[TheCrackInTime]

Further to the response of the PM in the PMQ's thread, what is the opinion of TSR Liberal Democrats over the US investigation into the release of the Lockerbie bomber?

[Matthew_Lowson]

Having already my view known I'll invite members to give their personal opinions.

[Afcwimbledon2]

Personally I think it isn't their right to investigate over a United Kingdom matter. If there was to be an investigation it should be done by the United Kingdom and only the United Kingdom. We are not the USA's 51st state.

[Student2806]

(Original post by aaran-j)
Further to the response of the PM in the PMQ's thread, what is the opinion of TSR Liberal Democrats over the US investigation into the release of the Lockerbie bomber?

The US Senate can huff and puff all it wants, but ultimately it has no jurisdiction to demand UK and Scottish government officials travel to Washington to answer its questions. I also don't think it's right that it's so publicly questioning a UK matter.

[elli_emc]

If the US Senate has evidence that might prompt an enquiry then, as Minister for Justice, I would welcome them to bring it to my department's attention. Until such evidence has been provided, it is a matter for the British Government, we do our own housekeeping, we don't outsource as far as we are concerned.

[chiggy321]

I wish to echo a question I asked, and didn't get a sufficient answer for, that came up in PMQs.

I asked what the PM's opinion on the Moat Manhunt and he said he didn't feel it was necessary or indeed correct for him to give his own opinion. Do correct me if I'm wrong but isn't PMQs about the PM's opinion? As he doesn't represent a particular element of Government surely the PM can only answer in his own opinion? Otherwise PMQs is just a lazy opportunity to question a Government department's policy but not in it's specific alloted period.

[Student2806]

(Original post by chiggy321)
I wish to echo a question I asked, and didn't get a sufficient answer for, that came up in PMQs.

I asked what the PM's opinion on the Moat Manhunt and he said he didn't feel it was necessary or indeed correct for him to give his own opinion. Do correct me if I'm wrong but isn't PMQs about the PM's opinion? As he doesn't represent a particular element of Government surely the PM can only answer in his own opinion? Otherwise PMQs is just a lazy opportunity to question a Government department's policy but not in it's specific alloted period.

PMQs is by definition "a place to ask questions to the Prime Minister on any aspect of government policy" (taken from Drogue's OP in this week's session). The Raoul Moat incident is not government policy and the PM was therefore under no obligation to answer a question on it.

[ByronicHero]

What are your opinions on positive discrimination policies?

[Eoin0x]

Are you advocates of the 2004 orange book?

[elli_emc]

(Original post by paddy__power)
What are your opinions on positive discrimination policies?

Personally I am against any discrimination, positive or negative, candidates for jobs should be judged on the qualities that they can bring to the workplace and the position that they are being considered for. Quotas and the like are not conducive to moving in a positive direction when it comes to equality - we should be encouraging equality to grow, not forcing equality down people's throats, that being said, we are moving in the right direction I think.

To me, part of an individual's background or person that might sometimes be seen as a negative in discrimination terms may be a positive to the role that they are applying for, that's a consideration that should be taken, but that's not discrimination, to me anyway, it's a practical consideration.

(Original post by Eoin0x)
Are you advocates of the 2004 orange book?

I don't think that any text published almost four years ago can be considered a policy declaration, especially considering that it was intended as a declaration of the ideas of Liberalism, not necessarily the RL Liberal Democrat party.

I do, however, support some of the ideas in the Orange Book - Mark Oaten-(yes, I know)-'s chapter on education in prisons has recommendations that I am going to be looking into in my role as Minister for Justice - prisoner literacy rates were poor and in some cases still will be.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by elli_emc)
Personally I am against any discrimination, positive or negative, candidates for jobs should be judged on the qualities that they can bring to the workplace and the position that they are being considered for. Quotas and the like are not conducive to moving in a positive direction when it comes to equality - we should be encouraging equality to grow, not forcing equality down people's throats, that being said, we are moving in the right direction I think.

To me, part of an individual's background or person that might sometimes be seen as a negative in discrimination terms may be a positive to the role that they are applying for, that's a consideration that should be taken, but that's not discrimination, to me anyway, it's a practical consideration.



I don't think that any text published almost four years ago can be considered a policy declaration, especially considering that it was intended as a declaration of the ideas of Liberalism, not necessarily the RL Liberal Democrat party.

I do, however, support some of the ideas in the Orange Book - Mark Oaten-(yes, I know)-'s chapter on education in prisons has recommendations that I am going to be looking into in my role as Minister for Justice - prisoner literacy rates were poor and in some cases still will be.

Thanks for the reply =]

[ByronicHero]

What is your view on the UK paying for the Pope's visit? I have seen estimates ranging from 4 - 20 million pounds and was just wondering what your party thinks about this?

