Changing your mind as a result of experience is a sign of maturity not hypocrisy.
But that brings the next problem, why are MPs making policy choices when they have so little experience in the field. Oh thats right, they are paid for those policies and just take the money and put the papers in.
Think thats not true? well I suggest you go and look. Dont limit it to one party either, they are all as bad as each other. Digital Millennium Act proved that to us.
How many times do we hear that mps of either party are not in touch with the common man? Well this is a prime example of that.
Since Nigel's huge court fees he's now talking about speaking to Chris Grayling about the cuts in legal aid; despite being a supporter of the cuts before it affected him. However unlike the man on the street ,Evans was able to sell one of his houses in 2010; so that'll help to offset some of his cost.
But that brings the next problem, why are MPs making policy choices when they have so little experience in the field. Oh thats right, they are paid for those policies and just take the money and put the papers in.
Think thats not true? well I suggest you go and look. Dont limit it to one party either, they are all as bad as each other. Digital Millennium Act proved that to us.
Thats why I would not let anyone stand for parliament who didn't have at least 10 years recent employment outside politics. And I would stop people becoming ministers who had no experience and qualifications in the area they are in charge of.
Thats why I would not let anyone stand for parliament who didn't have at least 10 years recent employment outside politics. And I would stop people becoming ministers who had no experience and qualifications in the area they are in charge of.
I agree... "politician" should *never* be a career choice.
Not everyone does, but those whose own experience has awakened them to the plight of others, and thus they move from their original position should be commended, not sneered at. It takes courage and character to admit you were wrong.
Excuse me if I don't commend a person who helped to bring in a policy that bit him on the backside and has now seen the errors of his ways because it affects him. Well at least he had a second house he could sell to help with his expenses.
I agree... "politician" should *never* be a career choice.
Well, I see nothing wrong with wanting to be a politician - and many start as 'amateurs' in councils etc whilst still working elsewhere. I do think that some experience in an outside career would be beneficial however... maybe five years on a zero hours contract at minimum wage?
Excuse me if I don't commend a person who helped to bring in a policy that bit him on the backside and has now seen the errors of his ways because it affects him. Well at least he had a second house he could sell to help with his expenses.
You should always welcome a change of heart - it takes a lot, especially for a politician, to admit they were wrong.
You seem more bothered that he had a bit of money to be honest.
Well, I see nothing wrong with wanting to be a politician - and many start as 'amateurs' in councils etc whilst still working elsewhere. I do think that some experience in an outside career would be beneficial however... maybe five years on a zero hours contract at minimum wage?
nothing wrong with wanting to be a politician per se and its true that many do indeed start as amateurs sadly they rarely make it to the top positions though...
I fully endorse your work scheme proposal and commend it to the house
Excuse me if I don't commend a person who helped to bring in a policy that bit him on the backside and has now seen the errors of his ways because it affects him. Well at least he had a second house he could sell to help with his expenses.
Excuse me if I don't commend a person who helped to bring in a policy that bit him on the backside and has now seen the errors of his ways because it affects him. Well at least he had a second house he could sell to help with his expenses.
He shouldn't be facing any expense, regardless. Many people have a "It'll never happen to me" attitude, and when it does, it can change their whole perspective. That can be a good thing, as has happened here. And as Mr Miyagi said:-
"For man with no forgiveness in heart, life worse punishment than death"
I wonder how many people would be relaxed about effectively being fined £105,000 after a clean sweep of Not Guilty verdicts? You spend your adult life accumulating a bit of wealth to enjoy your latter years (or hey how about your current years too?) and then thanks to the CPS deciding that things like this must be followed through he finds a huge hole in his savings.
FWIW I reckon the state should reimburse his costs to the full.
I agree that the NE having to meet the costs appears unfair but it does happen with legal decisions despite not being convicted of the charges. Perhaps there should be provision to appeal the costs decision subsequently.
He shouldn't be facing any expense, regardless. Many people have a "It'll never happen to me" attitude, and when it does, it can change their whole perspective. That can be a good thing, as has happened here. And as Mr Miyagi said:-
"For man with no forgiveness in heart, life worse punishment than death"
Perhaps that quote could inspire you?
So what about other policies that the policy makers have bought in and harm people? They won't be considered until or unless they affect the policy makers? That sounds fair.
He shouldn't be facing any expense, regardless. Many people have a "It'll never happen to me" attitude, and when it does, it can change their whole perspective. That can be a good thing, as has happened here. And as Mr Miyagi said:-
"For man with no forgiveness in heart, life worse punishment than death"
Perhaps that quote could inspire you?
^this^
Never trust a man until you've heard him say he was wrong at least once.
(This doesn't work in the case of a person who is genuinely never wrong, of course, but people who are never wrong are too irritating to trust anyway).
So what about other policies that the policy makers have bought in and harm people? They won't be considered until or unless they affect the policy makers? That sounds fair.
BIB. Why is that the case?
That's a classic straw man there. What is being said is that it is good he changed his mind and that he isn't a hypocrite.
So what about other policies that the policy makers have bought in and harm people? They won't be considered until or unless they affect the policy makers? That sounds fair.
No, you've taken one instance and without considering it on its own merit, have just applied it as a general rule of thumb principle. Credit where it's due, and it may be here if somebody has done an about turn because their experience has made them more aware of what the issues are.
Comments
But that brings the next problem, why are MPs making policy choices when they have so little experience in the field. Oh thats right, they are paid for those policies and just take the money and put the papers in.
Think thats not true? well I suggest you go and look. Dont limit it to one party either, they are all as bad as each other. Digital Millennium Act proved that to us.
Well it looks like your on your own. Silly Billy.
Thats why I would not let anyone stand for parliament who didn't have at least 10 years recent employment outside politics. And I would stop people becoming ministers who had no experience and qualifications in the area they are in charge of.
That post started well, but then it went a bit funny at the end.
I'll need you to stay back after class Hoffmister.
I agree... "politician" should *never* be a career choice.
Excuse me if I don't commend a person who helped to bring in a policy that bit him on the backside and has now seen the errors of his ways because it affects him. Well at least he had a second house he could sell to help with his expenses.
Well, I see nothing wrong with wanting to be a politician - and many start as 'amateurs' in councils etc whilst still working elsewhere. I do think that some experience in an outside career would be beneficial however... maybe five years on a zero hours contract at minimum wage?
You should always welcome a change of heart - it takes a lot, especially for a politician, to admit they were wrong.
You seem more bothered that he had a bit of money to be honest.
nothing wrong with wanting to be a politician per se and its true that many do indeed start as amateurs sadly they rarely make it to the top positions though...
I fully endorse your work scheme proposal and commend it to the house
Am I?
It took a lot because he's bemoaning the fact that he's out of pocket.
Has he? Where would he live?
He sold his house in 2010, so has already got some money.
He'd be a hypocrite if he demanded his costs be repaid yet *still* supported the curtailing of legal aid.
He supported the policy until it affected him.
: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
As he's now changed his beliefs, he's not a hypocrite.
Yes, but how did Evans bring the circumstances of his prosecution on himself?
He shouldn't be facing any expense, regardless. Many people have a "It'll never happen to me" attitude, and when it does, it can change their whole perspective. That can be a good thing, as has happened here. And as Mr Miyagi said:-
"For man with no forgiveness in heart, life worse punishment than death"
Perhaps that quote could inspire you?
I think I know what's on the minds of some people, they should just come out and say what it is they think ie
"If he hadn't been grubbing around in his seedy gay and promiscuous lifestyle, he wouldn't be facing these allegations, would he?"
How warm am I? Boiling?
I agree that the NE having to meet the costs appears unfair but it does happen with legal decisions despite not being convicted of the charges. Perhaps there should be provision to appeal the costs decision subsequently.
So what about other policies that the policy makers have bought in and harm people? They won't be considered until or unless they affect the policy makers? That sounds fair.
BIB. Why is that the case?
^this^
Never trust a man until you've heard him say he was wrong at least once.
(This doesn't work in the case of a person who is genuinely never wrong, of course, but people who are never wrong are too irritating to trust anyway).
That's a classic straw man there. What is being said is that it is good he changed his mind and that he isn't a hypocrite.
No, you've taken one instance and without considering it on its own merit, have just applied it as a general rule of thumb principle. Credit where it's due, and it may be here if somebody has done an about turn because their experience has made them more aware of what the issues are.