Posted by JLW on Tuesday Jan 17, 16:20
John Leech has asked his first written question in Parliament.
It is a slightly strange question to ask, surely as a local champion he would know this? It would also be interesting to know how many new practices have started carrying out NHS work.
+ tags coming soon
( 71 Comments )
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jan 18, 15:47
I am sure John can't be expected to know everything about his local community.
That said, I am sure he could have found out somehow, or may be he new the answer and was testing the health secretary.
Either way, I was shocked to learn that my 8 month old baby, can't see the same dentist as my wife and I, even though we are both NHS!!!
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jan 18, 17:39
I just read the answer he was given. Not sure which was duller, the question or the answer!
peter h
Thursday Jan 19, 01:50
surely he's asking a rhetorical question in order to shame the government on the issue.
After all, this government's done bugger all about it, and I don't recall keith bradley kicking up a stink about it............
peter h
Thursday Jan 19, 01:51
surely he's asking a rhetorical question in order to shame the government on the issue.
After all, this government's done bugger all about it, and I don't recall keith bradley kicking up a stink about it............
peter h
Thursday Jan 19, 02:06
jack straw was using same words to describe iran yesterday as they'd used to describe Iraq a couple of years ago. Deceit, concealment etc etc.
The softening up of public opinion is starting for labour doing its fauning lapdog impression with George W again.
Like somebody said, Bush has an exit strategy for Iraq.....through Iran.
Except Iran does not just have the 4th largest oil deposits, it also has 80 million people, of course. About the size of Germany. Tehran is bigger than London. Fancy invading that, eh?
Not a mickey mouse dictatorship either.
And it has very good reason to hate USA and UK, after years of manipulation with the Shah etc.
Just watch, some time this year, Israel will decide, for "defensive" reasons, to take action against Iran's nuclear installations, USA will "reluctantly" support it and we'll have 2 fundamentalist religious apocalyptic nutters - bush and ahmadinejad - straining at the leash. What will labour do then?
Just listen to Jack Straw....you have been warned. This year will probably get nasty.
It's alweays been the next step for Bush. Let's hope the UK electorate won't let his pet dog in Downing Street follow his leader again
Thomas Graham
Thursday Jan 19, 02:19
To return to the dentist issue, the reason he should have asked how many have opened and started carrying out work is because there is at least one that has, meaning a net change of at least none stopping doing NHS work, and possibly a net change of some starting.
I have written to John asking him to ask the SoS for Health how many have started doing NHS work.
Alan
Thursday Jan 19, 03:17
Peter, such angry and resentful comments. I am certainly not, at present, a supporter of military action against Iran but lets get real! Knowing how intellectually numb the leader of the free world is, do you not think that Iran is provoking our fearless world leader into attacking them?
That aside, I would strongly support military action against Iran if their current leadership had the capability to launch an ICBM against us.
Having said that, we forget that America is in posession of one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, yet we do nothing about "brain dead" Bush being in charge of the launch codes!!!
I don't know which side of the fence I want to sit on with this one.
Alan
Thursday Jan 19, 03:17
Tom, I'm sure that John would love to hear from you again... LOL
Thomas
Thursday Jan 19, 05:14
He replied promptly, which is good, although I am still waiting for a reply to a letter a sent earlier this year (to be fair it did ask rather more of him than just asking the SoS a written question). He says that he will ask the question for me.
peter h
Thursday Jan 19, 05:24
Alan, read your history books for gods sake! Iran has every reason to want to arm itself.
Who was it forced the Shah of Persia on them in order to control the country (UK)? Who armed and backed Iraq's attempts to invade Iran (USA). Who is now in control of Iraq? (USA and UK). Who has threatened to nuke Iran (Israel).
What on earth do you expect them to do? Trust us? They have no reason to do so. We've been trying to meddle in their affairs for years.
It's all part of a plan. Go look up PNAC's website and read all about it. (Project for New American Century - directors Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz - heard of 'em?)
