Brexit: Now What? Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
ceptimus said:
I don't see why any MP, or for that matter anyone - whether an MP or not - should be prevented from making such an inquiry.

Obviously this particular MP is pro-leave, and his intent was probably to try to expose the lecturers as teaching what he believes to be biassed pro-remain propaganda. I don't believe his excuse that he was trying to gather information for a book.
Click to expand...


How, exactly, would the letter he sent "expose" anyone in particular?

I've no illusions about his motivations. What I'm interested in is how the remain-supporting politicians and the left wing media have piled on to this story, and their self-righteous belief and assertion that what he did was dishonest or wrong in some way.
Click to expand...


You just said you didn't believe his explanation, so you've already agreed that he is dishonest.

Do you think it is right for an MP to use the authority of his office to try to intimidate people he doesn't agree with in their workplace?

Sounds like you believe the media, regardless of what wing they may occupy, had well-founded reasons to take the positions they have, even if you don't like seeing your political allies criticized.
 
ceptimus said:
Why is it intimidation for an MP to attempt to reveal what he believes to be biassed teaching in our universities?
Click to expand...


Again. What, exactly, do you believe that letter did to "reveal" the teaching bias of any particular instructor?

Like I said earlier, if the subject matter had been alternative medicine and homeopathy, I suspect that posters on this forum would be applauding the MP's attempt to reveal such teaching. In fact we don't need to have a hypothetical alternative medicine example as the real example of biassed teaching in faith schools regularly crops up.
Click to expand...


If an MP were to show course content of specific classes which was clearly in error I would think he was doing his job. If he wrote a letter to all the medical schools asking for a list of any instructors who discussed the topic of alternative medicine then that would be just as inappropriate as what this clown has done.
 
"Universities have confirmed they teach that Brexit is incredibly brilliant but not quite up there with communism.

British universities have responded to a letter from Tory whip Chris Heaton-Harris by explaining that while Brexit will destroy the UK as a nation, it cannot boast the same track record for doing so as communism can. "

link
 
ceptimus said:
I don't see anything wrong with an MP trying to find out what is being taught by universities and with what, if any, bias.

If the letter had asked for information about what courses were being taught, and by whom, about alternative medicine with particular regard to homeopathy, then I suspect posters here would be sympathetic.

The problem is that everyone on both sides of the debate assumes that the universities are hotbeds of lefty-leaning 100% pro-remain sentiment, and the pro-remain side don't want that situation looked into or altered.
Click to expand...
The problem is that he didnt do it as a member of the public. According to an interview this morning (Today programme) it could have been research for a book.. The guy in the interview seemed to be thinking he was supporting his friend. Didn't seem to realise that he was in effect saying the MP was abusing his MP position!
 
David Davis says something technically true but useless

Czechslovakia currently doesn't have a government

http://www.euronews.com/2017/10/25/...slovakia-in-boast-about-european-intelligence

he also talked about Holland

...whilst boasting of the quality of his briefings

Where is the Picard Riker double face palm?

“Germany, Austria, Holland and Czechoslovakia are all without governments at the moment so this is not top of their tree.

“Nevertheless we’ve got a pretty good idea of where they will end up at the end of this, even if there are delays on the way.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
David Davis says something technically true but useless

Czechslovakia currently doesn't have a government

http://www.euronews.com/2017/10/25/...slovakia-in-boast-about-european-intelligence

he also talked about Holland

...whilst boasting of the quality of his briefings

Where is the Picard Riker double face palm?
Click to expand...
:D

Holland is not a country (*). The Netherlands is, and tomorrow we'll have the official installation and the photoshoot on the steps of the palace with the new government, so he's only very technically correct that we're without a government.

(*) It's not even a current polity. The former county/province of Holland was spit into the two provinces North- and South-Holland in 1815. Bloody English minister. :mad:

And yes, England is a current polity with separate laws from the other three countries making up the UK, which are made in Westminster, so the British government doubles as English government.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
"Universities have confirmed they teach that Brexit is incredibly brilliant but not quite up there with communism.

