politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This will be a day long remembered. It has seen the end of Ber
Options
Comments
-
Ignoring the rights and wrongs of the actual policy the Liberal Democrats are at their least worst when they take these bold, clear, edgy, slightly outside the Overton Window pledges.1p on Income Tax for Education, Passports for Hong Kong residents, saving the Major Government on the Maastricht paving motion, Tuition Fees, Iraq, second Referendum. Going to straight revoke ( if they win a majority ) is just part of that tradition. Paddy Ashdown said " the first thing a Lib Dem leader needs to do in the morning is get noticed " and straight revoke will get noticed. And interms of vote share almost noone currently voting Lib Dem will mind and the policy polls well above current LD VI. So in terms of vote share and the air war I see no down side.1
-
As have been England's last two series there.another_richard said:
Its harder to make changes on a tour.dyedwoolie said:
06 07 ashes whitewashanother_richard said:For the PB cricket statisticians.
Have England ever played the same 1-7 throughout a 5 match series which they lost ?
And at least the top order of Cook, Strauss, Bell, Pieterson, Collingwood, Flintoff and Jones were proven players.
But that was still two months of humiliation.0 -
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.1 -
'Boris says MPs behaviour in seeking to thwart the will of the people is lowering respect for them in the country'0
-
They would ask WhatsApp to voluntarily hand the information over. This isn't being used in a criminal prosecution, it's a request from the Houses of Parliament. And, of course, they would ask Mr Cummings (or whoever) to help them with their request. If Mr Cummings said no, they score a political victory.TGOHF said:
It’s not a short step at all - he would need a warrant.rcs1000 said:
It's a very short step from using Parliament to ask people to hand over records, to asking WhatsApp to.TGOHF said:
Has Grieve got access to Whatsapp’s Servers ?rcs1000 said:
That may be true of Telegram and Signal, but your messages are forever backed up by WhatsApp. Deleting a WhatsApp conversation just adds a "deleted" flag to the database entry.TGOHF said:
Anyone can spoof a screen grab - the messages are encrypted- there is no back up accessible.Scott_P said:
From his Commons speech earlier, i would not be surprised if Dominic Grieve does not already have copies of some materials.TGOHF said:“Hand over your whatsapp messages !”
Click - delete
“What messages?”
Deleting them now won't help anyone
Er no..
So, if you're (say) Dominic Cummings, do you hand over the records now, embarassing as some of the conversations might be? Or do you claim that no such conversations existed, and then get caught out later?0 -
In what is now, effectively, a four party system, 35% should be enough to win most seats in the South and West.stodge said:
As 48% voted to remain in 2016 it's a reasonable pool in which to go fishing, wouldn't you say?AndyJS said:
I'm not sure the new LD position is a good idea, especially in the south-west.0 -
So he will finally show the EU something concrete will her?HYUFD said:Boris says he will go to Brussels on 17th October and try and get a Deal but be prepared to leave the EU with no Deal regardless on 31st October
I would be very interested to see him get something out of it, because it puts a lot of MPs on the spot, though I think things have moved on too much for anything to ever pass - even many people who say they are prepared to leave and actually mean it seem to be in favour of a GE or referendum first, and without no deal the EU has no reason to agree a deal when the government agreeing it cannot even win a vote on anything.
Good luck to him though.0 -
Todd Palin files for divorce from Sarah
https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/anchorage/2019/09/09/todd-palin-files-for-divorce-from-former-alaska-governor-sarah-palin/0 -
A Muslim friend of mine was going through an acrimonious divorce at the time of the Gay marriage vote. His comment was:HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
"Marriage is fucking shit. I don't see why gays should be exempt."1 -
I think FTPA motions, like VoNC motions, are a matter of statue not Commons procedure.AndyJS said:I thought Bercow didn't usually allow the same motion twice in the same parliament. Isn't this vote on an early election the second time in a few days?
1 -
I suspect the major attacks will be from Labour. Tory-lites will be the least of it. They will bring Ms. Swinsons membership of the coalition into play. Labour have lost votes to the LDs and the revoke strategy runs the risk for Labour of many more.Noo said:
Yes, it is. There's fair support in the country for outright revoke without any UK-wide party having been out to bat for it. There's reason to suppose that the support could increase with an open campaign for it.stodge said:
As 48% voted to remain in 2016 it's a reasonable pool in which to go fishing, wouldn't you say?AndyJS said:
I'm not sure the new LD position is a good idea, especially in the south-west.