And while youre at it, check how much money Haliburton has made out of Iraq and would make in Iran and check who owns that. And for good measure, check how much the Carlyle Group has made out of it too. And , thanks to your Labour mates, check how much Carlyle made this week out of the selloff of Qinetiq, the British state-owned defence technology group - £100 million in 12 months. Then check who owns Carlyle - Bush family, Baker, Carlucci (all american senior ex-statesmen). European Chairman, John Major, for crying out loud. Ring any bells yet? You are always talking about your family connections to the British armed forces. I might not like them too much, but I accept they have a sense if patriotic duty. How does it feel to know your friends and family will potentially lay down their lives for the noble cause of the halliburton share price ? Makes you proud, does it? Because that's why theyre in action in Iraq and maybe be dragged into it Iran.
And look at the realities. They can't control a dysfunctional mess like Iraq. So what chance have they got with a much better equipped country 3 times the size of Iraq?
USA is terrified of Iran getting ICBMs because then ot loses power to control Middle East. Simple as that.
Alan
Friday Jan 20, 01:08
We were once ruled and controlled by Italy. Should we rant and rave at the Italian Prime Minister, suggest openly that Milan be wiped off the face of the earth and claim that everyone wearing smart shoes be anihilated. If we are to consult the history books Peter, as you suggest, then this is exactly what we should be doing if you are to justify what Iran is doing using history as your defence.
peter h
Friday Jan 20, 04:54
ok, then. Iran will sooner or later get nuclear weaponry. So what you going to do about that?
Invade a country of 80 million?
Get real.
You admit yourself that bush is squaring up to them for a fight. You suggesting we join in?
Alan
Friday Jan 20, 23:45
If Iran develops nuclear weapons capable of hitting London, Manchester and other major UK cities then it would be a whole different ball game! We wouldn't need to assist the Americans in invading Iran because the whole situation will have 'gone nuclear'. We would either have another standoff similar to the Cold War or the USA would obliterate Iran until it's country and it's people were indistinguishable with the nuclear fall out.
Lets not forget the mistakes made by Baldwin in the 1930's when he ignored Germany's re armament. Instead of taking immediate action he left well alone and look what happened!! A strong stance from the beginning is what is needed! I believe that Britain has the common sense and reserve to resolve this diplomatically - the Americans should not be allowed to touch this.
peter h
Saturday Jan 21, 01:37
don't be so daft.
your military background should tell you that the best way to confront an opponent is to understand hios objectives and know how he thinks.
Your comments show that you obviously dont take that elementary 1st step, mate.
Germany wanted to build a 1000 year reich stretching from moscow to manchester.
Iran has no plans to invade anybody.
It wants to defend itself by matching its enemies weapons. By having nukes, it will be, in its eyes, too big a fish for USA to swallow. That is their rationale.
Defence, not agression.
USA, UK, Israel and Russia ALL have ICBMs capable of destroying Teheran. S
So what are they going to plan to do? Leave themselves at the mercy of George Bush? He's made no secret of his attitude to Uppity Muslim states.
Its not Iran that instigated this arms race.
And, goven the rhetoric.
the ONLY way to stop this nonsense is to remove the threat to iran.
Alan
Saturday Jan 21, 03:47
I'm all for George Bush going!! That's not going to happen though and in the mean time Iran is shouting out about how Israel should be anihilated and wiped off the face of the Earth.
Iran is not blameless Peter and you know it! I'm not defending George Bush or American foreign policy but I am not about to suggest that Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is a good thing!!
On a side issue, what the hell am I doing arguing on a blog site with someone I have never met or know, on a Friday night. I should be out getting drunk and eating kebabs!
peter h
Saturday Jan 21, 21:24
so what exactly is Iran guilty of then?
Wanting to get rid of Israel? Is that it?
I want to do that too.
So do many Religious Jews. And socialist Jews ashamed of what it has become.
Personally, I don't think the existence of an inherently racist state is worth endangering the rest of the world for.
The world would be a better place if Israel , as currently consituted, did not exist.
