T.I.N.G. Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Agreed, totally out of proportion to the offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Would someone please clarify this for me. Most people seem to refer to 'his opinion' all the time. I was of the understanding that he actually VOTED against the Bill. Am I wrong in thinking this? If it is the case, then the issue is not just about his opinion but about his potential ability to stymie the granting of rights to people that should already have such freedoms. He wouldn't be entitled that vote if he had 99% of the electorate in support of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Are Manx votes made public? I know that only 1 person voted against the bill and that we all assume it's Houghton. Wouldn't it be great if it turned out to be someone else and Houghton was too dense to know which box to put his cross in (or when to put his hand up if it's a public vote). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 A member can call for the information of who voted for what if they so choose, but it isn't made public as a matter of course I don't think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 A member can call for the information of who voted for what if they so choose... In this case, I suspect a lot of members would be interested in which way the vote was going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 When it is time to vote on a matter in the House of Keys the Speaker will ask "All those in favour, say aye; those against, say no" and he will listen and decide which way the vote went, for example "The ayes have it". If "Divide" is called from one of the members then the voting is carried out electronically, not only for accuracy but to record in the Hansard transcripts all the votes. In this case the vote was whether or not to pass the second reading of the Gender Recognition Bill. Indeed it was only John Houghton who voted against. The full debate is HERE. Scroll down to page 24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theman Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I believe that transexuals are privvy to twice the rights we men and women have! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 A member can call for the information of who voted for what if they so choose... In this case, I suspect a lot of members would be interested in which way the vote was going. it may swing both ways albert.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Would someone please clarify this for me. Most people seem to refer to 'his opinion' all the time. I was of the understanding that he actually VOTED against the Bill. Am I wrong in thinking this? If it is the case, then the issue is not just about his opinion but about his potential ability to stymie the granting of rights to people that should already have such freedoms. He wouldn't be entitled that vote if he had 99% of the electorate in support of him. So you believe that, regardless of a person's own views, he/she should vote the same way that everyone else does? Sorry, but that doesn't always happen in a democracy (or even in what passes for democracy in the House of Keys) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I do not believe that anybody should have the ability to vote and make decisions on behalf of a population. I would rather see no House of Keys, never mind just remove certain members. Yet given the unlikeligood of this form of government disappearing in the near future, if one member wished to go ahead and vote to DENY people their freedoms by setting barriers to gaining human rights then he should go. There is no 'legitimacy' to the ability to have the power to play a part in the granting of freedoms, nor is there ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macmannin Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Oh shut the fuck up will you and your constant dribbling..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Oh shut the fuck up will you and your constant dribbling..... No, he shouldn't be allowed to be allowed to vote; you think otherwise. These one-line put-downs must be something of a release, you don't say much else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 .............you don't say much else. Such people are rare, and not unwelcome. (Says he who posts nearly as often as you). S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxmouse900 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Oh shut the fuck up will you and your constant dribbling..... Yep.... fair point.... having read a lot of his posts I used to assume that he was a young naive person of no real harm. Now I realise that he just seems to go out looking for a fight...... Wonder if he works for a Capitalist organistation or whether mummy and daddy are capitalists who fund his utopian lifestyle!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.