker of the House voicing the Houses reservations in order to silence objections to Mays toadying up to Trump and his obnoxiousness?
Should we be watching for the anti Bercow stories in the scum and vile whipping up 'public outrage' over the next 10 days?"
It's a non-story. Bercow is a good Speaker and will survive quite easily. Maybe a tad wrong to state his views publicly but MPS have more pressing matters than to get involved in this nonsense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Duddridge wrote to Theresa May earlier in the week asking if she would give ministers a free vote if a motion of no confidence were tabled.
Duddridge tabled the motion just before the February recess, meaning parliament will not be able to vote on it until MPs return on February 20.
Are you suggesting that the government are attempting to manipulate an outraged astroturf reaction to the speaker of the House voicing the Houses reservations in order to silence objections to Mays toadying up to Trump and his obnoxiousness?
Should we be watching for the anti Bercow stories in the scum and vile whipping up 'public outrage' over the next 10 days?
It's a non-story. Bercow is a good Speaker and will survive quite easily. Maybe a tad wrong to state his views publicly but MPS have more pressing matters than to get involved in this nonsense. "
His views wont hold as he will be gone within a year
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago
Limavady |
"oh well, get got his 5 minutes of fame today
he doesn't approve
I thought the Speaker had to be Neutral ?
He is politically neutral inside the commons and also represents the commons to the outside world. He is expressing the views of MPs from both sides of the aisle."
What he's actually expressed are his own views but said they are the views of all.
Everyone can see the inconsistancies of the position considering the attitude to China but it was rash for anyone to have even considered inviting him until later in his presidency. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
I think we sometimes forget what the original argument was about
It was about him addressing both houses at Westminster hall
Only 4 people have ever addressed both houses there... the queen, the pope, nelson Mandela and president Obama
I don't think trump is in that league...and with the amount of objections on all sides from all parties if they had voted on it it would never have passed
If fact the government should almost be thanking bercow for bailing them out
The lords can still house it their if inclined to |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"I think we sometimes forget what the original argument was about
It was about him addressing both houses at Westminster hall
Only 4 people have ever addressed both houses there... the queen, the pope, nelson Mandela and president Obama
I don't think trump is in that league...and with the amount of objections on all sides from all parties if they had voted on it it would never have passed
If fact the government should almost be thanking bercow for bailing them out
The lords can still house
it their if inclined to"
And of those four, one is a convicted terrorist and one heads up an organisation that tries to cover up child abuse by its members.
Strange times indeed! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Duddridge wrote to Theresa May earlier in the week asking if she would give ministers a free vote if a motion of no confidence were tabled.
Duddridge tabled the motion just before the February recess, meaning parliament will not be able to vote on it until MPs return on February 20.
Are you suggesting that the government are attempting to manipulate an outraged astroturf reaction to the speaker of the House voicing the Houses reservations in order to silence objections to Mays toadying up to Trump and his obnoxiousness?
Should we be watching for the anti Bercow stories in the scum and vile whipping up 'public outrage' over the next 10 days?
It's a non-story. Bercow is a good Speaker and will survive quite easily. Maybe a tad wrong to state his views publicly but MPS have more pressing matters than to get involved in this nonsense.
His views wont hold as he will be gone within a year
"
True, when Bercow took the job as speaker he made it very clear he would only serve 9 years in the job. He took the job in 2009 so his time is up soon anyway by all accounts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"I think we sometimes forget what the original argument was about
It was about him addressing both houses at Westminster hall
Only 4 people have ever addressed both houses there... the queen, the pope, nelson Mandela and president Obama
I don't think trump is in that league...and with the amount of objections on all sides from all parties if they had voted on it it would never have passed
If fact the government should almost be thanking bercow for bailing them out
The lords can still house
it their if inclined to
And of those four, one is a convicted terrorist and one heads up an organisation that tries to cover up child abuse by its members.
Strange times indeed! "
And this goes to prove my argument on another thread that the term "terrorist" reveals moee about its author than it does about the person described as such. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So Trump isn't going to address parliament after all!
he never was was he?
when was the invite to?
"
well? He'd not been asked to had he? This was nothing to do with Trump and all about the Bercow show, his ego, little man syndrome and the chance of adoration from losers |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"So Trump isn't going to address parliament after all!
he never was was he?
when was the invite to?
well? He'd not been asked to had he? This was nothing to do with Trump and all about the Bercow show, his ego, little man syndrome and the chance of adoration from losers"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"So Trump isn't going to address parliament after all!
he never was was he? "
In which case it can't be a snub if he was never asked.......
So therefore nothing to be mad at the speaker for |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So Trump isn't going to address parliament after all!
he never was was he?
In which case it can't be a snub if he was never asked.......