[Student2806]

(Original post by paddy__power)
What is your view on the UK paying for the Pope's visit? I have seen estimates ranging from 4 - 20 million pounds and was just wondering what your party thinks about this?

I think the current figure is about £12 million, not including policing costs. Personally, while I am not against the Pope visiting the UK, I am against UK taxpayers having to pay for it, especially at such a financially difficult time for everyone.
I'm also apoplectic at reports that West Midlands and Strathclyde Police forces are having to take money out of their own, already stretched, annual budgets to cover police costs for when the Pope visits these regions. If this is indeed true it's absolutely disgraceful, considering police forces up and down the country are having to make redundancies to cope with budget cuts.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by Student2806)
I think the current figure is about £12 million, not including policing costs. Personally, while I am not against the Pope visiting the UK, I am against UK taxpayers having to pay for it, especially at such a financially difficult time for everyone.
I'm also apoplectic at reports that West Midlands and Strathclyde Police forces are having to take money out of their own, already stretched, annual budgets to cover police costs for when the Pope visits these regions. If this is indeed true it's absolutely disgraceful, considering police forces up and down the country are having to make redundancies to cope with budget cuts.

I believe so but it changes all the time. Even 4 million is far too much IMO.

Thanks for the reply.

[abucha3]

(Original post by paddy__power)
What is your view on the UK paying for the Pope's visit? I have seen estimates ranging from 4 - 20 million pounds and was just wondering what your party thinks about this?

Personally, I believe that the Taxpayer should fund some of the Pope's visit. This would include the costs for the Police to protect him. The Pope is the Head of the Catholic Church, like the Queen is the Head of the Church Of England - we would protect the Queen, so we should protect the Pope. Also Catholicism and Anglicanism are very closely linked (I converted two years ago) and there are many Catholics in the UK - which is why it would be appropriate to offer protection.

[Matthew_Lowson]

(Original post by paddy__power)
What is your view on the UK paying for the Pope's visit? I have seen estimates ranging from 4 - 20 million pounds and was just wondering what your party thinks about this?

Personally I'm a Catholic and I'm going to get the chance to meet him in September. It is a visit for everyone i.e. no Anglican, Jew etc is going to be forbidden from attending the events.

[Student2806]

(Original post by abucha3)
Personally, I believe that the Taxpayer should fund some of the Pope's visit. This would include the costs for the Police to protect him. The Pope is the Head of the Catholic Church, like the Queen is the Head of the Church Of England - we would protect the Queen, so we should protect the Pope. Also Catholicism and Anglicanism are very closely linked (I converted two years ago) and there are many Catholics in the UK - which is why it would be appropriate to offer protection.

The difference between the Queen and the Pope though is that she visits foreign countries solely as the UK's Head of State, not as the head of the CoE - the Pope is visiting as both the Head of State of the Vatican City and the head of the Catholic Church, and will hold an open air mass in Glasgow and beautify a Cardinal in Birmingham.
I would advocate that while the UK taxpayer should fund his visit as Head of State of the Vatican City State (and any duties he carries out in that role (for example the speech he will give to politicians and business leaders in Westminster Hall) like it does for other Heads of State, the costs of any papal duties that he carries out (including security considerations) should be paid for by the Catholic Church and not the taxpayer.

[elli_emc]

(Original post by Student2806)
The difference between the Queen and the Pope though is that she visits foreign countries solely as the UK's Head of State, not as the head of the CoE - the Pope is visiting as both the Head of State of the Vatican City and the head of the Catholic Church, and will hold an open air mass in Glasgow and beautify a Cardinal in Birmingham.
I would advocate that while the UK taxpayer should fund his visit as Head of State of the Vatican City State (and any duties he carries out in that role (for example the speech he will give to politicians and business leaders in Westminster Hall) like it does for other Heads of State, the costs of any papal duties that he carries out (including security considerations) should be paid for by the Catholic Church and not the taxpayer.

Seconded.

[abucha3]

(Original post by Student2806)
The difference between the Queen and the Pope though is that she visits foreign countries solely as the UK's Head of State, not as the head of the CoE - the Pope is visiting as both the Head of State of the Vatican City and the head of the Catholic Church, and will hold an open air mass in Glasgow and beautify a Cardinal in Birmingham.
I would advocate that while the UK taxpayer should fund his visit as Head of State of the Vatican City State (and any duties he carries out in that role (for example the speech he will give to politicians and business leaders in Westminster Hall) like it does for other Heads of State, the costs of any papal duties that he carries out (including security considerations) should be paid for by the Catholic Church and not the taxpayer.

Fair enough

Although, I would be inclined to pay for the security as well. The Pope is our country and needs to be protected from our citizens, so we should use our money to pay our Police Force to protect him.

[ByronicHero]

Thanks for the replies.