Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

M72 - Diamond Jubilee 'Big Lunch' Motion

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
Applying to uni this year? Check out our new personal statement advice hub 28-11-2014
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    People should be free to celebrate royal events. Street parties and closing of streets though will just infringe on the lives of those that don't care in the slightest about the monarchy. Have parties by all means, hold them in public if you must - but make it somewhere like a park or a civic centre so it's not in the way of those that just want to treat it like any other day.
    Trick or Treating infringes the lives of those who don't care in the slightest about Halloween.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I respect your decision on this issue.
    Likewise.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Aye, so long as these aren't council funded (which they aren't) then I support them wholeheartedly as a means of bringing communities together.
    • 33 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I plan to abstain as I don't care either way on the matter to be brutally honest. The Government surely has bigger issues to consider than Jubilee lunches, which are likely to go ahead regardless of the outcome of this motion.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    I plan to abstain as I don't care either way on the matter to be brutally honest. The Government surely has bigger issues to consider than Jubilee lunches, which are likely to go ahead regardless of the outcome of this motion.
    This from the man who just gave us tanning salon legislation :yawn:
    • 33 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    This from the man who just gave us tanning salon legislation :yawn:
    Tanning legislation is designed to prevent skin cancer rates and save lives. This motion is designed to encourage something that will happen regardless of what the government says. I'm know what I'm more proud of - prioritising cancer prevention over frivolous tea parties. You need to seriously reassess your priorities if you consider the latter issue to be more importance.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    People don't need government consent to have parties in their own areas, for this reason I nay.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    Tanning legislation is designed to prevent skin cancer rates and save lives. This motion is designed to encourage something that will happen regardless of what the government says. I'm know what I'm more proud of - prioritising cancer prevention over frivolous tea parties. You need to seriously reassess your priorities if you consider the latter issue to be more importance.
    Puh-lease.

    Why not just outright ban tanning salons then, that'd help reduce cancer even more.

    This is a rather frivolous motion and yours is a rather pointless bill.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't see the need for this motion? More than doing anything new, it's more a description of the benefits of street parties and a statement of things local councils can already do?
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamF1992)
    I don't see the need for this motion? More than doing anything new, it's more a description of the benefits of street parties and a statement of things local councils can already do?
    In fairness, motion's don't really have a "need". They're a statement from the house (in this case, encouraging councils to do what they're already meant to do and expediate the organisation of public events). It's bills which have "needs" - needs that are, in theory, addressed by the bill. That's why motion's start with "This house believes..." then in theory is just a tail of signatures.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    In fairness, motion's don't really have a "need". They're a statement from the house (in this case, encouraging councils to do what they're already meant to do and expediate the organisation of public events). It's bills which have "needs" - needs that are, in theory, addressed by the bill. That's why motion's start with "This house believes..." then in theory is just a tail of signatures.
    Ahh ok then, fair enough, in that case I'm not too fussed about it. Only objection I'd have would be to the potential closing of roads. I'd be a bit annoyed if I couldn't get somewhere because of a party.
    • 62 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alofleicester)
    While I agree with the idea of promoting community cohesion, as an anti-royalist I believe this just causes unnecessary disruption to everyday life. Nay.
    :ditto:
    • 26 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Aye

    The Big Society...
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Nay, simply because I don't see any need for people to get special treatment throwing these events over any other.
    • 49 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Nay. As a British Republican (although still a British Unionist, not royalist), I am against wasting councils' time in organising a celebration for the Queen.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't really see the need for it, it's easy enough as it is to plan a street party. My family are involved in planning one in our village and the local council have done nothing to interfere with the process, they have merely allowed us use of a street and pretty much let us get on with on it.
    • 38 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Aye from me
    • 35 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I respect your decision on this issue.
    You respect his decision after haranguing him. Nice.
    • 48 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    You respect his decision after haranguing him. Nice.
    I respected his decision in the first place, but his argument wasn't exactly a great argument for opposing the motion.
Updated: April 18, 2012
New on TSR

Exclusive Nick Clegg interview

Your questions answered by the deputy prime minister

Article updates
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.