Freedom of speech

Jalima how could I possibly peddle Ankers false information when she knew the answer already?

Are you saying that Ankers is just winding us all up, Rigby?

Perish the thought...

As if < wanders off very bored now>

As regards Deputy Speakers in the Commons (but not the Lords), 'like the Speaker they lose party affiliation on taking up the role and must be politically impartial'.

I simply don't know if this impartiality extends beyond party politics for Deputy Speakers to, for example, the Referendum. The quotes I found earlier for the Speaker were more restrictive but this may have been the form of words rather than the substance.

My interest is less about the specific case of John Bercow and more about whether a precedent has been set for the future. Personally, I would rather have the Speaker impartial and seen by all to be impartial.

By the way, I do not understand what rules, if any, apply to ex-Speakers who go to the Lords. They can hardly be impartial and still contribute to a political discussion. Betty Boothroyd certainly made her preference for Remain loud and clear before the Referendum.

I agree that Hansard is useful and I have no reason to believe it inaccurate. It can, though, be tedious and boring.

Cunco

This has caused an obvious division between posters.

I beg to ask if Bercow can be seen to be impartial after his speech on Donald Trump to Chair the 2 Donald Trump e.petitions in Parliament on Feb 20th ?

'Prevent Donald Trump from making a State Visit to the United Kingdom'

'Donald Trump should make a State Visit to the United Kingdom'

I think he should leave that day to his deputies to stop further controversy!

In the circumstances that POGS has outlined, I would have thought it would make sense for a Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.

Can't see Bercow agreeing to that, though!

Perhaps he will stay a while longer in Israel and give it a miss.

This is an excellent blog by Paul Flynn, MP, who is bringing in the debate on the trump visit in Westminster Hall. He is called the thinking man's Dennis Skinner.

paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2017/02/has-top-mandarin-see-i-danial-blake.html

Putting somebody in his place.

It will be in Hansard as well.

Paul Flynn, the thinking mans Dennis Skinner , that is so funny

Well to be fair he did not back Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Leader.

He was Shadow Welsh Secretary and Shadow Commons Leader but Corbyn got rid of him pretty quickly. Why was that?

After all he was 'Neutral but not hostile' on Corbyn's 'Hostile List'

Have you still got that list, POGS? How weird.

So what do you think of Paul Flynn, Annie?
I guess you don't rate him. What do you think about what he said in the select committee on social security? Is he right or not?
I await your words of wisdom.

Do you Jen? sorry didn't read your link so couldn''t comment on it's contents

durhamjen

Is he right or not?

Of course in his mind and yours he will be right.

I read your link and I think Paul Flynn by asking questions to Sir Robert Devereux questions such as 'Have you seen the film I Daniel Blake?', 'According to The Independent newspaper' was rather strange.

If those are terms of reference for Gransnet ,fine, if they are terms of reference for assessing factual content for parliamentarians in Committee Rooms then quite frankly if I was being asked questions I would hope for something more substantial.

There were indeed some interesting points made but I thought Devereux would have felt let off lightly with some of the questions and points raised, which he answered with little of a sweat to be honest.

Our opinions will differ but using a film and a newspaper as sources of fact to question or make a point is a tad ill conceived surely.

I Daniel Blake is fiction, why ask if Devereux has seen it, I am fed up of this damn film, there may have been a lot of research by the writer but it is still fiction.

A large number of the population will see the film POGS and it will help form their opinion just as Cathy Come Home helped form a generations opinion on homelessness and how the benefit system of later sixties worked.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask the question " Mr Devereux, have you seen the film, “I, Daniel Blake”? It is partly asking 'do you see the system as those within in can see it?' Mr Devereux immediately answered in a way that is almost incoherent to those having to make use of the system which, in itself, is pretty incoherent.

If we are to understand how freedom of speech - of which we have a plethora currently - and see how it could actually mean we communicate with one another then we actually need, not to see the other persons point of view, but to understand why they have formed it.

But the film is how the writer sees it, many may agree with what has been written but it is a work of fiction and one man's views. Surely a member of a select committee should keep to facts not rely on a work of fiction

GGMk2

'Mr Devereux immediately answered in a way that is almost incoherent to those having to make use of the system which, in itself, is pretty incoherent.'

I saw absolutely nothing incoherent in his answers to be honest. What/where is he being incoherent?.

Paul Flynn: Mr Devereux, have you seen the film, “I, Daniel Blake”?

Sir Robert Devereux: I have not.

Q280 Paul Flynn: Don’t you think you should?

Sir Robert Devereux: I am in two minds about whether I should.

Paul Flynn: As just an average MP, I thought it gave an accurate portrayal of the good work of civil servants, the ones who are kind and conscientious, but also the other side, the results of what happens with policy. It portrayed what all MPs, I believe, see in our daily surgeries, the suffering and tragedy that result from the decisions made by your Department. I think you would find it educational to see the film.

Sir Robert Devereux: I spend two days a week on the road, sitting with colleagues, sitting with claimants, listening to telephones. With the greatest of respect, a fictional story is unlikely to improve on my knowledge of how the system operates.

Q281 Paul Flynn: I think you would find it of rare quality and it gives a different point of view, but I would urge you to see it. It is worth an hour of your time.

Sir Robert Devereux: I have colleagues who have seen it and they have the same view, that the way in which some of the work coaches come across is entirely as they would expect and the portrayal of the Jobcentre manager—I have not met one who remotely gets anywhere close to it.

Paul Flynn: It is an entirely accurate report

Sir Robert Devereux: So you say, but I have visited many more Jobcentres than I suspect you or the filmmaker have and since I have pride in the colleagues I work with, I know something about what they actually do. I will just choose to differ on whether or not this is an entirely accurate representation. It is a film.

Q282 Paul Flynn: I spoke to the man who made the film and he did say that much of the information in the film was supplied by people who work in your Department.

Sir Robert Devereux: Yes, he may well have said that. I have 75,000 staff so maybe a little bit of local knowledge might be allowed to be introduced to the conversation."

Interesting POGS and as you and ab say, why base any decision upon the contents of a film?Sounds as if Sir Robert Devereaux knows what he is talking about.
Just because he is a Sir does not mean that he is unaware of social poverty/deprivation.

Good grief, this was said , perhaps some will understand why I found Paul Flynn described as the thinking man's Dennis Skinner so amusing.

Yes, perhaps Dennis Skinner is the thinking mans Dennis Skinner.

Just going by the comments on here, how arrogant of Paul Flynn! To think that his piece of fiction is more the reality than someone who is actually involved in the work!

To borrow a phrase my mother uses, but I dont hear very often elsewhere, "this sort of thing gets my goat!"

Thankfully, I think more and more people are waking up to those who use arrogance as a way to get people around to their way of thinking.