[Metrobeans]

M75 - Roche Release of Information Motion, Labour

Roche Release of Information Motion - Labour

This House believes that Roche's, the company which markets Tamiflu, decision to not release requested information concerning medical trials of Tamiflu is wrong. This information is required by independent scientists to determine whether Tamiflu would have been an effective treatment in the event of a widespread "Bird Flu" pandemic, and as such, it is in the public interest that this information should be revealed.

[toronto353]

So nothing's changed so why a second reading. Also, there's the odd problem with grammar. Split infinitives are not usually used. 'to not release' should really be 'not to release' if we're being pedantic, but apart from that, I would like to know why this has come to a second reading when it is unchanged.

[tehFrance]

Nope, they are obviously not ready for the information to be made public, just because it is promising doesn't mean it is anywhere near ready and the fact they are a private company too makes me say no.

[cl_steele]

for the reasons given on the first reading, still a no.

[Mechie]

(Original post by toronto353)
So nothing's changed so why a second reading. Also, there's the odd problem with grammar. Split infinitives are not usually used. 'to not release' should really be 'not to release' if we're being pedantic, but apart from that, I would like to know why this has come to a second reading when it is unchanged.

It has changed, the completely unformed sentence that was in the first reading has been fixed

[Keckers]

As J&T mentioned at the end of the first reading, why not just have the government test it if they have huge stockpiles of it?

[toronto353]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
It has changed, the completely unformed sentence that was in the first reading has been fixed

With a split infinitive. So we've gone from a sentence fragment to a split infinitive - it's an improvement I guess.

[Mechie]

(Original post by toronto353)
With a split infinitive. So we've gone from a sentence fragment to a split infinitive - it's an improvement I guess.

I'd much rather have a split infinitive than a sentence fragment - only pernickity people like you spot the former

[toronto353]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
I'd much rather have a split infinitive than a sentence fragment - only pernickity people like you spot the former

Same here, but I assume that you'll correct that for the vote/ third reading.

[DebatingGreg]

I though split infinitives were reasonably acceptable?

[toronto353]

(Original post by DebatingGreg)
I though split infinitives were reasonably acceptable?

It's more a style point. Some split infinitive phrases can change the meaning and the emphasis of the verb, but others are purely stylistic. Here it is stylistic I believe, but I prefer a lack of split infinitives where possible unless required by meaning/ emphasis.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by Keckers)
As J&T mentioned at the end of the first reading, why not just have the government test it if they have huge stockpiles of it?

Quite.

Until someone answers this, then I'll be a No. I might be being dense but until someone shows me how I've no reason to vote for this.

[mevidek]

Ja.

[Metrobeans]

This is in cessation.