So therefore nothing to be mad at the speaker for "
even more reason to be mad at the speaker you mean |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Bercow to the Emir of Kuwait -
'Your Highness, it is my pleasure to welcome you to our Parliament for this important stage of your state visit'
pleasure? Did he not know the human rights record of that country, especially towards women, that homosexuality is illegal and that UK/Isreali citizens were banned from entering his country?
you really couldn't make this shit up. Why is anybody defending him? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"Bercow to the Emir of Kuwait -
'Your Highness, it is my pleasure to welcome you to our Parliament for this important stage of your state visit'
pleasure? Did he not know the human rights record of that country, especially towards women, that homosexuality is illegal and that UK/Isreali citizens were banned from entering his country?
you really couldn't make this shit up. Why is anybody defending him?"
Because its easier to jump on the anti trump bandwagon than open their eyes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Bercow to the Emir of Kuwait -
'Your Highness, it is my pleasure to welcome you to our Parliament for this important stage of your state visit'
pleasure? Did he not know the human rights record of that country, especially towards women, that homosexuality is illegal and that UK/Isreali citizens were banned from entering his country?
you really couldn't make this shit up. Why is anybody defending him?
Because its easier to jump on the anti trump bandwagon than open their eyes"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Bercow to the Emir of Kuwait -
'Your Highness, it is my pleasure to welcome you to our Parliament for this important stage of your state visit'
pleasure? Did he not know the human rights record of that country, especially towards women, that homosexuality is illegal and that UK/Isreali citizens were banned from entering his country?
you really couldn't make this shit up. Why is anybody defending him?
Because its easier to jump on the anti trump bandwagon than open their eyes"
Bercow thought he could get away with a bit of virtue signalling and PC grandstanding but it has backfired on him. He's had to make an apology to the speaker of The House of Lords and now faces a motion of no confidence in the Commons. Bercow the political pygmy should've kept his mouth shut and Trump will still make a state visit to the UK no matter how much he stamps his little feet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Bercow to the Emir of Kuwait -
'Your Highness, it is my pleasure to welcome you to our Parliament for this important stage of your state visit'
pleasure? Did he not know the human rights record of that country, especially towards women, that homosexuality is illegal and that UK/Isreali citizens were banned from entering his country?
you really couldn't make this shit up. Why is anybody defending him?
Because its easier to jump on the anti trump bandwagon than open their eyes
Bercow thought he could get away with a bit of virtue signalling and PC grandstanding but it has backfired on him. He's had to make an apology to the speaker of The House of Lords and now faces a motion of no confidence in the Commons. Bercow the political pygmy should've kept his mouth shut and Trump will still make a state visit to the UK no matter how much he stamps his little feet. "
It wasn't about the state visit, it was about addressing parliament.
Anyway, Trump is such a thin-skinned narcissist that now parliament won't even be in session because he isn't mentally stable enough to handle the snub! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"Turns out that Bercow is even dafter than we thought. He voted remain 
I guess goes to show that not all Tories are morons I guess. "
And I guess that shows that some remainers are bigots |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"John Bercow - think he will pull a "sicky" this week, he will be dreading what lays ahead tomorrow "
I really don't see why him voting remain is an issue... after all, he never said anything in the campaign to influence anyone, and he let thru all the ammendments so they could be voted on and rejected....
we don't know how teresa may actually voted anyway do we.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well it seems the Brexiteers are still trying to convince themselves they acted out of something other than fear....toodle pip shit bags xx "
.....Fear of what? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well it seems the Brexiteers are still trying to convince themselves they acted out of something other than fear....toodle pip shit bags xx .....Fear of what?"
Nothing, the Leave campaign was the positive and optimistic campaign. It was Remain voters who voted for the negative Remain campaign out of fear, they fell for the bullshit Project Fear lies peddled by Cameron and Osborne. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The Brexit campaing wassoley based on fear...Fear of the Johnny foreigners, fear of the future , fear that the world is going all too fast for them, fear that the cosy pension and job security has gone ...A wind us back to the sixties mentality will not help you.....Yes shit bags that is you, look in the mirror |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" The Brexit campaing wassoley based on fear...Fear of the Johnny foreigners, fear of the future , fear that the world is going all too fast for them, fear that the cosy pension and job security has gone ...A wind us back to the sixties mentality will not help you.....Yes shit bags that is you, look in the mirror "
....Oh look a gobshit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" The Brexit campaing wassoley based on fear...Fear of the Johnny foreigners, fear of the future , fear that the world is going all too fast for them, fear that the cosy pension and job security has gone ...A wind us back to the sixties mentality will not help you.....Yes shit bags that is you, look in the mirror "
at least we can |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I can smell your fear.You have probably guessed that the £350MILLION That was going to be going to go to the NHS is in your own words GOBSHIT.......Yup you were duped suckers lol...xx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can smell your fear.You have probably guessed that the £350MILLION That was going to be going to go to the NHS is in your own words GOBSHIT.......Yup you were duped suckers lol...xx"
....go to the last post on the uk fishing post brexit..its a post for people just like you...if you can not answer 0n this post....then stick to the whats for tea threads.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Wow you have lost it ........No reality just bullshitting.......best to stick to something simple for you i think. "
....your not the coldest in the fridge...uk fishing post brexit...see you there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"Well it seems the Brexiteers are still trying to convince themselves they acted out of something other than fear....toodle pip shit bags xx .....Fear of what?
