Your response shows anything but a neutral assessment Anything said by the PM in the HoC is automatically recorded and becomes part of the factual history of our nation (Hansard). Protocol therefore states that if the PM (or indeed any minister, or other MP says something that’s factually incorrect they have a duty to correct the record later. But as per your ‘persona’ you’re well aware of those facts. Occasionally I have contributed to ministerial responses in the house, if I make a mistake, it has to be corrected, if I do it purposely I risk the sack. The PM has regularly lied to the house, but failed to follow the protocol and make corrections, so to suggest that Ms Butler is ‘demeaning our democratic heritage’ is disingenuous at best. Where you’re absolutely right is that no MP should ever stand in the house to accuse someone of lying, but that’s because our ‘democratic heritage’ is built on the foundation that our MP’s don’t lie to the house. And if our PM Insists on lying to the house, what would you suggest is the correct response? I might be an idiot, but I’m not the one pretending to be a barrister but not understanding how Parliament works
She lied to the nation though, eg not shutting pits, homophobic (being gay was a thing that needed “correcting”). She destroyed communities, sold the “nation’s silver”, all for her own spiteful, wicked ends. Like you, I hate the woman!
Someone pretending to be a barrister but then not understanding the law? or someone who is a barrister pretending to not know the legal consequences of his post? Which ever way round, it’s not a good look.
Thank’s for the Idiot’s Guide to Hansard but I learned all that at school. Also grateful for the amusement derived from my supposed impersonation of a barrister - a couple of my less charitable colleagues at the Bar even agreed with you. We did all agree, however, that we would pretend to be something a bit more glam were we to do a Walter Mitty. It seems to me that you are a blinkered chip on shoulder crank who lacks the nouse to see beyond your own political views choosing instead, through a combination of ignorance and wilful misrepresentation, to conflate utterly separate issues. Namely, the standard nuts and bolts function of correcting agreed errors and the well established prohibition upon resorting to branding others liars in the event of disagreement on the matter in issue. As such, and in light of your frankly bizarre attacks upon my ‘standing’ and professional qualifications, I shall bestow upon you the dubious honour of being the first person I have felt the need to block since I started posting several years ago. I suspect I won’t be the first to afford you that status, nor the last.