And it throws open the Overton window for a 2nd referendum. They will be attacked in some quarters for it, but the Brexit taliban are already in the habit of attacking the Lib Dems anyway...
0 -
Whatsapp wouldn’t commit corporate suicide by handing that over.rcs1000 said:
They would ask WhatsApp to voluntarily hand the information over. This isn't being used in a criminal prosecution, it's a request from the Houses of Parliament. And, of course, they would ask Mr Cummings (or whoever) to help them with their request. If Mr Cummings said no, they score a political victory.TGOHF said:
It’s not a short step at all - he would need a warrant.rcs1000 said:
It's a very short step from using Parliament to ask people to hand over records, to asking WhatsApp to.TGOHF said:
Has Grieve got access to Whatsapp’s Servers ?rcs1000 said:
That may be true of Telegram and Signal, but your messages are forever backed up by WhatsApp. Deleting a WhatsApp conversation just adds a "deleted" flag to the database entry.TGOHF said:
Anyone can spoof a screen grab - the messages are encrypted- there is no back up accessible.Scott_P said:
From his Commons speech earlier, i would not be surprised if Dominic Grieve does not already have copies of some materials.TGOHF said:“Hand over your whatsapp messages !”
Click - delete
“What messages?”
Deleting them now won't help anyone
Er no..
So, if you're (say) Dominic Cummings, do you hand over the records now, embarassing as some of the conversations might be? Or do you claim that no such conversations existed, and then get caught out later?0 -
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.0 -
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.0 -
That would be the no-deal (or indeed any) Brexit that five bills deemed “essential” for it to occur were lost at prorogation today?HYUFD said:Boris says he will go to Brussels on 17th October and try and get a Deal but be prepared to leave the EU with no Deal regardless on 31st October
No deal will not happen. That is absolutely cast-iron nailed-on now.0 -
Corbyn says Boris 'running away from scrutiny with his blather and shouting with No Deal his only answer with no mandate'0
-
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.1 -
Facebook (WhatsApp's owner) has handed out lots of information to Congressional committees, and they voluntarily alert the security services in both the UK and the US of users who discuss bombings, Jihad and the like, and yet that doesn't cause them any problems.TGOHF said:
Whatsapp wouldn’t commit corporate suicide by handing that over.rcs1000 said:
They would ask WhatsApp to voluntarily hand the information over. This isn't being used in a criminal prosecution, it's a request from the Houses of Parliament. And, of course, they would ask Mr Cummings (or whoever) to help them with their request. If Mr Cummings said no, they score a political victory.TGOHF said:
It’s not a short step at all - he would need a warrant.rcs1000 said:
It's a very short step from using Parliament to ask people to hand over records, to asking WhatsApp to.TGOHF said:
Has Grieve got access to Whatsapp’s Servers ?rcs1000 said:
That may be true of Telegram and Signal, but your messages are forever backed up by WhatsApp. Deleting a WhatsApp conversation just adds a "deleted" flag to the database entry.TGOHF said:
Anyone can spoof a screen grab - the messages are encrypted- there is no back up accessible.Scott_P said:
From his Commons speech earlier, i would not be surprised if Dominic Grieve does not already have copies of some materials.TGOHF said:“Hand over your whatsapp messages !”
Click - delete
“What messages?”
Deleting them now won't help anyone
Er no..
So, if you're (say) Dominic Cummings, do you hand over the records now, embarassing as some of the conversations might be? Or do you claim that no such conversations existed, and then get caught out later?
