Are these people a special case - Page 7

garinda · 16-03-2010, 13:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Don't give up on the art.

I'm blessed, being multi-skilled, while others struggle to master one.

If they're lucky enough to find out what it is.

Mancie · 16-03-2010, 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

Again, the Lords does not have the power you seem to think. The Commons is elected, and accountable to the electorate. They're the body that hold ultimate decision making power, and they can overrule any amendment suggested by the Lords.

We don't need an elected second chamber because the body with ultimate decision making power, is ultimately accountable to us, the people. When government make decisions we know exactly how to remove them if we disagree.

I know what powers the Lords have..the Commons does have the ultimate power to overide the Lords.. but the Lords can block, or slow down legislation in some cases for years.
Andrew does put up a good case against having another elected house.. but there's no getting away with the fact that no one in this society should have the power to slow down, block laws, on the basis of whatever family they were born into.. it's just not on.

Mancie · 17-03-2010, 00:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

Once again, you totally ignore the facts that are inconvenient to your political point of view. Yes, it is ridiculous that people should be able to block law because of who their ancestors were. It is equally ridiculous that people should be able to block law because they sucked up to Tony Blair. He promised to reform the Lords by like so much he promised, it proved to be no more than words...but you don't want to talk about that, becuase you might have to criticize your beloved Labour government.

And while we're at, could you, as a believer in socialist democracy, explain exactly why Mandelson is in such a powerful position in this government, despite having no mandate from the British people...or is that something else you want to conveniently ignore?

You've got me lost now Wynonie.. I'm not ignoring anything about Blair or Mandelson, and it maybe thier antics are ridiculous, but no more or less that other Governments red or blue have done in the past.

Wynonie Harris · 17-03-2010, 09:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

You've got me lost now Wynonie.. I'm not ignoring anything about Blair or Mandelson, and it maybe thier antics are ridiculous, but no more or less that other Governments red or blue have done in the past.

I'm a democrat like you Mancie and the Lords is a joke to any forward-thinking democrat - an anachronism from an earlier age when us 'umble folks knew our place and doffed our caps to t'master. But what I'm saying is, your lot had a great chance to change it and bring it kicking and screaming into the modern era. But what did they do?...they got rid of some, but not all, of the hereditary crew and replaced them with toadies and bootlickers. You seem curiously silent on that. Now it looks like the Tories will be coming back in and there's no way they're going to reform it - you can see that from AndrewB's comments - so we'll be stuck with the likes of Uddin indefinitely.

garinda · 17-03-2010, 09:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

I'm a democrat like you Mancie and the Lords is a joke to any forward-thinking democrat - an anachronism from an earlier age when us 'umble folks knew our place and doffed our caps to t'master. But what I'm saying is, your lot had a great chance to change it and bring it kicking and screaming into the modern era. But what did they do?...they got rid of some, but not all, of the hereditary crew and replaced them with toadies and bootlickers. You seem curiously silent on that. Now it looks like the Tories will be coming back in and there's no way they're going to reform it - you can see that from AndrewB's comments - so we'll be stuck with the likes of Uddin indefinitely.

Mancie's a traditionalist at heart, and changing the order of things, would probably upset him.

If you break down the 'us and them' barriers, he wouldn't know which way to turn.

jaysay · 17-03-2010, 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Mancie's a traditionalist at heart, and changing the order of things, would probably upset him.

If you break down the 'us and them' barriers, he wouldn't know which way to turn.

It will most certainly be LEFT Rindi

Wynonie Harris · 12-04-2010, 19:00

...and now the ultimate insult for us hard pressed taxpayers...we have to cough up for their legal costs! Not surprisingly, the boy David is milking it for all he's worth and equally not surprisingly, the gurning inadequate is ignoring questions on it.

cashman · 12-04-2010, 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

...and now the ultimate insult for us hard pressed taxpayers...we have to cough up for their legal costs! Not surprisingly, the boy David is milking it for all he's worth and equally not surprisingly, the gurning inadequate is ignoring questions on it.

The thing is Wyn, things like that, win votes FACT, the knobs will say- thats good, those with any brain cells will say- it sounds ok, but whats underlying with this legal aid thing? thing is too find out what or if owt else suffers n then decide on that basis if its ok or not.

Wynonie Harris · 12-04-2010, 21:24

Seems that legal aid was previously available to anyone who was in danger of going to prison. Now it's being means tested but the change is only being introduced gradually and hasn't reached Southwark County Court yet. Still, IF they are found guilty, they'll have to pay it all back. Let's see how it plays out...

cashman · 12-04-2010, 21:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

Seems that legal aid was previously available to anyone who was in danger of going to prison. Now it's being means tested but the change is only being introduced gradually and hasn't reached Southwark County Court yet. Still, IF they are found guilty, they'll have to pay it all back. Let's see how it plays out...

Thought was always means tested in some way?

Wynonie Harris · 12-04-2010, 21:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

Thought was always means tested in some way?

Yeah, I couldn't understand that, but I'm sure it's what they said on telly. If there was means testing, surely these three wouldn't have qualified with their MPs salaries?

cashman · 12-04-2010, 21:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

Yeah, I couldn't understand that, but I'm sure it's what they said on telly. If there was means testing, surely these three wouldn't have qualified with their MPs salaries?

Put it this way, back in 60s a guy i know was refused it, cos parents had a few bob, or so he told me.

garinda · 12-04-2010, 22:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

Thought was always means tested in some way?

'Under means testing, anyone with a monthly disposable income of £283 or more and/or capital assets of more than £30,000 would be asked to contribute towards their defence. None of the three charged defendants are standing at the election and would normally be eligible of “resettlement allowances” of up to £65,000, which is frozen until a verdict is returned. The House of Commons Commission will decide what to do next once that verdict is known.'
'Expenses MPs' Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine get legal aid - Times Online

Ironically, it seems because their resetlement packages, due to 'retirement', have been frozen until after the trial, that this therefore makes them eligible for legal aid.

Outrageous.

I bet if I was allowed to have a good root through their personal effects, I could find evidence of monthly incomes greater than £283. per month, and proof of assets worth more than thirty thousand quid.

cashman · 12-04-2010, 22:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

'Under means testing, anyone with a monthly disposable income of £283 or more and/or capital assets of more than £30,000 would be asked to contribute towards their defence. None of the three charged defendants are standing at the election and would normally be eligible of “resettlement allowances” of up to £65,000, which is frozen until a verdict is returned. The House of Commons Commission will decide what to do next once that verdict is known.'
'Expenses MPs' Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine get legal aid - Times Online

Ironically, it seems because their resetlement packages, due to 'retirement', have been frozen until after the trial, that this therefore makes them eligible for legal aid.

Outrageous.

I bet if I was allowed to have a good root through their personal effects, I could find evidence of monthly incomes greater than £283. per month, and proof of assets worth more than thirty thousand quid.

Would be very interesting to note, if the packages were unfrozen, would they use the money on these shameful appeals? i doubt it very much meself.

garinda · 12-04-2010, 23:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

Would be very interesting to note, if the packages were unfrozen, would they use the money on these shameful appeals? i doubt it very much meself.

Thieves.

How they all fought in the past, to keep their expenses secret...in the interest of 'security'.

Probably true, though.

If people had been allowed to know sooner, they'd have been publicly lynched.