And, by the way, I have Jewish blood, before you start ashouting about antisemitism. his is about antiracism
Alan
Sunday Jan 22, 22:03
Iran is currently guilty of nothing other than lying about creating nuclear weapons; but then all governments lie ! I would fully support a pre emptive strike in an attempt to stop Iran becoming a nuclear power capable of sending ICBM's over to the UK. I'm afraid that, for me, this country comes before Iran.
Alan
Tuesday Jan 24, 02:35
I don't know, one leader is a drunk and another potential leader (and shadow cabinet minister) plays with rent boys. The Lib Dems are turning into the Tories... i.e a laughing stock!
Someone that believed he could stand for leader of the Lib Dems, and potentially become PM of the UK, (although not very likely thank God)without anyone finding out he paid men for sex needs some serious lessons in the real world!! Is this the best the Lib Dems can field!
John
Tuesday Jan 24, 03:36
Well I can't say I have anything against him paying rent boys for sex, but I do feel sorry for his family.
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jan 24, 15:49
Sad is it not, that in a modern world, people get ousted for renting for sex (affecting his family and no one else), yet going to war on false pretences is absolutly fine (yet costing the lives of countless people, and destablizing an already fragile region)!
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jan 24, 19:19
Alan, aren't you forgetting Peter Mandelson, Ron Davies, Nick Brown, David Blunkett, Stephen Byers, Geoffrey Robinson, etc have all been involved in some sort of scandal. Sounds like the Tory party to me!
mark
Tuesday Jan 24, 22:54
Seems a bit strange to be asking his first written question in January considering he was elected in May 2005. Most active constituency MPs seem to have got off to a flying start with questions - not so for John.
Alan
Tuesday Jan 24, 23:26
Mark, it took him about 4-5 months to set up an office - what do you expect!?
Thomas
Wednesday Jan 25, 00:27
John said to me:
"Incidentally I have asked many written questions to ministers that are not down as official parliamentary questions"
Though he doesn't seem to have time to respond to my email sent 9th January. How long do people think should it take an MP to reply to an email/letter? Is more than a fortnight acceptable (12 working days so far)?
Alan
Wednesday Jan 25, 14:11
I think you need to extend the scope of the question!It is not just about how long it takes an MP to respond, it's whether they respond atall!! Many MP's don't - look; at George 'Idiot' Galloway at the moment - he certainly can't personally respond to constituency mail. I recently wrote to Mike Hall who is my parents MP on an issue relating to the state of their road. Within a week I received a letter from his office informing me of what steps he was going to take, and, at every step of the way I was sent copise of letters that the council had sent him. As a result, the state of the road is now being assessed by the council and hopefully action will be taken on it soon (if not then the council is going to get a serious ear bashing). The point is that Mike Hall's constituency is about 4 to 5 times bigger than John Leeches and yet still, his office, that is run by a part time skeleton staff, have the time to respond.
In my opinion all MP's should respond to all constituent mail within the two week mark. This should be regardless of content and regardless of the political affiliation of the person that sent it.. which I think is your problem Thomas.
Either that or John forgot to order stationary when he finally got his office together.
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jan 25, 16:17
John was more than useless to my email that I sent him. I got what appeared to be an automated reply stating he would look into the issue. After a few weeks I sent him the exact email again with a sentence or two stating that this was the second time I had sent it. I still haven't heard a thing. I think I sent the original out in October last year. It was regarding milk powder tokens for poorer families, which goes against the promotion of Breast is Best and instead of milk tokens, howabout tokens for reusable nappies, which would be far more use to people and would help reduce landfill, I asked him for his opinions and whether or not he could raise it with the appropriate people within government.
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jan 25, 16:29
25 years ago today the Limehouse Declaration was unveiled, with the birth of the SDP. It's one of the earliest political news stories that I remember.
peter h
Wednesday Jan 25, 23:27
If the labour people who set up SDP had stayed to fight their corner in Labour, then maybe Labour would not have imploded and maybe we would have been spared years of tory government.
Thomas
Thursday Jan 26, 01:03
I wouldn't mind John ignoring my letter if it was a political letter (between him and his agent, they did ignore my email regarding the statment that the police supposedly made), but it was a real letter that addressed a real concern.