Now they'd probably insist on messages being read in private, rather than published, but they have a policy of complying with government requests.0 -
Yes, and religions and their clerics that oppose same-sex marriage are free to decline to conduct such marriages. What you argue for is akin to the law saying divorced people may not re-marry but can only have civil partnerships because some religions oppose divorcees re-marrying.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Or are you confusing civil partnerships with civil marriage?0 -
This is the guy who's running away from an election, right?!HYUFD said:Corbyn says Boris 'running away from scrutiny with his blather and shouting with No Deal his only answer with no mandate'
0 -
No, you can get married in a registry office (among others).HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.0 -
If Labour were clearly ahead in the polls, would they be voting for an election tonight?0
-
Corbyn rattled. Shaking like a shitting dog.0
-
Straight revoke on the back of winning a parliamentary majority is also a clear statement about the status of advisory referendums. The Liberal Democrats are a party of Philadelphia Lawyers and we all know what they thought of popular so soverienty. Swinson is taking clear aim at the ' will of the people ' stuff by explicitly restating the soveriegnty of Queen-In-Parliament. A Lib Dem majority on say 36% of the vote will overturn the 51.9% Leave vote.
Whether you agree with that or not it has constitutional pedigree going back to 1688 and stands well with most strands of British Liberalism.0 -
Well thanks for that... I was of the opinion that I have been married for just over 38 years but apparently not, as I was married in a Registry Office.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.1 -
Probably. Equally, if the Tories hadn't rebounded in the polls, would they really be arguing for one?AndyJS said:If Labour were clearly ahead in the polls, would they be voting for an election tonight?
Shock horror, politicians do what's in their self-interest (bears, woods, etc.)0 -
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.0 -
-
Corbyn clearly doesn't agree with the election delay decision, he has been overruled.1
-
I think Corbyn must be tired, he keeps stumbling over his words.0
-
The Tories are on about 34% in the polls which is down nearly 10% on the last election, not exactly a great position.Danny565 said:
Probably. Equally, if the Tories hadn't rebounded in the polls, would they really be arguing for one?AndyJS said:If Labour were clearly ahead in the polls, would they be voting for an election tonight?
Shock horror, politicians do what's in their self-interest (bears, woods, etc.)0 -
Past his bedtime.TGOHF said:
Just not cut out for it. That said, he's clearly advocating a move he doesn't believe in. Again.0 -
Boggle. Have you never heard of a registry office marriage? They’ve been around in the UK for the best part of two centuries.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.0 -
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriageNoo said:
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.0 -
You have never been married.Benpointer said:
Well thanks for that... I was of the opinion that I have been married for just over 38 years but apparently not, as I was married in a Registry Office.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
We have always been at war with East Asia.
HYUFD has the best facts, great genes, sad.0 -
0/7 jester Johnson so far0
-
So frigging what? All cats are animals. Dogs are animals. Does not mean cats are dogs.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Marriage is civil and has zero to do with religion. Religions were specifically permitted to choose what they wanted to do by their own faith the change was for civil marriage.0 -
Civil marriages don't require priests.HYUFD said:
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriageNoo said:
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.0 -
You can't police people's private moral beliefs. If you do you get totalitarianism.0
-
Correct. But you can have a civil marriage ceremony in a register office. By law there must be no religious element to such a ceremony.HYUFD said:
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriageNoo said:
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
If you marry in a place of worship other than a C of E or RC church a civil registrar must attend to make the marriage valid in law (by getting the participants to sign the civil register and there are certain forms of words that the registrar must witness being used).0 -
0
-
SNP going to vote for the GE?
Edit - no. They don’t.0 -
-
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?0 -
+1 an absolute bore.KentRising said:https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1171187642471505921?s=19
Glad I'm not the only one.0 -
In fairness to Blackford it took him three interventions and five interminable minutes to call for Scottish independence againKentRising said:https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1171187642471505921?s=19
Glad I'm not the only one.0 -
The SNP leader calls the government a dictatorship, even though the government is about to vote in favour of an election and his party isn't.0
-
I thought Whatsapp was locally encrypted so the content is hidden from Facebook itself.rcs1000 said:
Facebook (WhatsApp's owner) has handed out lots of information to Congressional committees, and they voluntarily alert the security services in both the UK and the US of users who discuss bombings, Jihad and the like, and yet that doesn't cause them any problems.TGOHF said:
Whatsapp wouldn’t commit corporate suicide by handing that over.rcs1000 said:
They would ask WhatsApp to voluntarily hand the information over. This isn't being used in a criminal prosecution, it's a request from the Houses of Parliament. And, of course, they would ask Mr Cummings (or whoever) to help them with their request. If Mr Cummings said no, they score a political victory.TGOHF said:
It’s not a short step at all - he would need a warrant.rcs1000 said:
It's a very short step from using Parliament to ask people to hand over records, to asking WhatsApp to.TGOHF said:
Has Grieve got access to Whatsapp’s Servers ?rcs1000 said:
That may be true of Telegram and Signal, but your messages are forever backed up by WhatsApp. Deleting a WhatsApp conversation just adds a "deleted" flag to the database entry.TGOHF said:
Anyone can spoof a screen grab - the messages are encrypted- there is no back up accessible.Scott_P said:
From his Commons speech earlier, i would not be surprised if Dominic Grieve does not already have copies of some materials.TGOHF said:“Hand over your whatsapp messages !”
