The vote on the call for ceasefire in Gaza

Anniebach yes, unfortunately it would appear so - even regarding an issue as important and tragic as war.

Lizzie garnering votes for the general election is more important for some,

Paddyann surely “diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire” ^are^ required in order to ultimately achieve long-term peace in the region. A simple call of “immediate ceasefire” potentially serves to ‘simplify’ a highly complex and long-running conflict.

Paddyanne.so England isn’t a Christian country but Scotland is !

I do think that people in public office should never be subjected to protest outside of their private residence. By all means protest outside of public offices, town halls, parliament etc

Isn’t there something in the HR Act about the right to privacy?

(Just to wind the right wing up😄😄)

this is from a CHRISTIAN GROUP FOR SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE.

We can learn several things from yesterday’s “debate” in the House of Commons on a ceasefire in Gaza:
The UK Government’s amendment to the SNP’s motion for an immediate ceasefire called only for negotiations to agree a “humanitarian pause” and support for “a move towards” a ceasefire. It is still following the lead of the US and refusing to put any pressure on Israel to stop its catastrophic attacks on the people of Gaza.
The Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was more concerned about avoiding a split in his party than he was about the situation in Gaza. He pressured the Speaker to call Labour’s amendment, against all the normal rules of Commons procedure, to prevent having large numbers of Labour MPs voting for the SNP’s motion.
The Labour amendment’s call for a ceasefire is hedged around with many conditions and expresses support for “diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire”.
Only the SNP motion calls simply for “an immediate ceasefire” - which is what is needed to stop the toll of those killed or injured in Gaza rising even higher.

Glorianny

www.facebook.com/reel/720955976888344
Andrew Feinstein Jewish South African politician on why Israel is an apartheid state worse than SA, and why Israel will happily kill Palestinians. It isn't a conceptI had considered and it is truly shocking,

Will suit your bias this one. Perhaps he has bias too. No thank you.

No thank you

www.facebook.com/reel/720955976888344
Andrew Feinstein Jewish South African politician on why Israel is an apartheid state worse than SA, and why Israel will happily kill Palestinians. It isn't a conceptI had considered and it is truly shocking,

Double standards? I leave that to you

Anniebach

The woman was one in a group, she had no right to pester as she did

There seems to be some double standards here. I remember some vociferous support for Jewish people who demonstrated against Jeremy Corbyn and pursued him.

The woman was one in a group, she had no right to pester as she did

Agree luluaugust why should we have those slogans on the
tower, so wrong, Christian leaders should speak out

Anniebach

Have just watched a video of Rachel Reeves being hounded on
pavements by a group of Islamic women, seems Rachel doesn’t
have any rights

There is one woman asking questions. Others are simply quiet. Rachel Reeves could have answered her talk.tv/top-stories/50123/video-rachel-reeves-flees-muslim-mum-gaza

This is NOT a Christian country ALL opinions should be treated equally ,or do you want the apartheid state that Israel has become over decades to be allowed

Reading the newspaper headlines this morning apparently the Jewish leaders are protesting about the slogans on the Queen Elizabeth Tower, why aren’t the Christian leaders protesting?

Have just watched a video of Rachel Reeves being hounded on
pavements by a group of Islamic women, seems Rachel doesn’t
have any rights

paddyann54

The SNP are "allowed" just 3 that is THREE days a YEAR to put motions to the house...Hardly democratic as it is ...our voices are NOT heard.To have Starmer hijack a motion thats very important to us for his own benefit is abhorrent .Seems you're ALL OK with rules being broken as long as its in your own parties benefit.And you wonder why so many Scots feel we need control of our own country.
There is NO DOUBT that what Israel is doing is a war crime.Indiscriminately bombing and killing tens of thousands of INNOCENT people ,thousands of children included is not in any way shape or form acceptable "warfare" whatever that is !
The statements from Israel receently about ridding the country of Palestinians is just a ramping up of the illegal landgrabs and interrnment of thousands of Palestinians since the inception of Israel.The recurrent ignoring of UN resolutions and NO action taken on them means Israel thinks it can, and is clearly proving that now, get away with MURDER

Then why didn’t the SNP come up with something that they knew everyone could and would vote for?I know that many people, myself included, think that Israel are committing war crimes but it hasn’t been proven yet and probably never will be with these things taking years and years to prove. You know as well as I do what the SNP were hoping to achieve.

I'm disgusted that the Labour party which has a long and praiseworthy history of standing up for human rights, and protesting against war crimes, should have been brought to such a state. Essentially because it now has a leader who is unable to allow any dissension within the ranks, and who would rather break Parliamentary protocol, deny another party their democratic voice, and exert undue influence, simply for his own ends.
The SNP were right. Israel is committing war crimes, many labour MPs would have voted for their motion. The whole event stinks.
Sarah Champion MP has visited Gaza She called for an immediate ceasefire.
www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240222-uk-mp-shocked-by-scale-of-israels-gaza-genocide-after-returning-from-sinai/

They didn’t vote for immediate humanitarian ceasefire but their motion was - immediate ceasefire

"Seems the SNP objected to‘humanitarian ceasefire"

No Annie bach. Distressed that none of the bigger parties in the UK parliament had made any attempt to submit a motion the SNP used one of their 3 precious chances to submit a motion which should have had cross party support and then a statement from the UK government in line with many other countries across the world. Labour had multiple chances to submit their own version but obviously felt that for their party it would be divisive.

In the event the speaker allowed the hijacking of the SNP motion by not putting it to the vote, instead only allowing a vote on the Labour amendment. Is it any wonder that the SNP MPs walked out in disgust? when it became obvious that once again they were not given their right. to speak. and. remember they are not a tiny party but actually the 3rd party by number of seats in the HofC

Seems the SNP objected to‘humanitarian ceasefire’

That was in response to ‘Paddyann’.

Yet the SNP walked away from the opportunity to vote on such an important issue because it perceived that its scheme to trap Labour had failed. Mm, makes one question what was the SNP’s main aim - to actually get a vote through calling for a ceasefire … or to stitch up the Labour Party?

Beggars the question- why didn’t the SNP vote,?