Unfortunately, there is no mechanism to check that MPs are doing there job. Political affiliation should not change how you respond to a constituent, and I think that a letter should be delt with either:
a) With a full response within two weeks
b) A response explaining why there hasn't been a full response, and how the MP was investigating it.
peter h
Thursday Jan 26, 04:27
thomas have you checked that he received it? Another posting here suggests that his office sends automated acknowledgements, so if you have heard nothing it is possible it did not get as far as him.
If it did, then you should have had some form of reply, obviously.
Being a human being, it is also realistic to expect him to give less attention to his avowed political enemies who , as you know perfectly well, are perfectly capable of bombarding him with spurious demands. You may be an unwitting victim of that. After all, the creation of this website was specifically an attempt to undermine him. So you shouldnt be surprised if you find yourself low on his priorities.
Thomas
Thursday Jan 26, 04:42
Yes, I emailed him again and he said that he did recieve it. To be fair, some things are more important than my problem, but I suggested to him that at the very least a quick reply would be at least polite.
I did once get a reply from one of his office assistants, when I emailed him directly, but I don't get anything automated usually. I normally use the http://www.writetothem.com/ website.
Alan
Thursday Jan 26, 23:53
http://www.southmanchesterreporter.co.uk/news/s/208/208602_mum_of_autistic_boy_devastated.html
Here is a REAL closure threat which perhaps John may wish to campaign against with as much vigour as his imaginary ones!
Chris
Saturday Jan 28, 02:24
I asked him a question (via writetothem.com) a couple of weeks ago, and received a written reply about ten days later. I never wrote to Keith Bradley, but I did write to Gerald Kaufman when I lived in Mcr Gorton, and I found their response times similar.
You should get some sort of response though, I agree, even if it's to say that there's a delay in providing you with the response...
peter h
Saturday Jan 28, 04:53
alan, your party's representatives hold the purse strings which govern the existence of that place. So why are they letting it close?
Alan
Sunday Jan 29, 20:41
I don't know Peter, perhaps John could set up a campaign with as much vigour as his imaginary Christie's one and find out.
peter h
Sunday Jan 29, 23:55
let me get this straight. You, as a labour party activist, are ask Lib Dems to protest on your behalf against the effects of labour policies?
Alan
Tuesday Jan 31, 01:55
Peter, just because I am a Labour activist it doesn't mean that I agree with everything that they say and do! If indeed it is the fault of a Labour Government that the institution in the article is closing down then I believe that something should be done to remedy it. As you will remember from previous postings I also think that their transport policy is dire!
My main point, as I am sure you are aware, was to suggest that Leech should spend his time campaigning against a real closure threat as opposed to one he and his cronies made up to get elected. Having said that, bending the truth or telling out right lies seems to be nothing new for the Liberal Democrats!!!
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jan 31, 15:18
"Lies and the lib dems" Alan, come one what about Iraq and 45 minutes claim? I think that is a slightly bigger lie than say trying to keep a personal alcohol problem to oneself, or some individuals sexuality or even that a hospital might be closing type of lie, don't you?
And like I have said countless times on this forum, John Leech was voted in because he was a Lib Dem, who were the only major party to be against going to war. The vast majority of voters in the Withington area, did not want Britain to go to war, and therefore did a protest vote against Labour. I quite liked Keith Bradley, but he stood for Labour, that is why I and many others voted him out, not because of a real or unreal threat of a hospital closing!
Ian
Tuesday Jan 31, 19:32
Interesting snippet in the local rag...John signed Mark Oaten's nomination papers but that doesn't necessary mean he was supporting his bid for leadership.
er....no...of course not...but only after you've found out about his dalliances.
Alan
Wednesday Feb 01, 02:57
Come on Dave a lie is a lie; one day it's about rent boys the next it's a lie that affects constituents and, god forbid, one day possibly the country. You can't have it both ways.. it's not about the lie that has been told, it is the potential to lie so easily that is worrying.
Furthemore Tony Blair didn't lie about the war, at worst he was mis informed. He had to make a difficult decision at a difficult time... that's statesmanship. The likes of Oaten et al are just bare faced liars, hypocrits and cheats. On that note it doesn't suprise me that Leech backed Oaten!