Click - delete
“What messages?”
Deleting them now won't help anyone
Er no..
So, if you're (say) Dominic Cummings, do you hand over the records now, embarassing as some of the conversations might be? Or do you claim that no such conversations existed, and then get caught out later?
Now they'd probably insist on messages being read in private, rather than published, but they have a policy of complying with government requests.0 -
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.Anabobazina said:
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
0 -
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular lawrpjs said:
Correct. But you can have a civil marriage ceremony in a register office. By law there must be no religious element to such a ceremony.HYUFD said:
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriageNoo said:
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
If you marry in a place of worship other than a C of E or RC church a civil registrar must attend to make the marriage valid in law (by getting the participants to sign the civil register and there are certain forms of words that the registrar must witness being used).0 -
I got married in a hotel with not a bible nor a god botherer in the house. Or am I suffering from false consciousness?HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.0 -
I am, I just disagree with the statement opposing gay marriage makes you homophobicNoo said:
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.Anabobazina said:
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?0 -
AndyJS said:
You can't police people's private moral beliefs. If you do you get totalitarianism.
Who suggested you should?0 -
Yeah but you can keep your morals to yourself. The problem is when someone tried to force their morals or their religion onto others.AndyJS said:You can't police people's private moral beliefs. If you do you get totalitarianism.
Religion is like a penis. It's ok to have one, it's ok to be proud of it. But don't force it down the throats of people who don't want it.0 -
He’s a slightly more straightforward narcissist, and not entirely without principle.KentRising said:
Bercow?Nigelb said:
And what do we say about the mendacious narcissist ?HYUFD said:Boris calls Jo Swinson 'the new leader of the Referendum Party, the James Goldsmith of our time' and says 'Corbyn will campaign against his own Deal', says Labour are frightened they might lose an election except for some Labour MPs 'who are frightened they might win'
0 -
They had civil partnerships they could partake in in registry offices before gay marriageAnabobazina said:
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?0 -
I agree, but the question is whether people should be able to express their own moral beliefs in public. That's not the same thing as forcing other people to adopt your moral beliefs, unless you believe in the latest theories on triggering, safe spaces, etc.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah but you can keep your morals to yourself. The problem is when someone tried to force their morals or their religion onto others.AndyJS said:You can't police people's private moral beliefs. If you do you get totalitarianism.
Religion is like a penis. It's ok to have one, it's ok to be proud of it. But don't force it down the throats of people who don't want it.0 -
It's like they've not realised we're a week on from the prorogue controversy, that they've been asked twice if they want an election. Like the printer's broke and they're reading the old speech. As soon as they failed to back an election, all talk of coups and dictatorships disappeared down the plughole of credibility.AndyJS said:The SNP leader calls the government a dictatorship, even though the government is about to vote in favour of an election and his party isn't.
0 -
Alan Duncan says our postwar and Victorian party system facing collapse0
-
It is treating people unequally based on their sexual orientation. Pick your word for that.HYUFD said:
I am, I just disagree with the statement opposing gay marriage makes you homophobicNoo said:
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.Anabobazina said:
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
1 -
As someone who has spent more time than is reasonable in a well-ordered life getting hold of and reading electronic messages of all kinds, some free advice:-
- once you have created something electronically never ever think that you can delete it. You can’t. One way or another you will be caught out.
- If you use a personal device for work messages (a bloody stupid thing to do if you are in government) you cannot claim that this is private stuff and exempt from disclosure, whether under the GPDR or the ECHR or whatever principle or law you’ve just plucked out of your arse in the hope that you won’t be caught or embarrassed.
