Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Okay, I apologise for any offence caused - that's really all I can say without continuing a long discussion. Suffice it to say that I don't think I've made the problematic false assumption in this case; I mean, is it really necessary for people to have correctly assumed whether quoting will or will not be deemed upsetting in order to be discourteous?
    If you look at other users in the HoC, almost all of them quote people when replying as a matter of course. There are a few such as yourself who do with some people and generally don't bother with others. I simply got fed up it, end of story.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Okay, fair enough.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    what do you guys make of "the big society"?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    what do you guys make of "the big society"?
    I only have one word: ********.

    Unfortunately it's starred out but sperm factories.
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Adorno)
    I only have one word: ********.

    Unfortunately it's starred out but sperm factories.
    I agree - I'm feeling more and more betrayed by the Conservatives as time goes on and I am fed up of them abandoning traditional values. Thatcher said, "There is no such thing as society" and we are going around like hippies saying, "Big Society...Power the the People" and all that liberal rubbish.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ju...meron-big-idea

    (Original post by The Guardian)
    Britain will not be following the French in banning Muslim women from wearing the all-enveloping burqa in public places, for the very splendid reason that the idea is "unBritish" and "undesirable". The words are those of the immigration minister, Damien Green, who said that preventing Muslim women from covering their faces would not be in line with the UK's "tolerant and mutually respectful society".
    This was upsetting when I first read it, bearing in mind the debate we had recently had.

    (Original post by The Guardian)
    Green's views are not universally shared within his Conservative party. Philip Hollobone, the MP for Kettering, has tabled a no-hope private member's bill calling for parliament to follow the French lead. He said he will not meet women wearing the burqa or niqab (face veil); they must communicate by post.

    The issue of Islamic dress – a common sight in London and other big cities – is generally low-key. Most critics are not anti-Islam, but rather feminists who say that Muslim women are being oppressed by their menfolk. Muslim women tend to argue, like Green, that what they wear is entirely their own business.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    I agree - I'm feeling more and more betrayed by the Conservatives as time goes on and I am fed up of them abandoning traditional values. Thatcher said, "There is no such thing as society" and we are going around like hippies saying, "Big Society...Power the the People" and all that liberal rubbish.
    :/ "There's no such thing as society" is hardly what you'd call a traditional value now, is it?
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    I'm happy to discuss it further in the TSR Labour Question Time thread, but I stand by having a minimum length requirement.
    Why?

    Can I also ask the following:

    Who are your MPs?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    IN TSR Land they have to have lived together for 5 years to be eligible for what ever. This is nonsense and a half tbh.
    As is said this is for cohabitation which could be you and your best mate, offering you the benefits of a married couple for two people who have no sexual or emotional interest in eachother.

    Should two friends be offered this benefit immidiately? Maybe 5 years is too long in your opinion but the reason for the time limit is because of the tax breaks etc that this may open.

    TSR Labour Party

    * Adorno - Deputy Leader
    * Cardozo - Leader
    * lotsofsnails
    * robinson999
    * rockrunride
    * smalltownboy (metro is proxy)
    * Sohanshah
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    As is said this is for cohabitation which could be you and your best mate, offering you the benefits of a married couple for two people who have no sexual or emotional interest in eachother.

    Should two friends be offered this benefit immidiately? Maybe 5 years is too long but the reason for the time limit is because of the tax breaks etc that this may open.
    So same sex people do what if they love each other?
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    As is said this is for cohabitation which could be you and your best mate, offering you the benefits of a married couple for two people who have no sexual or emotional interest in eachother.

    Should two friends be offered this benefit immidiately? Maybe 5 years is too long in your opinion but the reason for the time limit is because of the tax breaks etc that this may open.

    TSR Labour Party

    * Adorno - Deputy Leader
    * Cardozo - Leader
    * lotsofsnails
    * robinson999
    * rockrunride
    * smalltownboy (metro is proxy)
    * Sohanshah
    I see. I do not know many of these people, but fair play.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    So same sex people do what if they love each other?
    There is then the option of Civil marriage. The point about some people preferring the term "Civil partnership" over "Civil marriage" is valid, but it's worth noting that religious elements are beginning to creep into Civil Partnerships, suggesting to me that the original real life bill was but a stepping stone to full gay marriage. Our bill accomplished equality between hetro and homosexual couples in the eyes of the law.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    There is then the option of Civil marriage. The point about some people preferring the term "Civil partnership" over "Civil marriage" is valid, but it's worth noting that religious elements are beginning to creep into Civil Partnerships, suggesting to me that the original real life bill was but a stepping stone to full gay marriage. Our bill accomplished equality between hetro and homosexual couples in the eyes of the law.
    I don't get how. Your bill, if it did, forces them to wait 5 years....

    I can understand this for two mates etc but....

    I may just not be grasping it well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    I don't get how. Your bill, if it did, forces them to wait 5 years....

    I can understand this for two mates etc but....

    I may just not be grasping it well.
    Perhaps in hindsight, 5 years for a co-habitors form is rather long, but under our bill, two men or two women could marry without this wait.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    Perhaps in hindsight, 5 years for a co-habitors form is rather long, but under our bill, two men or two women could marry without this wait.
    I like the idea of co-habitation for firends/sisters etc who may have lived together for a long while but not at the expense of civil partnerships. I see no harm in both existing.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    My 2 pence:

    Marriage is a religious ceremony, leave that to the religious people. State should NOT recognise this.

    Civil marriage should be for everyone, whatever religion/sex/etc.

    Scrap civil partnerships

    I'm in favour of a cohabitation agreement.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    I see. I do not know many of these people, but fair play.
    They've all been around a long time.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    who do each of you want to win the leadership of Labour IRL and why?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    who do each of you want to win the leadership of Labour IRL and why?
    to be fair i'm not a massive fan of any of them, hold up its graduation week and i have unscrew my head too much so if this is confusing sorry :o: its healthy that there people from all wings of the party going for it, should be a bit of movement away from the blair brown years, they where good, by if we more fast than the tories did, there will be a labour government in 5 years time, David Miliband will be strong against cameron, all cameron will have to do is attack him because why didn't he do it in government, Jon Cruddas would off been nice, even if has some ties with blair
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    They've all been around a long time.
    I don't doubt it, just don't see them get involved much
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    who do each of you want to win the leadership of Labour IRL and why?
    I have two candidates: the one who most represents how I feel about the Labour Party, its goals and purpose ... and the one I think can win an election for us.

    On the first score: Diane Abbott. She gets a heck of a lot of stick but I do think a lot of it is misplaced and unjustified.

    On the question of reality: Ed Miliband. Unifying, left enough, and much more appealing than slimy Dai. Having seen Dai Miliband in action I must say I am even more sure that he's wrong for Labour.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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.

Updated: December 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.