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Feb 01, 14:42
Okay, so Blair was "misinformed", but do you think that Labour hasn't got any liars in the party? Give me a break
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Feb 01, 22:12
How very ammusing that Blair was at Parliment, yet didn't vote in his Religious Hate Bill, he his party lost by one vote!!!! Made my day that did!
peter h
Thursday Feb 02, 02:16
actually, alan, I think you'll find that both simon hughes and mark Oaten DID have it both ways....
peter h
Thursday Feb 02, 02:19
and all politicians lie. Because theyre humans and all humans lie at some point. As for Tony Blair...how about the 45 minutes claim on Iraq's nulxear weapons? On the basis that a lie is an attempt to mislead or deceive, then he lied, even if his ststement was couched in terms which would allow him later to claim he was misunderstood
Alan
Thursday Feb 02, 02:35
Peter, I think that that is the most amusing thing you have ever posted. Gave me a good laugh anyway. Once again I find myself agreeing with you Peter. Everyone lies at some stage, I lie, you probably do and the same for you Dave. The difference is that we are not running for leader of the Liberal Democrats.
To me, in my infinite wisdom, a lie is a lie only if others discover that it is a lie. Thats life and that's politics, Hughes and Oaten lied badly and they have paid for it!
Dave Wilson
Thursday Feb 02, 15:32
Steven Byers told an "Untruth" (their words not mine, I would use the word "lie") and he just had to aplogise. Seems some MP's can get away with bigger lies than those who were running for leadership of the party they are members of!
Alan
Thursday Feb 02, 16:51
Steven Byers wasn't paying male prostitutes to perform all sorts of depraved acts on him!! Who knows perhaps Oaten even used tax payers money to pay him, his colleagues seem to think that it's alright to buy £260 blenders for their wives using our money!!
Furthermore, the hypocracy of Hughes seems to be a phenomenal as his capacity to lie. In 1983 he won his seat through conducting a merciless homophobic campaign against his opponent, no doubt whilst having affairs with his male lovers at the time.
The Lib Dems are an absolute joke; their leader steps down because of an alcohol problem.. which he LIED about and the contenders for his position have shown themselves to be just as accomplished, if not better liars, than their former leader.
The Lib Dems were a joke to begin with but these clowns are just making matters worse for themselves and their party.
Dave Wilson
Thursday Feb 02, 22:40
Alan, has someone realised details of the actual acts committed between Oaten and the rent boy? I wonder how you know they are "depraved"?
Also, I thought you stated that lies are lies no matter the size? Stephen Byers lied! Full-Stop!
peter h
Thursday Feb 02, 23:43
unfortunately, we have to face the fact that Charles Kennedy, Oaten and Hughes all lied about their personal circumstances, and Hughes in particular got into office through a nasty little campaign against peter tatchell 20 years ago through innuendo about Tatchell being gay.
Lib Dems have lost a lot of credibility in the last couple of weeks, and they'll pay for it.
And Byers lied too.
Personally I think you have to accept that all politicians will lie at times and you have to ask which is worse, covering up personal sexuality or misleading the country in order to take it to war.
Lies are lies are lies, but some are mere pecadilloes - would anybody here want there private lives splattered over the front page of the Sun? - and some have lethal consequences for innocent people. Kennedy Oaten and Hughes have damaged nobody but themselves.
Alan
Friday Feb 03, 00:41
http://www.southmanchesterreporter.co.uk/news/s/208/208868_forgotten_your_lines_john_just_ad_lib_dem.html
I was wrong to slate John for having his surgeries at 3pm/4pm when most of us are still at work and unable to go along. As you will see from the attached article, he has far more important things to do than deal with the concerns of his constituents. Perhaps this is also whay he takes so long to reply to correspondance/ emails; if he does at all.
Alan
Friday Feb 03, 00:43
Peter, if you become a politician you have to be ready for, and quite frankly expect, your personal life to be all over the front pages of the Sun, it comes with the job and those that can't deal with that, or don't expect it, clearly aren't clever enough to become politicians in the first place.
peter h
Friday Feb 03, 04:30
why?