British universities have responded to a letter from Tory whip Chris Heaton-Harris by explaining that while Brexit will destroy the UK as a nation, it cannot boast the same track record for doing so as communism can. "

link
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: :D

My personal appraisal was that Mr. Heaton-Harris' design with this letter is to know who he'll have to round up and lock up in a Dachau-like establishment. Unless there's compelling evidence to the contrary, I'll stick to that.
 
quadraginta said:
But the nuclear medicine industry is different. The materials they use as radiation sources have relatively short half-lives, some measured in days.

Without a system in place to oversee the sales and transportation of such hazardous materials across the U.K borders in place those stocks will be gone very quickly.

And all such materials come from across those borders, since the U.K. doesn't produce them.

So the lights will still be on at the treatment facilities that need them but there won't be any treatments.
Click to expand...
That's actually a missed business opportunity. The UK could build its own facility. The main facility in Europe is the Dutch reactor in Petten, which accounts for 1/3 of the world production. It is an old beast from the 1950s which is plagued by outages and by safety issues. New construction has been hampered for years by planning issues and financing issues. Another 1/3 of the world production of medical isotopes is produced in Chalk River in Canada, a similar old beast suffering problems. You'd think there's an opportunity for a new reactor in this business.

(and yes, I realize you don't just build a reactor overnight).
 
jimbob said:
David Davis says something technically true but useless

Czechslovakia currently doesn't have a government

http://www.euronews.com/2017/10/25/...slovakia-in-boast-about-european-intelligence

he also talked about Holland

...whilst boasting of the quality of his briefings

Where is the Picard Riker double face palm?
Click to expand...

That's hilarious. Somebody forgot to tell him, that Czechoslovakia doesn't exist since 1993!

Fact, that we have just three days since elections is fairly small one adaptation of truth.

ETA: No wonder we don't have government...
 
ddt said:
:D

Holland is not a country (*). The Netherlands is, and tomorrow we'll have the official installation and the photoshoot on the steps of the palace with the new government, so he's only very technically correct that we're without a government.

(*) It's not even a current polity. The former county/province of Holland was spit into the two provinces North- and South-Holland in 1815. Bloody English minister. :mad:

And yes, England is a current polity with separate laws from the other three countries making up the UK, which are made in Westminster, so the British government doubles as English government.
Click to expand...
I think it may be the other way round, and that the English government doubles as the government of The United Kingdom. The most celebrated study of the Constitution of the UK was published in 1867
[...]is a book by Walter Bagehot. First serialised in The Fortnightly Review between 15 May 1865 and 1 January 1867, and later published in book form in the latter year. It explores the constitution of the United Kingdom, specifically the functioning of Parliament and the British monarchy, and the contrasts between British and American government. The book became a standard work which was translated into several languages.​
I have omitted the name of this authoritative guide. Can you guess what it is called?
 
I am not sure anyone has pointed out that under freedom of information legislation universities as public bodies are obliged to provide this information to anyone who requests it. Do people believe that MPs should be more restricted than the general public in access to information?

What would have been the response if he had requested the information on private note paper rather than House of Commons notepaper? Or got a researcher to request it on personal notepaper. Some people would argue that this was more suspicious as it was 'covert'.
 
Planigale said:
I am not sure anyone has pointed out that under freedom of information legislation universities as public bodies are obliged to provide this information to anyone who requests it. Do people believe that MPs should be more restricted than the general public in access to information?

What would have been the response if he had requested the information on private note paper rather than House of Commons notepaper? Or got a researcher to request it on personal notepaper. Some people would argue that this was more suspicious as it was 'covert'.
Click to expand...


Was he asking for some information which was not already freely available?

Was there something that couldn't have been looked up in public documents already offered by these schools. like their course schedules and faculty lists?

I don't think that freedom of information laws obligate those universities to respond to any question at all that they receive from anyone asking for information which is already publicly available and easily found by anyone who wants to bother to take a moment and look it up.

The question which seems to be evaded by those people trying to defend this letter is, "Why ask for this information this way?", when there was no need to ask for it at all.
 
Last edited:
It's not a matter of the information being available. It's the manner of the asking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom