peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,266
|
Post by peterl on Sept 7, 2020 14:15:38 GMT
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Sept 7, 2020 17:41:51 GMT
Stuart Andrew and Mark Tami are busy, aren't they.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Sept 7, 2020 17:59:54 GMT
In that case, surely only a matter of time before said name (I have not worked it out myself - yet) enters more general circulation. Mark my words, it's already in circulation.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 10, 2020 13:28:36 GMT
Stuart Andrew and Mark Tami are busy, aren't they. It looks like they're just the designated whips on the respective sides for anybody who wants a proxy. Similarly Patrick Grady for the SNP and Alastair Carmichael for the Liberals. Most of the SCG seem to have nominated each other, but some of the other patterns are interesting - people with rebellious tendencies who've just picked a whip, but also loyalists who've picked somebody you wouldn't think they see eye to eye with.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 10, 2020 15:45:44 GMT
Stuart Andrew and Mark Tami are busy, aren't they. It looks like they're just the designated whips on the respective sides for anybody who wants a proxy. Similarly Patrick Grady for the SNP and Alastair Carmichael for the Liberals. Most of the SCG seem to have nominated each other, but some of the other patterns are interesting - people with rebellious tendencies who've just picked a whip, but also loyalists who've picked somebody you wouldn't think they see eye to eye with. I believe that both main parties are using their pairing whips to manage this. Sensible solution really.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Sept 10, 2020 15:53:06 GMT
One day we'll wake up and find Mark Tami and Stuart Andrew have launched a coup and voted themselves co-presidents for life.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 21,989
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 10, 2020 20:57:44 GMT
I have a name. I will not post the name here, but if you follow a deductive process considering who meets the earlier criteria such as age and then excluding those who have not voted in the last week, only one name remains. In that case, surely only a matter of time before said name (I have not worked it out myself - yet) enters more general circulation. You say that like it's some sort of revelation. Most of us have had an idea of who it is for weeks. Mark my words, it's already in circulation. I genuinely have no idea who it is. I am puzzled by the situation, because the only speculation that I have seen on Twitter is of the wishful-thinking variety (people naming names of people they don't like, and who don't fit the known criteria anyway) rather than more well-informed obvious clues and hints. The bit of my brain which is naturally curious, and which wants to find out, is probably outweighed by the legal / procedural bit of my brain which says that I ought not to know. If we need to know, we will find out in due course.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 21,989
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 10, 2020 21:00:08 GMT
P.S. I'm not sure whether the bit about "has agreed not to attend the House" means that he is going to vote in divisions by proxy, or is not going to vote at all.
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Sept 10, 2020 21:45:24 GMT
I have a name. I will not post the name here, but if you follow a deductive process considering who meets the earlier criteria such as age and then excluding those who have not voted in the last week, only one name remains. In that case, surely only a matter of time before said name (I have not worked it out myself - yet) enters more general circulation. You say that like it's some sort of revelation. Most of us have had an idea of who it is for weeks. Mark my words, it's already in circulation. I genuinely have no idea who it is. I am puzzled by the situation, because the only speculation that I have seen on Twitter is of the wishful-thinking variety (people naming names of people they don't like, and who don't fit the known criteria anyway) rather than more well-informed obvious clues and hints. The bit of my brain which is naturally curious, and which wants to find out, is probably outweighed by the legal / procedural bit of my brain which says that I ought not to know. If we need to know, we will find out in due course. I don't like that viewpoint. The 'we'll know if we need to' is a surefire way to give government a licence to suppress. Sure, in this case, it ain't a serious matter. One day though, we'll need to know something and we won't because of that sort of attitude.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 10, 2020 22:23:58 GMT
I genuinely have no idea who it is. I am puzzled by the situation, because the only speculation that I have seen on Twitter is of the wishful-thinking variety (people naming names of people they don't like, and who don't fit the known criteria anyway) rather than more well-informed obvious clues and hints. The bit of my brain which is naturally curious, and which wants to find out, is probably outweighed by the legal / procedural bit of my brain which says that I ought not to know. If we need to know, we will find out in due course. I don't like that viewpoint. The 'we'll know if we need to' is a surefire way to give government a licence to suppress. Sure, in this case, it ain't a serious matter. One day though, we'll need to know something and we won't because of that sort of attitude. An allegation of rape has been made. A "serious matter". The alleged perpetrator has been interviewed, but - as I understand it - not charged, let alone convicted. Naming that person would undoubtedly impact adversely on his reputation. If he is found guilty then clearly that adverse impact would be entirely appropriate. But if there is no case to answer then why should he be identified? It's natural justice, not "suppression".
