Posted by Jenny Bliss on 18/06/2010
the governments equalities minister Theresa May (in case you didnt know who she was anyway heh an intresting one that, those who arnt that political savvy or knowalagible may not know she has a bit of a history of voting specificaly against bills brought in which gave rights to LGBT people, a few examples
The Sexual Orientation regulations of 2007 which ironcily she is now charged with administring however lets look much futher back
1998 – she voted against making the age of consent equal for both straight and gay people, previous to this the age was higher for the latter
2000 – she then voted against the repealing of section 28, this was the legislation that was brought into placed that originaly banned the ‘promotion’ or ‘encouraging’ of homosexuality by either local government and schools
2001/2002 – a series of votes on bits of legislation which she voted against allowing gay couples to adopt jointly (previous tothis they had to adopt as a single person as for adoption purposes the relationships werent legaly reconised as such)
2004 – now 2004 is an intresting year, the year the vote for or against civil partnerships was held in this particular vote she did vote for it (as most of the other conservitive front benchers did) however did not attend another vote in that year which was equaly important and very central to part of her job, the equality act or rather the sexual orientation regulations held inside that act (yeah its a bit act heh) basicly though that outlawed discimination on the ground of sexual orientation for the provision of goods and services (of which included adoption) i say this is important becuase its down to her to administer this legislation now
In the same year she also didnt attend the series of votes that led to what is now known as the Gender Recognition Act which allows those who have changed their gender to be reconised by the state as so for purposes of pension and marriage rights ect.
2008 – last 1 on my list heh she voted in favour of a bill that didnt get through which would have made it the law that woman wanting to get IVF treatment in short would have to have a male partner or ‘male role model for the child’ which obviously would have discriminated against lesbian couples
so to summerise, she doesnt exactly seem to be the best choice on those grounds at least HOWEVER more recently she does seem to be talking a good game about changing her mind on many issues, wheather thats true or not only time will tell so i hope that this is not just political tactics (aka lying to make people like you and vote for you next time) but the junior eqaulities minister Lynne Featherstone does seem a good choice as her record seems to be the oppisite and is 1 of the few MPs to ever personaly champion transgender people’s rights so good on her
Posted by Jenny Bliss on 08/02/2010
taken from the BBC website
‘David Cameron has accused Gordon Brown of a “humiliating change” of stance after Labour suspended its three MPs facing charges over their expenses.
The move came as the Tory leader prepared for a speech featuring a claim his Labour counterpart was tolerating the MPs’ attempt to “evade justice”
so you mean thats not what people do in the vast majority of public sector jobs? suspend them until they’ve been convicted? admitily i myself do think they made a booboo and should be convicted but to attack Brown based on that is pretty harsh and just nasty really, uncalled for if you would
“The Tories were the “new generation” of politicians “at ease with openness” who would reform politics, he added.”
and by reform he means restrict the access lobbyist who campaign for changes from parliament so they cant have a say, cant make his mind up quite a few of his policies and hypocritically and quite disgustingly uses an isolated crime as proof of ‘broken Britain’ oh and by the way in case anyone ever wonders, i dont like labour anymore than the tories hehe 
“Downing Street called Mr Cameron’s attack on Mr Brown “desperate”.”
well sounds about right to me, they’re down in the polls plus they’ve been called out on the things i said above already
“It is understood that lawyers for Labour MPs Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine, who are charged with theft offenses, may claim their expense claims are covered by the centuries-old Parliamentary privilege law, which traditionally protects them from being sued for what they say in the Commons.
Politicians from all the main parties have criticised the lawyers’ move.”
im not a lawyer myself so i cant be 100% sure of this but i doubt very much they’ll be protected under that from what i do understand about it howeveri dont understand it completly so imay be wrong but i would hope not, all that would do would make people loose what little faith they had if any in the political system.
“Labour MPs suspended
The MPs – plus a Conservative peer, Lord Hanningfield – face charges of false accounting under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968. If found guilty they face a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment. They all deny the charges.
In his speech at the University of East London, Mr Cameron highlighted reports that the Labour Party’s official solicitor was providing the three MPs with legal advice.
He had been due to say that the least Mr Brown could do was withdraw the party whip from the three – something which he said the Conservatives had been demanding for two days.
But, after the news from Labour that the three were being suspended “pending finalisation of the legal process”, Mr Cameron said Labour were in “headlong retreat” and had again showed that the Conservative Party’s instincts on expenses were in tune with the public’s.”
considering it was under the Thatcher government that the expenses system we know today was formed i somewhat doubt they’re ‘in tune with the public’ making it out that labour is the sole bad guy in this whole thing is at best foolish, at worst outright hypocrisy
“Mr Cameron is also asking shadow Commons leader Sir George Young to prepare a new Parliamentary Privilege Act which “we would introduce as soon as possible, to clarify the rules of parliamentary privilege to make clear that they cannot be used by MPs to evade justice”.
Mr Cameron said: “Gordon Brown cannot reform the institution because he is the institution: he made it.”
not gonna comment on that 1 other than to say, see above hehe
“‘Cut the rhetoric’
But deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman said the Conservatives had opposed such a law coming into force in the summer.
They were being “at best muddled and at worst downright opportunistic”, she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
Ms Harman also said she was “completely satisfied” that parliamentary privilege did not apply to cases like theft or fraud.
And she warned Mr Cameron to be “careful” not to jeopardise the trial with comments that could allow the MPs to argue they could no longer receive a fair trial.”
truth be told i didnt think about it that way at all, hopfuly it would be impossible for them to argue such a thing and i must say im pretty much in agreement with Ms Harman on that front (which is a rarity haha)
“The Liberal Democrats want to go one step further this week by amending existing legislation in the House of Commons to ensure those charged with abuse of expenses cannot evade the legal process.
And Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said: “Listening to the two of them anyone would think they were powerless backbenchers rather than the leaders of the two parties in Parliament which have proved to be the real roadblocks to reform.
“It’s like a couple of cowboy builders coming back to your house to tell you how bad their workmanship is.
“If they genuinely want political change, it is in their power to deliver it. So I challenge them to cut out the speeches and the rhetoric and get on with the job.”
hmm im partially in agreement in that he’s right that both parties to manage to be in constant competition with each other to do the other over.. well over everything, quite egotistical really but thats just me however where i disagree is that Mr Clegg himself has often rejected what both parties say completely which doesn’t exactly help his position in arguing like that heh
“On Sunday, Home Secretary Alan Johnson said the four politicians should be tried in court, as people wanted to see MPs treated like everyone else.
He told the BBC: “They are entitled to a fair trial and the public… would be aghast if they thought there was some special get out of jail card for Parliamentarians.”
this is where i feel the courts are in a bit of a pickle, its obviously in the public intrest to charge them however if they don’t convict them people would be rather unhappy to put it politely but on the flip side if they do get convicted its the politicians who would be rather unhappy, now to you and i that doesn’t really matter but to the courts it really can be a bad thing but we’ll see how that goes now sharnt we 
Posted by Jenny Bliss on 07/02/2010
Ewoo all you people out there, we are officially open as of….. NOW! this can be considered our official birthday if you like now all the design stuff and what not’s been more or less completed, so cut the red ribbon and so on and so forth, just start off by giving a little introduction (although most of what im saying in here i already put in my about page haha) as you might have guessed im Jenny, your friendly neighborhood… erm… Jenny ill start posting somewhat more interesting stuff a little later on after the website warming party which pretty much consists of me, Jackie (my wife) my cat and my dog, so anyway the first person to post gets.. a cookie hope to see you soon ^_^
Theresa May