Nothing, the Leave campaign was the positive and optimistic campaign. It was Remain voters who voted for the negative Remain campaign out of fear, they fell for the bullshit Project Fear lies peddled by Cameron and Osborne. "
Ha ha ha.
Brexiters vited out of fear - fear of the migrant hordes, fear of a loss of sovreignty, fear of the EU.
Remainers voted out of fear too, the fear that our economy would crash if we left, the fear that although EU rules protecting rights are limited, they are better than those wewould be left with if you let a Tory goverment rule unfettered.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Jimi......You have to leave the politics forum and never return...You seem unlike the rest of us a sane and reasonable person. Being honest that will not wash amongst the half-wits and right wing retards we usually have .......So have fun while we will continue to inhabit La La Land xx |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well it seems the Brexiteers are still trying to convince themselves they acted out of something other than fear....toodle pip shit bags xx .....Fear of what?
Nothing, the Leave campaign was the positive and optimistic campaign. It was Remain voters who voted for the negative Remain campaign out of fear, they fell for the bullshit Project Fear lies peddled by Cameron and Osborne.
Ha ha ha.
Brexiters vited out of fear - fear of the migrant hordes, fear of a loss of sovreignty, fear of the EU.
Remainers voted out of fear too, the fear that our economy would crash if we left, the fear that although EU rules protecting rights are limited, they are better than those wewould be left with if you let a Tory goverment rule unfettered.
"
how sad |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yes how sad that our own government does not believe that the "workers" deserve to have the same rights that other Europeans will have. It will come to pass as we slide into a Del boy economy a home for the spivs. Workers on zero hours will be the norm within 20yrs...unless...... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes how sad that our own government does not believe that the "workers" deserve to have the same rights that other Europeans will have. It will come to pass as we slide into a Del boy economy a home for the spivs. Workers on zero hours will be the norm within 20yrs...unless......"
unless we stick with a Tory government. Zero hours were introduced under Labour. And you might want to check out what some other European workers rights are compared to the UK's |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Wow.
Yes, this is definitely a labour government thing. The labour government who introduced a whole raft of legislation to improve workers rights including the minimum wage. All of which was fought tooth and nail by the Tory Right.
Can you give us the stats on how many people were on zero hours contracts under labour and how many since the tories got in?
I'm gonna guess it's been a rise of food bank proportion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can smell your fear.You have probably guessed that the £350MILLION That was going to be going to go to the NHS is in your own words GOBSHIT.......Yup you were duped suckers lol...xx"
They never said the £350M was going to go to the NHS, they said it COULD go to the NHS. It was an example of what could be done with the money that goes to the EU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"I can smell your fear.You have probably guessed that the £350MILLION That was going to be going to go to the NHS is in your own words GOBSHIT.......Yup you were duped suckers lol...xx
They never said the £350M was going to go to the NHS, they said it COULD go to the NHS. It was an example of what could be done with the money that goes to the EU."
"We spend £100 a month on fruit and veg. Let's spend it on heating our home instead."
Does this mean that instead of spending £100 a month on fruit and veg we will spend it on heating our home instead? Or does it mean that instead of spending £100 a month on fruit and veg we will spend £10 on eating our home, £50 on booze, £20 at the butchers and £20 on chocolate?
The statement about funding the NHS was done intentionally to dupe people because even according to your argument, it was not the whole truth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"seems you boys & girls have forgotten what this thread is about,
.
here is a little reminder;
John Bercow opposed to Trump addressing MPs
.
"
Voltaire purportedly once said "I don't agree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it"
It generally seems on here, as elsewhere, that those who like what he said think he was right and had the right to say it and those that don't agree with what he said think he was wrong and did not have the right to say it.
As Speaker of the House of Commons it is his decision who he invites to address the Commons and he has the legal right to say no to anyone he chooses. As a citizen of the UK he has the right to free speech and pass his opinion on Trump if he wishes. So, legally, he definitely has the right to say what he said and do what he did, whether I or anyone else agrees with it or not.
However, by convention, addressing the House of Commons is a decision of the government of the day done through the speaker. The speaker refusing to grant such a request would be a bit like the Queen refusing to give Royal Assent to a new law; it's legally possible but should never actually happen. Also, by convention, the Speaker should remain neutral, especially on current issues, and not be seen as partial. His comments on Trump are clearly not impartial.
So, going back to Voltaire, my feelings on this are the complete opposite of Voltaire's famous phrase.
I totally agree with what he said but do not accept that he was right for to say it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So did Bercow resign then? "
no idea, obviously he wasn't speaker yesterday when the speaker informed parliament it was being closed down and a lockdown would take place |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So did Bercow resign then?
He is still in Westminster, saw him hovering around on the news
I read that as hoovering then "
saw him when a news article was filming the lockdown of parliament, he was walking into parliament, walks weird with his feet pointing ten to two, right strange looking fellow, kind of understand why his wife strayed so many times |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
