Ask the Speaker II

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Fair enough, you're correct.



    Well, how about historical laws which are clearly outdated but formally in effect, such as that „in Scotland, turning someone away if they knock on your door and require the use of your loo” is illegal (perhaps it's just a widespread hoax but it should suffice as a hypothetical scenario; another source here). If such a law is suddenly rediscovered, should it be enforced until it is formally repealed?
    That's an urban myth according to the BBC, but if it was a law of course it should be enforced until repealed. The time to debate whether or not it is a good idea to enforce a law or rule is when it or its repeal is being considered, not when it has already been passed. Otherwise, what's the point of having a debate and a vote on proposals at all if we're just going to pick and choose at random whether to enforce them, based on arbitrary criteria such as whether we think they're obsolete or not?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    That's an urban myth according to the BBC, but if it was a law of course it should be enforced until repealed. The time to debate whether or not it is a good idea to enforce a law or rule is when it or its repeal is being considered, not when it has already been passed. Otherwise, what's the point of having a debate and a vote on proposals at all if we're just going to pick and choose at random whether to enforce them, based on arbitrary criteria such as whether we think they're obsolete or not?
    The reason is simple: People are being clumsy all the time and when a legal system is as opaque as the one we have here (which is evident from the many procedural errors over the years), such forgotten laws may not fit the current framework of laws and common practices, or not representative of the current population that has to adhere to it, i.e. notice that none of the original proposers are active nowadays.

    It wasn't at random—it was because the then-Speaker was clumsy and did not update the GD. I'm not sure where you managed to get those ‘arbitrary criteria’ but I said nothing to that effect. Calm down a bit, okay?

    Anyway, I don't care; just food for thought. The amendment is reasonable since it prohibits a potentially malicious practice of entering coalition only to beat another coalition and then exiting.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Can't we just repeal the forgotten amendments.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    A withdraw is a withdraw but I won't argue anymore.

    The FBI thing?
    Correct. A criminal if i ever saw one
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I've updated the current parliament wiki page and unprotected it as there is no way I will be able to keep up with MP changes.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Can't we just repeal the forgotten amendments.
    If you put forwards an amendment to do so and it passes according to the constitution.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Sources tell me you refused a MoNC tonight. Of this is so can you explain both why you did it and why it was not explained in the rejected items thread?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Sources tell me you refused a MoNC tonight. Of this is so can you explain both why you did it and why it was not explained in the rejected items thread?
    The reason why it was rejected is that it was not submitted on TSR but rather as a Google Doc. There is nothing more to it than that, so I saw no need to post in rejected items. If the MoNC is re-sent in the proper on-site format I will give it the standard consideration.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    The reason why it was rejected is that it was not submitted on TSR but rather as a Google Doc. There is nothing more to it than that, so I saw no need to post in rejected items. If the MoNC is re-sent in the proper on-site format I will give it the standard consideration.
    It is not helpful to have a Speaker decide to reject a Google Doc when Faland, Birchington, Toronto, and Ray have all accepted Google Docs because Google Docs are easier to use than TSR's text editing box.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    The reason why it was rejected is that it was not submitted on TSR but rather as a Google Doc. There is nothing more to it than that, so I saw no need to post in rejected items. If the MoNC is re-sent in the proper on-site format I will give it the standard consideration.
    So laziness on your part. 8f my sources continue being correct look forward to a former kipper becoming speaker in the next month

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I remember requesting a bill on Google Docs be transferred to TSR text editor.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Fez, you did the right thing. I like Google Docs but would prefer everything to remain standardised.

    I can't see any real reason for a Monc in anybody right now.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Fez, you did the right thing. I like Google Docs but would prefer everything to remain standardised.

    I can't see any real reason for a Monc in anybody right now.
    I'd agree with this.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    IMO google docs should only be used at the point when the item in question would take more than one PM or post to submit. At that point the speaker should accept the Google doc and either convert it himself or just post the link.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    IMO google docs should be permissible but the speaker should do no more than copy the content of the doc without sorting out the formatting. People can learn to use BBCode, it's not hard.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Is there some rule somewhere that explicitly says things cannot be submitted via Google Docs or any other way? If not, it should have been accepted.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    Is there some rule somewhere that explicitly says things cannot be submitted via Google Docs or any other way? If not, it should have been accepted.
    The issue is the submitter could delete the doc and then we loose a law.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    The issue is the submitter could delete the doc and then we loose a law.
    The idea is that the Speaker copies and pastes the text in the google doc onto TSR.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoggyCabbages)
    Is there some rule somewhere that explicitly says things cannot be submitted via Google Docs or any other way? If not, it should have been accepted.
    Accessing a Google doc can also reveal your RL identity.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    The idea is that the Speaker copies and pastes the text in the google doc onto TSR.
    Of course, there's no reason why the submitter can't wipe their own chin.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 2, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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