Surely politicians have a right to a private life as long as it does not undermine their ability to do the job?
Alcoholism clearly does undermine ones ability to do a job. But bisexuality? Reporting that is prurience, not public interest.
I don't pretend to know how to deal with it, by the way. I believe in freedom of information, but don't know how to square that with a right to privacy
peter h
Friday Feb 03, 04:42
oh dear alan, you've really caught john in a scandal here, something about a prick , kissing a sleeping virgin in her bed, having a "scene" with a gardener, and frantic spinning. I can see the Sun Headlines now. And I bet the sleeping beauty was one of their undercover reporters "MP caught acting out sordid cross dressing fantasy in sordid threesome with gardener and sleeping virgin before startled members of public. It was only a little prick says embarrassed Leech".
Alan
Friday Feb 03, 05:06
LOL,By the way Peter, I do agree. Bi sexuality, homosexuality etc does not inhibit anyone from doing a good job. It's a way of life that people choose and although I really don't understand it - good luck to them. My point was that when 21 million people read The Sun it doesn't take much intelligence to realise that if you are a secret homosexual who enjoys three in a bed romps with other men that it is going to become public knowledge. Right or wrong it doesn't matter... it is going to happen. How these cretins don't realise that in todays media orientated world is beyond me.
Everyone is entitled to a private life but politicians, when they put their name forward for the ballot box should surely understand that their once private life, from that moment onwards, becomes open to public scrutiny. To not be in any way prepared for that shows a lack of judgement and very bad political advisors!!
Dave Wilson
Friday Feb 03, 15:24
I didn't know I chose to be heterosexual, I thought I was born that way! Maybe my heterosexuality is just a phase that i will grow out of?!
Alan
Saturday Feb 04, 00:15
You know what I mean Dave... get off your PC high horse!
peter h
Saturday Feb 04, 04:35
why do I keep imagining the lib dem front bench as Village People doing YMCA? God, that would liven up prime ministers question time a bit
Dave Wilson
Monday Feb 06, 23:13
You call it PC, I call it challenging heterosexist twaddle!
Alan
Tuesday Feb 07, 00:37
Can you prove to me Dave, in no uncertain terms, that people are born either hetro sexual or homo sexual. The answer is no you can't, perhaps it is the case, but what also may be the case is that people choose to have relationships with members of the same sex. How would you explain bi- sexuality, are people born to find both sexes attractive or do they choose to have those sort of relationships. The fact is that you are suggesting that my comments are homophobic on the basis that YOU believe homosexuality to be something that people are born with. I am not in any way homophobic and I would go so far as to say that it is people like yourself Dave, with this 'do gooder' nonsense that cause the problems relating to this kind of topic in the first place.
Example: Do Gooders took down all references to hetero sexual marriage in a registry office following the legalisation of same sex 'marriage' in case it offended homosexuals. Hetero sexuals, including myself were annoyed by this. Many homosexual couples also pointed out how ridiculous this was and said that they took no offence whatsoever.
My point is that the intervention of do gooders caused hetero sexual couples to believe that there was bias towards homosexual couples. This caused unnecessary tension as no offence was caused in the first place.
If 'do gooders' stopped meddling then the world would be a happier place!!!!
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Feb 07, 01:15
I didn't mean to cause any offence. I did not state that you were homophobic, merely heterosexist, (yes their is a difference). Please except my apologies, you were right Alan. You and Peter are always right, even when you disagree, where as I am always wrong!
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Feb 07, 01:20
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/heterosexual2.htm
Yes PC does get in the way, I think the PC brigade have gone too far, and made some matters worse. But homophobia and heterosexism is something that isn't challenged to the same extent as racism or sexism or issues of disability, therefore, I think it still needs a bigger voice. Do you know how many young gays commit suicide due to bullying?
The above link is amusing, but contains an important message!
peter h
Tuesday Feb 07, 21:48
personally i think homosexuality is a pain in the arse
Alan
Tuesday Feb 07, 23:17
Dave, while I appreciate what you are saying they bullying thing doesn't wash. Ok maybe many young gays do commit suicide due to bullying; as do many other young people due to a varying range of reasons.
