Options
The Queen's Speech
Regis Magnae
Posts: 6,810 Forum Member
✭
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/queens-speech/10871603/Queens-Speech-What-to-expect.html
These two bills sound the most controversial to be made. I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of internet regulation bill appears, despite it not being mentioned, though perhaps that will come in the form of an amendment.
Cinderella law
Parents who starve their children of love and affection face prosecution under a “Cinderella Law”
Fracking
Ministers are expected to overhaul trespass laws to enable fracking to take place under homes without owner's permission.
These two bills sound the most controversial to be made. I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of internet regulation bill appears, despite it not being mentioned, though perhaps that will come in the form of an amendment.
0
Comments
As long as they can continue living in the lap of luxury the rest of us can rot for all they care.
And if she refused to read out Cameron's stuff (or anyone else's in the future) she would be accused of threatening democracy by impeding the country's elected government.
And don't get me started on fracking, I don't care what the economic effects are (the sum total of diddly and squat to be precise) I'm quite happy with an earthquake free UK.
Exactly - she's in a constitutionally pointless position. A puppet who's damned if she is and damned if she isn't. Not really much point to the whole fiasco.
Maybe not much point but it's a harmless piece of pomp and circumstance. It combines two things we do well in this country - tradition and silliness. It's much more interesting that the PM just reading out a list of what the government will do over the next year.
Some people seem to want to take al of the colour, tradition and fun out of our national life.
No, just the monarchy. To me, hearing a stream of political rhetoric coming from an old lady in a crown doesn't sweeten the pill of much of it, and it certainly doesn't make it fun. (It's a bit like the Queen's Christmas speech - I doubt even the most committed Windsor-fan has ever described it as "fun"
I moderately support same sex marriage in its current form. I could moderately support the Cinderella Law if I was really required to do so although I have doubts about its practicality. Obviously I am vehemently against fracking.
Others don't have the same outlook as me. Some will consider this regime as attacking of marriage, on the verge of attacking parenting and in the process of attacking home buyers. They won't be wholly right but it would be hard to argue that the legacy doesn't create a coherent impression of individuals who meddle with the fundamentals and - crucial word - undermine the basics on which our society is built. Whatever that is, it isn't representation.
It seems to have started in America, though they're usually named after a victim of the act the law is meant to punish.
I don't understand it. Poor parents equating to two ugly sisters feminises fathers and makes mothers slightly too aggressive. It sounds like something Pat Hewitt would have dreamt up. But maybe that "is" modern parents. The other aspect tellingly is that it perceives parents and their offspring as only two or three years different in age. As "siblings" the parents can revel in the fantasy of eternal youth, abusing their older age - and true authority - away.
Does that mean it will be illegal not to allow your children to go the ball?
Stupid name.
Yes indeed but it won't make any difference. Their parents and mates will all be on E at an illegal eco-rave in a fracking field while they will be left at home sweeping chemical residues from the threadbare "living" room floor.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/keep-the-emotion-police-out-of-family-life/15081#.U444Xyhht8E
The NSPCC seems to becoming increasingly involved in politics, I note.
Emotional abuse can totally ruin a young person's life. An old person has lived theirs.
Both old and young should be protected from emotional abuse but if there is a choice to be made then the government has made the right decision.
Maybe I don't agree with it. It looks like a recipe for financial blackmail that could tear families apart rather than help them. It could also hit the poor hardest as is always the case. I have long held the opinion that poor adults are grown up versions of children abused by a wealthy adolescent parental state, managers of social workers included. It needs to deal with the serious matters of physical and sexual abuse, not opt for lawyer-friendly distractions.
The matter of Rolf Harris cannot be discussed at this time for legal reasons but it is worthwhile noting his case is currently the be all and end all of what is supposed to be an extensive review. At least it is in any news reporting apart from further harking back to Savile. All of it postpones a public statement about the dubious activity that was at the heart of the political establishment. There is a direct parallel with the procrastination over the Chilcott Inquiry. Without wishing to be too deep, there is something very rotten now in the psyche of our so-called national leaders.
So we can expect spoiled brats of children dragging their parents into court for saying "No" to them can we?
I understand the sentiment but we supposedly already have laws that address physical and sexual abuse and also neglect. How would this new law add anything? What is it supposed to address? The traditional latch key child - horrible phrase - is usually in that position as both parents or a single one work all hours to put food on the plate.
In the current climate, they are under heavy obligation to take any work that is offered so it isn't as if they have any choice. It is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Rightly or wrongly, there is increasingly less sympathy in the system for those who say they can't work because of parenting. They easily become criminalised either way.
I guess it might conceivably apply to the wealthy too. Johnny is upset that he has been placed in a boarding school but can you imagine his parents would accept a law that makes such a thing emotionally abusive? I can't - and I am fairly sure it won't apply to them. I've decided having thought about it. I now oppose this proposal unless others can show how it could be useful. It looks to me like an area where guidance would be more apt than new regulation.
Can claims be backdated? I really wanted a train set for Christmas in 1978. All I got was a tangerine. The 1970s were a cruel decade.
Some examples of emotional abuse include:
- Making a child stand outside in the cold for long periods of time with no food or drink as a punishment
- Sending them to school wearing a nappy as a punishment
- Telling the child they were a mistake
- Threatening to send them away to a children's home or have them adopted
- Telling them to **** off
- Making them write 'I am stupid' 100 times
- Blaming them for things which are not their fault
- Letting or forcing them to witness violence including the abuse of others
All of which is perfectly legal as the law currently stands.
Hmmm. I will think about it. Certainly number three applied to me but it was done inadvertently by well-intentioned parents. I got seven at school and witnessed variations of one, two, four and six undertaken by teachers on others. As for eight I assume pupils don't have chalk thrown at them or their knuckles struck by metal rulers anymore.
We used to live near a borstal and every time we drove past I was told that I would be sent there (the "bad boys home") if I didn't behave. The place terrified me so the threat usually worked.
Yes. I recall even in the sixth form of an all male school being regularly advised that if we didn't put in more effort we would all end up on a flower arranging course at the local tech. It was laughed off by everyone but a part of it probably resonated. With hindsight, I wonder if it might not have been better. I could have been a millionaire florist.
Apart from 2, I can tick all those off from my childhood...
- Making them stand on their head against a wall for two hours
- Burning their toys
- Making them eat dinner off the floor
- Sleep deprivation
- Locking them in their room
Acceptable?