- Grieve is not persecuting some minor SPADS. He has listed 9 names because they are people involved in the discussions around prorogation and can reasonably be expected to have relevant evidence.
- It is unusual for a party to a case not to provide evidence on oath to support what it is saying. If, as appears to be the case, no-one was prepared to sign a witness statement on behalf of the government that suggests that there may be questions as to why and whether that was because the full accurate story was not being told.
- That matters because trust in what Ministers say - whether to Parliament or a court - matters. I know this may seem like old-fashioned nonsense these days. But it is still true. And it is absolutely right that this government should be held to account for it.
This will make me even more unpopular this evening but Grieve, as a former A-G, knows what he is talking about it here and is absolutely right to demand full and frank disclosure about what the government was doing, when and what it was saying to Parliament, the court and the public.0 -
Perhaps not automatically, but it’s a pretty strong bloody clue.HYUFD said:
I am, I just disagree with the statement opposing gay marriage makes you homophobicNoo said:
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.Anabobazina said:
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?0 -
Ancient history was never my strong point, but didn't totalitarian regimes like the Nazis persecute LGBT people?AndyJS said:You can't police people's private moral beliefs. If you do you get totalitarianism.
0 -
Law is not made on the basis of religious beliefs. That's theocracy and it's what crazy people do. It's not up to a religion or its representatives (in the capacity of their role) to decide this.HYUFD said:
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular lawrpjs said:
Correct. But you can have a civil marriage ceremony in a register office. By law there must be no religious element to such a ceremony.HYUFD said:
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriageNoo said:
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
If you marry in a place of worship other than a C of E or RC church a civil registrar must attend to make the marriage valid in law (by getting the participants to sign the civil register and there are certain forms of words that the registrar must witness being used).
Religious people also have view on things like drinking alcohol. Which is fine, everyone can govern their own abstinence. But as soon as someone says that THEIR god prevents ME from marrying my same sex lover, or stops ME from going for a pint, then I'm going to fight back.0 -
Grieve is a myopic partisan fanny.Cyclefree said:As someone who has spent more time than is reasonable in a well-ordered life, getting hold of and reading electronic messages of all kinds, some free advice:-
- once you have created something electronically never ever think that you can delete it. You can’t. One way or another you will be caught out.
- If you use a personal device for work messages (a bloody stupid thing to do if you are in government) you cannot claim that this is private stuff and exempt from disclosure, whether under the GPDR or the ECHR or whatever principle or law you’ve just plucked out of your arse in the hope that you won’t be caught or embarrassed.
- Grieve is not persecuting some minor SPADS. He has listed 9 names because they are people involved in the discussions around prorogation and can reasonably be expected to have relevant evidence.
- It is unusual for a party to a case not to provide evidence on oath to support what it is saying. If, as appears to be the case, no-one was prepared to sign a witness statement that suggests that there may be questions as to why and whether that was because the full accurate story was not being told.
- That matters because trust in what Ministers say - whether to Parliament or a court - matters. I know this may seem like old-fashioned nonsense these days. But it is still true. And it is absolutely right that this government should be held to account for it.
This will make me even more unpopular this evening but Grieve, as a former A-G, knows what he is talking about it here and is absolutely right to demand full and frank disclosure about what the government was doing, when and what it was saying to Parliament, the court and the public.
Should conversations in the pub between colleagues be taped too ?
0 -
Religious people believe many things which are utter nonsense.HYUFD said:
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular lawrpjs said:
Correct. But you can have a civil marriage ceremony in a register office. By law there must be no religious element to such a ceremony.HYUFD said:
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriageNoo said:
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
If you marry in a place of worship other than a C of E or RC church a civil registrar must attend to make the marriage valid in law (by getting the participants to sign the civil register and there are certain forms of words that the registrar must witness being used).0 -
I was hoping you’d weigh in to confirm my rather vague assertions on this.Cyclefree said:As someone who has spent more time than is reasonable in a well-ordered life, getting hold of and reading electronic messages of all kinds, some free advice:-
- once you have created something electronically never ever think that you can delete it. You can’t. One way or another you will be caught out.
- If you use a personal device for work messages (a bloody stupid thing to do if you are in government) you cannot claim that this is private stuff and exempt from disclosure, whether under the GPDR or the ECHR or whatever principle or law you’ve just plucked out of your arse in the hope that you won’t be caught or embarrassed.