Peter, what's going on you are usually doing everything you possibly can to disagree with everything I say not making amusing comments!
Resident
Wednesday Feb 08, 05:04
http://www.chris2win.org/pages/supporterslist.html?PHPSESSID=be7bdfae5ec8613fc2d2cf34001777db
Leech comes out for Chris Huhne!
Thomas Graham
Thursday Feb 09, 01:52
John has asked my question on the NHS dentists and guess what... there has been a net gain of one new surgery treating NHS patients in Manchester Withington since 1997.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2006-02-06b.44671.h&c=3620#c3620
Dave WIlson
Thursday Feb 09, 19:42
http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/factsheets/Diversity/Factsheetlgb.htm
MIND is the biggest indpendent UK charity on mental health issues Alan. Feel free to read what they have to say about homophobia. I used to like debating with yourself and Peter, but I can't stand biggoted views. It's all very good having friendly banter, but I feel this thread has crossed the line for me. It is your choice, I am all for freedom of speech, however, I do not feel that Thomas is moderating very well anymore, and therefore, this is going to my last post for the foreseeable future. Many thanks.
Alan
Thursday Feb 09, 22:09
Why are my views bigoted Dave, if we are going to go down the route of bullying lets not pretend that it is only homosexuals that are the victims of bullying purely to back up your own view points. I am sorry that you feel that way but it's your choice.
peter h
Saturday Feb 11, 05:29
you surprise me dave. walking away from what you regard as bigoted views? Best way to tackle views you don't like is head on, not turn away.
Alan isnt bigoted. That is an unfair and untrue comment. Alan will listen and discuss and argue.
Bigots don't listen.
As for homosexuality, there is point to alan's arguments, be they right or wrong. There's a lot of political correctness about that subject and at least he has the guts to avoid it. Maybe you should be debating sexuality in general and the way in which modern business forces it metaphorically down everybody's throat as a means to make money.
Some of us, quite legitimately would refuse to accept homosexuality as being the equal of heterosexuality, without denying anybody's right to be gay and without attempting to deny gays the same rights as heteros. there's a valid argument there
A Lib Dem Supporter
Tuesday Feb 14, 02:07
Why does this website give such bias. If it is aimed to keep John accountable then surely it should be apolitical. FOr a start it is run by a Labour member who has experienced the Bradley 'sour grapes' syndrome and secondly it is raely updated so much of the content is rubbish. For example the website claims John hasnt opened an office, which is totaly wrong. It was publisised in the SMR and MEN for the benefit of those people who rely on this website to contact John the address is 8 Gawsworth Ave, E. Didsbury and you can ring the office on 0161 434 3334. ALso putting false information about JL being late to a photo call with Charles Kennedy is irrelevant esp on a biography and makes no difference to his role as our MP. The labour webmaster for this site needs to accept defeat and offer a unpartisan forum to debate John's work as MP. Utherwise I commend the webmaster as i yhthink this is a brilliant way pof keeping the electorate of WIthington up to date on their MP. In the future please dont give a political bias.
!!!
************
Wednesday Mar 01, 05:56
LEARN TO SPELL YOU BLITHERING WET LIB DEM IDIOT
Alex
Thursday Apr 20, 16:51
To go back to the point of lying, and more exactly the 45 minute claim, I feel it necessary to raise the issue of misinformation. The Iraqi govt and intelligence services at the time were more that capable of leaking/ creating misinformation, (45 minute clam) knowing full well that when proved to be ridiculous, it would discredit the coalition. Knowing full well this would lead to internal political turmoil. At the time it was clear that the war was to go ahead. The regime had nothing to lose. It’s just a theory but since people on this site have been referring to the history books so frequently I felt this issue deserves the same attention.
These comments are owned by the person that posted them. They are not necessarily indicative of public opinion and their content has not been checked for accuracy. If you find a comment you think violates our Terms of Use please report it.
Sorry, posting on this entry is disabled to prevent comment spam.