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Sept 10, 2020 22:38:14 GMT
I don't like that viewpoint. The 'we'll know if we need to' is a surefire way to give government a licence to suppress. Sure, in this case, it ain't a serious matter. One day though, we'll need to know something and we won't because of that sort of attitude. An allegation of rape has been made. A "serious matter". The alleged perpetrator has been interviewed, but - as I understand it - not charged, let alone convicted. Naming that person would undoubtedly impact adversely on his reputation. If he is found guilty then clearly that adverse impact would be entirely appropriate. But if there is no case to answer then why should he be identified? It's natural justice, not "suppression". Re-read what I said. The idea that we need to know what we're told is what I have a problem with.
|
|
|
Post by bluelabour on Sept 10, 2020 22:43:42 GMT
I don't like that viewpoint. The 'we'll know if we need to' is a surefire way to give government a licence to suppress. Sure, in this case, it ain't a serious matter. One day though, we'll need to know something and we won't because of that sort of attitude. An allegation of rape has been made. A "serious matter". The alleged perpetrator has been interviewed, but - as I understand it - not charged, let alone convicted. Naming that person would undoubtedly impact adversely on his reputation. If he is found guilty then clearly that adverse impact would be entirely appropriate. But if there is no case to answer then why should he be identified? It's natural justice, not "suppression". A true liberal speaks.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Sept 10, 2020 23:02:00 GMT
I don't like that viewpoint. The 'we'll know if we need to' is a surefire way to give government a licence to suppress. Sure, in this case, it ain't a serious matter. One day though, we'll need to know something and we won't because of that sort of attitude. An allegation of rape has been made. A "serious matter". The alleged perpetrator has been interviewed, but - as I understand it - not charged, let alone convicted. Naming that person would undoubtedly impact adversely on his reputation. If he is found guilty then clearly that adverse impact would be entirely appropriate. But if there is no case to answer then why should he be identified? It's natural justice, not "suppression". The only bit I would disagree with is if, following a police investigation and CPS case review, it is decided that the charging standards have been met, then he (or anyone else in the criminal justice system) should be named at that juncture.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 21,989
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 10, 2020 23:09:13 GMT
The bit of my brain which is naturally curious, and which wants to find out, is probably outweighed by the legal / procedural bit of my brain which says that I ought not to know. If we need to know, we will find out in due course. I don't like that viewpoint. The 'we'll know if we need to' is a surefire way to give government a licence to suppress. Sure, in this case, it ain't a serious matter. One day though, we'll need to know something and we won't because of that sort of attitude. It is not being suppressed by the government. It is being suppressed by the laws and established procedures of the criminal legal process.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Sept 11, 2020 3:35:28 GMT
I don't like that viewpoint. The 'we'll know if we need to' is a surefire way to give government a licence to suppress. Sure, in this case, it ain't a serious matter. One day though, we'll need to know something and we won't because of that sort of attitude. It is not being suppressed by the government. It is being suppressed by the laws and established procedures of the criminal legal process. Which are enacted and enforced by the government.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Sept 11, 2020 8:48:47 GMT
It is not being suppressed by the government. It is being suppressed by the laws and established procedures of the criminal legal process. Which are enacted and enforced by the government. Which weakens the whole body of laws and established procedures if it is perceived to be disregarding or altering existing laws or procedures at whim. Curiously, this used to be seen as a fundamental principle of conservatism.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 11, 2020 11:09:43 GMT
An allegation of rape has been made. A "serious matter". The alleged perpetrator has been interviewed, but - as I understand it - not charged, let alone convicted. Naming that person would undoubtedly impact adversely on his reputation. If he is found guilty then clearly that adverse impact would be entirely appropriate. But if there is no case to answer then why should he be identified? It's natural justice, not "suppression". The only bit I would disagree with is if, following a police investigation and CPS case review, it is decided that the charging standards have been met, then he (or anyone else in the criminal justice system) should be named at that juncture. Indeed. And, one assumes, that will happen.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 11, 2020 11:12:00 GMT
An allegation of rape has been made. A "serious matter". The alleged perpetrator has been interviewed, but - as I understand it - not charged, let alone convicted. Naming that person would undoubtedly impact adversely on his reputation. If he is found guilty then clearly that adverse impact would be entirely appropriate. But if there is no case to answer then why should he be identified? It's natural justice, not "suppression". A true liberal speaks. On this Forum, of course, one wonders whether there is some subtle meaning here . . .
|
|
|
Post by bluelabour on Sept 11, 2020 14:00:19 GMT
On this Forum, of course, one wonders whether there is some subtle meaning here . . . No my comment was to be taken at face value! I found what you said to be very refreshing in the age of guilty until proven innocent.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 11, 2020 15:37:57 GMT
On this Forum, of course, one wonders whether there is some subtle meaning here . . . No my comment was to be taken at face value! I found what you said to be very refreshing in the age of guilty until proven innocent. Thank you.
|
|