[LPK]

Sorry, but I'm still a nay. I'm not qualified to be making any determinations on such an important medical issue, and I don't see it as my place to undermine recommendations from the experts on this by voting in favour of what is now a over-inflated deferall period.

They say 12 months, we say 5 years? Either the committee of experts have made a grave medical error, or we've completely missed the ball by turning MSM donations into a political issue.

[Abiraleft]

(Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
It was? Oh ok then.

I don't think anyone in the HoC really noticed the RL changes at the time. I only noticed because someone had posted a thread about it on a different part of TSR; by that time, the Bill had already gone into cessation, so I wasn't sure what to do. I thought perhaps the makers of the bill would have seen the news as well and make the necessary changes, but evidently not.

[cambo211]

I wonder how many people have voted without knowing about the changes to the law.

[Morgsie]

It is an Aye from me.

[TheCrackInTime]

I can't quite believe how many people think we should increase the deferral period to five years, despite medical experts saying that one year is enough. I really don't know how the TSR Government can defend that.

[cambo211]

(Original post by TheCrackInTime)
I can't quite believe how many people think we should increase the deferral period to five years, despite medical experts saying that one year is enough. I really don't know how the TSR Government can defend that.

I doubt many people are actually reading this conversation.

[Indievertigo]

Voted no on the basis of the above conversation.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by cambo211)
I doubt many people are actually reading this conversation.

I agree, just following the government whip without checking any facts as to how this is not correct... especially in light of RL events.

This should have been withdrawn imo.

[cambo211]

(Original post by paddy__power)

Do you think this bill is still necessary given the change to the law made by the RL Government?

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by cambo211)
Do you think this bill is still necessary given the change to the law made by the RL Government?

Probably not, no, but I think the intention of it was good and thus I voted aye

[tehFrance]

(Original post by paddy__power)
Probably not, no, but I think the intention of it was good and thus I voted aye

Even with the five year limit? do you not think it should of been revised to the RL bill?

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Even with the five year limit? do you not think it should of been revised to the RL bill?

The intention was good. We should thrive on ideas in the house and yes, while RL developments render this essentially redundant that doesn't negate the work that went into it and the fact that what it aimed to do was positive. For that reason I still vote aye but yes, it should have been. If I'm honest I just don't think any of us had seen the news about the developments at that time and of course that is our own fault.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by paddy__power)
If I'm honest I just don't think any of us had seen the news about the developments at that time.

Despite the fact it was brought up about the change in the discussion thread? I can't remember who brought it up but I believe it was.

[ByronicHero]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Despite the fact it was brought up about the change in the discussion thread? I can't remember who brought it up but I believe it was.

It quite possibly was and, as said, the blame rests with the government here for being admittedly rather slack but such is life. I won't lose any sleep

[Abiraleft]

Right, I'm voting no.

(Original post by tehFrance)
This should have been withdrawn imo.

It was a well written bill and a good one when first proposed, imo, but there's no way I can support it in light of RL changes to law.

[Thunder and Jazz]

FYI, we can just amend this after it passes guys

[Metrobeans]

The ayes have it! The ayes have it!