Poll: The official I voted/election results thread

Who did you vote for?

  • Alliance Party of Northern Ireland

    Votes: 4 0.3%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 518 39.5%

  • Democratic Unionist Party

    Votes: 6 0.5%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 65 5.0%

  • Labour

    Votes: 241 18.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 99 7.5%

  • Didn't vote / spoiled ballot

    Votes: 136 10.4%

  • Other party

    Votes: 6 0.5%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 6 0.5%

  • Respect Party

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • SNP

    Votes: 67 5.1%

  • Social Democratic and Labour Party

    Votes: 2 0.2%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 4 0.3%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 158 12.0%
  • Total voters
    1,313
Jesus wept, you can really see the zealots shining through.

Half of my friends (liberal conservatives) are dismayed at the recent announcements - nothing to do with economic prudence but plain old regressive social conservatism.

The only good thing is they will end up losing the moderate vote at this right for sure in the next election.
 
estebanrey said:
I don't think you follow, the HRA was being lauded as a great piece of legislation helping women get away from abusive husbands, when in fact he could use it to prevent them from moving away or doing anything that would severe contact.

But if you really need me to explain why a mother who's spent the last decade being beaten to a pulp by her husband may not want that same man having an influence in bringing up their child then I feel for you.
Click to expand...

The relationship with the mother is not the same as the relationship with the children. If you take the time to do any research you will find that in the overwhelming majority of such cases, the children are perfectly safe with the Father.

There are many ways in which contact between Father and child can safely continue, in a monitored way, such as under CAFCASS supervision, or at a Court appointed Contact Centre. The Mother and Father do not need to meet.

Except in the most serious of cases I would not agree that the relationship between Father and Child should be brought to an end.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Show me case law where this has happened, because I think you're just making it up / using conjecture to argue your point.
Click to expand...

OK....

MrMoonX said:
That's ridiculous you clearly don't understand the HRA or know what you are talking about!

I've prepared many a court report balancing the rights of the father under article 8, to the rights of the children to be protected from violence, it's not up to the mother it's the child's welfare which is paramount. Many of these such cases end up with supervised contact.

Even an abusive husband has parental responsibility for his children under the children act, 1989 & 2004
Click to expand...

So the HRA act that amigafan2003 was lauding for being responsible for an abused woman and her child(ren) to get away from an abusive husband actually doesn't as being proved by MrMoonX who still doesn't get he is proving my point, not contradicting it.
 
In the polling station on the way home from work..
2015-05-07%2018.23.24_zpst9tev0pm.jpg


Voted Conservative for the first time ever.
Been a liberal since I have been allowed to vote up until this year
Part tactical I suppose (don't want labour in)
Part "seem to be doing a good job of getting us out of the ****" Better let them finish the job they started.
 
Fuzz said:
In the polling station on the way home from work..
2015-05-07%2018.23.24_zpst9tev0pm.jpg


Voted Conservative for the first time ever.
Been a liberal since I have been allowed to vote up until this year
Part tactical I suppose (don't want labour in)
Part "seem to be doing a good job of getting us out of the ****" Better let them finish the job they started.
Click to expand...

You were a few days late mate.
 
estebanrey said:
OK....

So the HRA act that amigafan2003 was lauding for being responsible for an abused woman and her child(ren) to get away from an abusive husband actually doesn't as being proved by MrMoonX who still doesn't get he is proving my point, not contradicting it.
Click to expand...

Did you read what I wrote? It doesn't say the woman used the HRA to get away from her abusive husband, she used the HRA to keep her children.

You really do fail at reading comprehension.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Did you read what I wrote? It doesn't say the woman used the HRA to get away from her abusive husband, she used the HRA to keep her children.

You really do fail at reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

Your paragraph was entitled....

2. Protecting women from domestic violence and keeping their families together

So are you admitting that was inaccurate and it should have just said "keeping families together" now? If not then you are saying the HRA was used to protect her from the violence as well.

Either way, you still miss the point that same act and article can also be used by the man to stop her from going in to hiding and truly getting away from him.

Finally, there doesn't seem to be any documented evidence of this case outside a sound bite from Amnesty International who don't name any names or even which London Social Services were involved.
 
elmarko said:
Jesus wept, you can really see the zealots shining through.

Half of my friends (liberal conservatives) are dismayed at the recent announcements - nothing to do with economic prudence but plain old regressive social conservatism.

The only good thing is they will end up losing the moderate vote at this right for sure in the next election.
Click to expand...

They should have read the the manifesto of the party they were voting for then shouldn't they? No sympathy for anyone who voted Tory ever.
 
ameron will tell the NSC: “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.
Click to expand...

http://gu.com/p/48px7

Oh dear... :(

A counter-terrorism bill including plans for extremism disruption orders designed to restrict those trying to radicalise young people is to be included in the Queen’s speech, David Cameron will tell the national security council on Wednesday.

The orders, the product of an extremism task force set up by the prime minister, were proposed during the last parliament in March, but were largely vetoed by the Liberal Democrats on the grounds of free speech. They were subsequently revived in the Conservative manifesto.

The measures would give the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.

The aim is to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred on the grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake harmful activities for the “purpose of overthrowing democracy”.

They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred.
Click to expand...

While those that believe we are seconds away from a terrorist state... on here will probably cheer the reality is its massively catch all legislation and could severely curtail free speech...
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
http://gu.com/p/48px7

Oh dear... :(

While those that believe we are seconds away from a terrorist state... on here will probably cheer the reality is its massively catch all legislation and could severely curtail free speech...
Click to expand...

However I would see if the ruling was used to curtail valid protest.. if the case was taken to EU law then there could be issues.

The problem here is that terrorism is a multi-facited problem - it's not just fearing for your life or the life of those that depend on you but also being targeted for the belief you hold.

War on the other hand is the application of military action against a state or people are part of the construct.

Is a anarchist flower bombing politicians terror? It's not a military action, it's civil unrest and a protest, however if the person has to fear for their life (it may not be flour these days) then is it terror? The distinction is if the flour is actually a substance that would cause injury or death - not injure their pride or appearance. Until that has been tested - it's unknown/undecided.

Is the demonstration of legal or police ability to oppose someone speaking their mind an act of terror? Again it depends if if that speech is to cause injury or loss of life.

As soon as the government are proven to abuse, for non 'terror' reasons, this then the law and those that implement it are then discredited. UK prides itself in being a shining example of how a government should operate (it makes money by providing consultancy in a lot of areas on that!).

Government is a civil & military system, with politicians, the system will take steps to ensure it's continuation.. for good or bad.. regardless of which political party is at the helm.
 
Last edited:
David Cameron said:
This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values.

Freedom of speech (but we'll check to make sure you're saying the right things). Freedom of worship. Democracy (unless you vote UKIP or Green). The rule of law (but we reserve the right to water-down laws that hold the government to account). Equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality (and don't worry that our equalities minister voted against equal marriage).
Click to expand...

:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom