Freedom of speech

Get over yourself....to be human is to make mistakes....and say silly stupid things..most of us don't get caught saying them. Perhaps some females should be careful, they are free to gob off, women like Madonna and she is praised for her foul anti male stance....revolting.

Ruth - charming

I agree Madonna is pretty grim, but hey she's a modern showbiz leftie, so it's ok for her to be vile! Applauded even - God forbid anyone else should express such views! No wonder her son doesn't want to live with her!!

Well, I must be 'a pearl clutcher' too Rigby ( you seem to have a certain way with words, ) as I laughed out loud when I read the statement by JessM that Bercow was scrupulously even handed when in work!) Haha. Not last week he wasn't.

I assume that is MR Ruth posting above?

I thought POGS explained it very well (or was it just me?) and wasn't pompous at all.

I think Bercow's problem, if he has one, is that he likes the idea of a being a famous personality, ie enjoys the personality cult as defined:
Excessive public admiration for or devotion to a famous person, especially a political leader: 'every pope became the centre of a considerable personality cult'
instead of just doing his role of Speaker to the best of his ability and remaining impartial.

The Speaker also represents the Commons to the monarch, the Lords and other authorities and chairs the House of Commons Commission. The current Speaker is John Bercow, MP for Buckingham.
Perhaps he should have have a chat with HM first before expressing an opinion.

We certainly didn't hear or know so much about previous Speakers, although we were perfectly aware of who they were and I think most of them behaved with more dignity.

Just what do we know of Bercow? He was a Tory MP, he gives back benchers of all parties more share of questions , what has he done to be accused of wanting to be a famous personality? I think he has modernised the house, long overdue

POGS, should trump have the freedom to say what he wants on twitter while Republicans deny freedom of speech to others?

Betty Boothroyd lived there after refurbishment, then Michael Martin spent a further £724,600 on refurbishments and £992,000 on improving security in the garden.
During his residence at Speaker's House, Mr Martin had installed a new air-conditioning system, almost £150,000 on furniture and thousands more on artworks.

I apologise, Mr Bercow managed to reduce his office expenses:
However, the first detailed accounts of how his office uses taxpayers’ money also revealed that Mr Bercow has cut the bills by a fifth, from £626,029 in 2009-10 to £504,737 in 2014-15 whilst still living up to the standards required of the role. He only spent £45,000 on refurbishment of the Speaker's House making it more child-friendly.

www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/speaker-john-bercows-504000-office-spend-on-items-including-candles-and-photographs-a3179211.html

What do we know of him? I think he is so rarely out of the limelight it is almost embarrassing what we do know.

I think it is ridiculous, he should stop tweeting.

Annie, I doubt whether all or even most MPs would agree with your opinion of Bercow. He loves being in the limelight - never saw Betty Boothroyd giving interviews, and not even the last Speaker, as awful as he was.

Ana, I don't know what most MPs would say about him, but I think he is generally held to have done a good job. however, he made a clear and obvious major error in making his Trump speech. No way should he have to resign for that, but I hope he will take note of all the criticism rightly levelled at him and think twice about speaking out on a political issue without any attempt at consultating the people he is meant to be speaking for.

Ana, no idea of the latest news on the campaign to remove Bercow but lunch time today it had collected one signature, he is very popular with the backbenchers of all parties because he is fair in making sure all parties get the chance to ask questions, unlike Boothroyd he looks past the front benches

Boothroyd gave interviews , not Martin though. Bercow has given interviews on how the house works, this is good surely.

But Fitzy who should he had consulted?

I think Bercow did the right thing by saying what he did. He was responding to a point of order, which is about the workings of the house of commons.
If he had let the idea of trump speaking go on any longer, it would have ended up like May's invitation, and too difficult to withdraw.

I wasn't talking about the campaign to remove Bercow, Annie. I'm sure he'll cling like a limpet to his position until forced to relinquish it in the fullness of time...

I don't think Bercow should go; he spoke out when he should not have done and remained impartial until he had consulted the MPs.

Perhaps it will be a lesson learned.

Is his job to consult MPs, Jalima? I thought it wasn't.

I thought the point was that he hadn't consulted anyone, just given his own opinion. He should have at least spoken to/consulted with the Lord Speaker.

durhamjen

"POGS, should trump have the freedom to say what he wants on twitter while Republicans deny freedom of speech to others?"

Sorry, not interested in Trumps twittering. However I have said before I think David Cameron was correct when he said 'Too many tweets make a twat". In fact that could be expanded to include a few other methods of communicating !

" If he had let the idea of trump speaking go on any longer, it would have ended up like May's invitation, and too difficult to withdraw.'

It was never in Theresa Mays hands to invite Donald Trump to speak in Westminster Hall. That is a matter for the '3 key holders' to discuss/debate. The '3 key holders are The Speakers of the Houses of Parliament, The Lords and The Great Lord Chamberlain. Lord Fowler clearly stated NO contact had been made from the government.

A cynic would say that the Early Day Motion by Labour MP Stephen Doughty was getting on the band wagon, preempting an issue that was not on the cards anyway.

His further Point of Order asking :-

"What discussions had taken place with the “keyholders” regarding the “offering of the honour of a speech to both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall or elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster”.

Is deemed by many and certainly looked like this was a pre-arranged scenario , deliberately arranged to provide the Speaker with an opportunity to make his speech.

Sick to death of people who say they believe in free speech and yet silence others because they don't agree. Young soldiers in the 1st and 2nd WW fought and died for that freedom, such a shame thay today's younger, shouting, screaming, hysterical, over emotional so called educated neo liberals don't truly understand.

Is that really what young soldiers in World War I fought and died for? Of course, the war had nothing to do with preserving the British Empire and its underpinning of British wealth. Of course, abusing and imprisoning suffragettes was the ultimate example of allowing free speech.

Who made the "sick to death" comment please absent; I can't find it.

Good points Absent

It looks very unlikely that the handful of MPs who do not appreciate what Speaker Bercow has done for Parliament will get their way - they have been trying since he became Speaker; it's all very personal which doesn't show them in high esteem. He is not only known for giving question time to back-benchers but to women and for going out an talking to schools, etc., about the workings of Parliament.

I understood he is standing down next year and it will be interesting to see if the next person is seen to be impartial. Now who are they suggesting - oh yes, one of them is the wonderfully impartial Jacob Rees-Mogg. Certainly the far right capitalist conservatives will love having a man with a net worth of £150 million. You really can understand why he has the politics stance he does and do we really think he will be even-handed with his extreme (but nicely spoken) views?