[B]The first e-petition to prompt a debate was ignored by MPs when today's debate took place.[/B]
The petition which had over 240,000 signatures claimed that those involved in this year's riots should lose all benefits. Once a petition reaches 100,000 signatures, it can be considered for debate.
[B]The three-hour debate in Westminster Hall covered the wider response to the riots, but did not touch on benefits.[/B]
During the hearing, MPs shared their views on the causes of the riots, the police response and the impact on their constituencies.
Nick Raynsford, Labour MP, said [B]eviction should not be used as a secondary means to punish people who should have already been punished by the law[/B].
Conservative MP Gavin Barwell said when [B]one person in a family was repeatedly antisocial, this could be considered a proportionate response[/B].
The second debate prompted by petition signatures - on the 1989 Hillsborough Stadium disaster - is due to be held next week. The petition demands the release of all cabinet papers relating to the disaster.
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15283837[/URL]
So wait, there was a debate wherein people caught rioting a few months ago would lose rights? Or am I not reading this correctly?
Rights =/= benefits
It was a petition that the tax payer shouldn't have to support anyone convicted in the riots.
Why create the website if you aren't even going to acknowledge it
[QUOTE=Loriborn;32764223]So wait, there was a debate wherein people caught rioting a few months ago would lose rights? Or am I not reading this correctly?[/QUOTE]
240,000 people signed a petition that those caught rioting would lose their benefits such as house, job seekers allowance, child support etc. As over 100,000 people signed, it was supposed to be considered for debate, but it's been ignored by MPs.
Good? Its a fucking stupid petition, you are pretty much encouraging them to riot even more if you do that because what have they got to lose then? Nothing.
[QUOTE=SomeDumbShit;32764582]Good? Its a fucking stupid petition, you are pretty much encouraging them to riot even more if you do that because what have they got to lose then? Nothing.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you that the petition is stupid but I see a problem here that they didn't even acknowledge it when it had reached the required number of signatures.
The vast majority of the petitions that are popular enough to be debated are fucking retarded. This is why politicians were skeptical about e-petitions in the first place.
[QUOTE=Stockers678;32764853]The vast majority of the petitions that are popular enough to be debated are fucking retarded. This is why politicians were skeptical about e-petitions in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Well in a democracy you gotta listen to the people don't you?
[QUOTE=SomeDumbShit;32764582]Good? Its a fucking stupid petition, you are pretty much encouraging them to riot even more if you do that because what have they got to lose then? Nothing.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter it should still be up for debate. They are not following the rules and next time when there is a really good petition that everyone supports they'll do the same thing.
People with criminal records already lose most of their shit
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32765005]Well in a democracy you gotta listen to the people don't you?[/QUOTE]
politicians also need a working bullshit filter
[QUOTE]The subject of the first e-petition to prompt a Parliamentary debate has been ignored by MPs when the debate took place.
The online petition - signed by more than 240,000 people - called for those convicted of involvement in the summer riots to be stripped of their benefits.
The three-hour debate in Westminster Hall covered the wider response to the riots, but did not touch on benefits.
The second debate prompted by an e-petition is to be held next week.
During the hearing, MPs shared their views on the causes of the riots, the police response and the impact on their constituencies.
A brief exchange took place about Wandsworth Council, in London, serving a mother and her son with a notice evicting them from their council house after he was charged with looting.
Nick Raynsford, Labour MP, said eviction should not be used as a secondary means to punish people who should have already been punished by the law.
Conservative MP Gavin Barwell said when one person in a family was repeatedly antisocial, this could be considered a proportionate response.
The government introduced the e-petitions website this summer.
Any petitions gaining the support of more than 100,000 people can be considered for a full debate if an MP suggests it to the backbench business committee, which controls about 35 days a year of parliamentary time.
Public engagement
Following the riots in several English cities in August, the petition calling for convicted rioters to lose "all benefits" quickly became the first to reach the 100,000 threshold.
At present, anyone jailed automatically loses their benefits, but those sentenced to community punishments do not.
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said he would consider changing that, but was criticised by two former home secretaries, Peter Lilley and David Blunkett, over the remarks.
Last month, House of Commons leader Sir George Young welcomed the backbench committee's decision to propose the two debates in Parliament, saying it demonstrated e-petitions could "better connect the public with Parliament".
Although the debate subject was broader than the e-petition, it had been widely expected that the idea would at least be raised.
Gavin Barwell, who proposed the debate at the backbench committee meeting last month, said he had planned to mention benefits in his opening speech, but ran out of time.
There has been some unhappiness among backbench MPs that they are being expected to hand over some of their few slots to hold Commons debates, so that debates can be held on subjects suggested by e-petitions posted on a government website.
A second such debate - on the 1989 Hillsborough Stadium disaster - is due to be held next week. The petition demands the release of all cabinet papers relating to the disaster.[/QUOTE]
Clearly if MPs had a 3 hour debate on the subject of the petition but no MPs decided to support the idea or even bring it up, they recognize it as reactionary bullshit that would be illegal to implement, possibly exacerbate the situation and be hugely unpopular.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