- Grieve is not persecuting some minor SPADS. He has listed 9 names because they are people involved in the discussions around prorogation and can reasonably be expected to have relevant evidence.
- It is unusual for a party to a case not to provide evidence on oath to support what it is saying. If, as appears to be the case, no-one was prepared to sign a witness statement on behalf of the government that suggests that there may be questions as to why and whether that was because the full accurate story was not being told.
- That matters because trust in what Ministers say - whether to Parliament or a court - matters. I know this may seem like old-fashioned nonsense these days. But it is still true. And it is absolutely right that this government should be held to account for it.
This will make me even more unpopular this evening but Grieve, as a former A-G, knows what he is talking about it here and is absolutely right to demand full and frank disclosure about what the government was doing, when and what it was saying to Parliament, the court and the public.
0 -
"I just disagree with the statement opposing BAME marriage makes you racist"Nigelb said:
Perhaps not automatically, but it’s a pretty strong bloody clue.HYUFD said:
I am, I just disagree with the statement opposing gay marriage makes you homophobicNoo said:
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.Anabobazina said:
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?0 -
Did I say it did? But there is a legal definition of marriage in the UK, and even religious marriages have to meet its minima to be recognized in law.HYUFD said:
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular lawrpjs said:
Correct. But you can have a civil marriage ceremony in a register office. By law there must be no religious element to such a ceremony.HYUFD said:
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriageNoo said:
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
If you marry in a place of worship other than a C of E or RC church a civil registrar must attend to make the marriage valid in law (by getting the participants to sign the civil register and there are certain forms of words that the registrar must witness being used).0 -
HYUFD said:
They had civil partnerships they could partake in in registry offices before gay marriageAnabobazina said:
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
Yes but not marriages. These were restricted to heterosexual couples - that is inherently homophobic.0 -
Corbyn looks as though he knows he's done for...TGOHF said:0 -
Voting against gay marriage is attempting to force other people to adopt the practical consequence of your particular religious belief.AndyJS said:
I agree, but the question is whether people should be able to express their own moral beliefs in public. That's not the same thing as forcing other people to adopt your moral beliefs, unless you believe in the latest theories on triggering, safe spaces, etc.Philip_Thompson said:
Yeah but you can keep your morals to yourself. The problem is when someone tried to force their morals or their religion onto others.AndyJS said:You can't police people's private moral beliefs. If you do you get totalitarianism.
Religion is like a penis. It's ok to have one, it's ok to be proud of it. But don't force it down the throats of people who don't want it.0 -
Nothing to stop you having a partnership with a same sex lover with the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, the issue was over adding the word religious word marriage to itNoo said:
Law is not made on the basis of religious beliefs. That's theocracy and it's what crazy people do. It's not up to a religion or its representatives (in the capacity of their role) to decide this.HYUFD said:
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular lawrpjs said:
Correct. But youg used).HYUFD said:
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriageNoo said:
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Religious people also have view on things like drinking alcohol. Which is fine, everyone can govern their own abstinence. But as soon as someone says that THEIR god prevents ME from marrying my same sex lover, or stops ME from going for a pint, then I'm going to fight back.0 -
Quite.Sunil_Prasannan said:
"I just disagree with the statement opposing BAME marriage makes you racist"Nigelb said:
Perhaps not automatically, but it’s a pretty strong bloody clue.HYUFD said:
I am, I just disagree with the statement opposing gay marriage makes you homophobicNoo said:
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.Anabobazina said:
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
0 -
I'm afraid it is though. How can you possibly define homophobia in a way that allows one to advocate for the allocation or denial of rights on the basis of sexuality?HYUFD said:
I am, I just disagree with the statement opposing gay marriage makes you homophobicNoo said:
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.Anabobazina said:
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
Let's draw a parallel. Schools segregated on skin colour. One could say that it doesn't matter, black children get a school and white children get a school, therefore it's not a racist policy, but it /is/ a racist policy. The /form/ of that argument is the same as those who advocate for different forms of union for same- and different-sex couples.
I acknowledge again that this is NOT your view, but it is the view you're seeking to cleanse of the charge of homophobic.0 -
Yes, Muslims are at liberty to ban booze In mosques. They are quite rightly not at liberty to prevent pubs selling beer.0 -
Marriage has been a non religious institution for a very long time indeed.HYUFD said:
Nothing to stop you having a partnership with a same sex lover with the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, the issue was over adding the word religious word marriage to itNoo said:
Law is not made on the basis of religious beliefs. That's theocracy and it's what crazy people do. It's not up to a religion or its representatives (in the capacity of their role) to decide this.HYUFD said:
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular lawrpjs said:
Correct. But youg used).HYUFD said:
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriageNoo said:
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Religious people also have view on things like drinking alcohol. Which is fine, everyone can govern their own abstinence. But as soon as someone says that THEIR god prevents ME from marrying my same sex lover, or stops ME from going for a pint, then I'm going to fight back.
That there are religious versions of it is neither here nor there.0 -
After what happened in 2017 he backs himself to turn over Boris's lead in the polls - and why shouldn't he? He's s campaigner more than a politician, is Jezza. He's been waiting two years to have another go and now a massive opportunity is staring him in the face his hands are tied behind his back. It's almost enough for me to feel sorry for him.GIN1138 said:
Corbyn looks as though he knows he's done for...TGOHF said:
I don't.0 -
-
From last year:
"St Paul's stop preacher from read The Bible outside Cathedral"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/22/st-pauls-stop-preacher-read-bible-outside-cathedral/0 -
It is not a denial of rights which were already granted on the same basis as heterosexual couples through civil partnerships. Still now there are single sex schools for exampleNoo said:
I'm afraid it is though. How can you possibly define homophobia in a way that allows one to advocate for the allocation or denial of rights on the basis of sexuality?HYUFD said:
I am, I just disagree with the statement opposing gay marriage makes you homophobicNoo said:
To be fair, s/he did say s/he is personally in favour of "gay" (equal!) marriage.Anabobazina said:
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Churches aren’t forced to allow gay marriage even now, as I understand the law. I have no time for and little interest in religion, but AIUI some denominations do marry gay couples, some don’t.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights for homosexual couples as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Had you had your way, humanist/atheist/irreligious weddings between people of the same sex would still be illegal. If gay people want to get married in a registry office, it is no business of the state stopping them. Why do you think otherwise?
Let's draw a parallel. Schools segregated on skin colour. One could say that it doesn't matter, black children get a school and white children get a school, therefore it's not a racist policy, but it /is/ a racist policy. The /form/ of that argument is the same as those who advocate for different forms of union for same- and different-sex couples.
I acknowledge again that this is NOT your view, but it is the view you're seeking to cleanse of the charge of homophobic.0 -
While Boris should reinstate the whip for the likes of Rory Stewart and others who backed the WA arch reverser and schemer Grieve should receive no such reprieve.TGOHF said:
Grieve is a myopic partisan fanny.Cyclefree said:As someone who has spent more time than is reasonable in a well-ordered life, getting hold of and reading electronic messages of all kinds, some free advice:-
- once you have created something electronically never ever think that you can delete it. You can’t. One way or another you will be caught out.
- If you use a personal device for work messages (a bloody stupid thing to do if you are in government) you cannot claim that this is private stuff and exempt from disclosure, whether under the GPDR or the ECHR or whatever principle or law you’ve just plucked out of your arse in the hope that you won’t be caught or embarrassed.
- Grieve is not persecuting some minor SPADS. He has listed 9 names because they are people involved in the discussions around prorogation and can reasonably be expected to have relevant evidence.
- It is unusual for a party to a case not to provide evidence on oath to support what it is saying. If, as appears to be the case, no-one was prepared to sign a witness statement that suggests that there may be questions as to why and whether that was because the full accurate story was not being told.
- That matters because trust in what Ministers say - whether to Parliament or a court - matters. I know this may seem like old-fashioned nonsense these days. But it is still true. And it is absolutely right that this government should be held to account for it.
This will make me even more unpopular this evening but Grieve, as a former A-G, knows what he is talking about it here and is absolutely right to demand full and frank disclosure about what the government was doing, when and what it was saying to Parliament, the court and the public.
Should conversations in the pub between colleagues be taped too ?0 -
They are at liberty to ban swimsuit ads on the tube though.Anabobazina said:
Yes, Muslims are at liberty to ban booze In mosques. They are quite rightly not at liberty to prevent pubs selling beer.
0 -
AndyJS
Bigots express their moral beliefs in public all the time. That is not a reason to prevent gay people marrying in atheist ceremonies.0 -
Marriage is a LEGAL status, not a religious one! That is why you can get married without a priest present in this country!HYUFD said:
Nothing to stop you having a partnership with a same sex lover with the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, the issue was over adding the word religious word marriage to itNoo said:
Law is not made on the basis of religious beliefs. That's theocracy and it's what crazy people do. It's not up to a religion or its representatives (in the capacity of their role) to decide this.HYUFD said:
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular lawrpjs said:
Correct. But youg used).HYUFD said:
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriageNoo said:
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Religious people also have view on things like drinking alcohol. Which is fine, everyone can govern their own abstinence. But as soon as someone says that THEIR god prevents ME from marrying my same sex lover, or stops ME from going for a pint, then I'm going to fight back.0 -
Heterosexual couples have had atheist marriage available to them since the 1830s.HYUFD said:
Nothing to stop you having a partnership with a same sex lover with the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, the issue was over adding the word religious word marriage to itNoo said:
Law is not made on the basis of religious beliefs. That's theocracy and it's what crazy people do. It's not up to a religion or its representatives (in the capacity of their role) to decide this.HYUFD said:
None of which changes the fact that for many religious people marriage is a religious institution above all and its definition cannot be changed by law, whatever civil ceremonies have or is decided under secular lawrpjs said:
Correct. But youg used).HYUFD said:
You cannot have a civil ceremony in a religious place of worship, only a marriageNoo said:
False. You can marry in places other than a place of worship. I should know, that's what I did.HYUFD said:
You can also have a civil partnership in a civil ceremony but you can only get married in a religious place of worshipSunil_Prasannan said:
You can get married in a civil ceremony.HYUFD said:
No, civil partnerships provided the same legal rights as heterosexual couples had in marriage. It is the religious element of marriage that was the issue, indeed I still know some priests who refuse to marry divorced couples tooNoo said:
Saying that same sex couple should be excluded from an opportunity that's freely available to heterosexual couple is definitionally homophobic. It doesn't matter that it comes from a religious point of view. Nobody requires the consent of a minister of religion to get married.HYUFD said:
I personally support gay marriage but you can vote against it for religious reasons without being homophobic, you can even support civil partnerships but not gay marriageDanny565 said:
If I want to marry someone of the same gender as me, it's not up to a priest or imam or rabbi to tell me whether that's ok or not. Their opinions are totally irrelevant to the legality of it.
Religious people also have view on things like drinking alcohol. Which is fine, everyone can govern their own abstinence. But as soon as someone says that THEIR god prevents ME from marrying my same sex lover, or stops ME from going for a pint, then I'm going to fight back.0 -
-
Gosh Jo Swinson is good on her feet. I'm so glad I voted for her as leader. Articulate and passionate she gets the respect of the house.0
-
Tremendous typoAndyJS said:0 -
George Howarth thought that Mrs Thatcher "acted in good faith and in the national interest"? I bet he didn't say that in 1987 as MP for Knowsley North.0
-
Possibly a people's vote from a cross party arrangement is more likely than a revocation from a majority libdem government?AndyJS said:0 -
Jo Swinson very, very good.
Makes Jezza look like a broken, clapped out shell of a man.
Could LIb-Dems replace Labour as the main Opposition if there is an election at some point?0 -
George Howarth not exactly setting the nation alight with this speech.1
-
Been out all day and offline. Didn't miss much, then?0
-
Fairly devastating intervention from Sir Alan Duncan. Jo Swinson is doing very well for so early in her leadership. She almost commanded the House which given everyone hates the Lib Dems is hard to do.1
-
No because I'm suspecting Corbyn will be gone v soon - maybe an unspoken reason why Labour are so keen to delay the electionGIN1138 said:Jo Swinson very, very good.
Makes Jezza look like a broken, clapped out shell of a man.
Could LIb-Dems replace Labour as the main Opposition if there is an election at some point?0
This discussion has been closed.