UPDATED: Gay marriage: How Thurrock MP's voted

THURROCK MP's took part in the vote for gay marriage. 

In last night’s free vote in the House of Commons, South Basildon and East Thurrock Tory MP Stephen Metcalfe voted against the second reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

Jackie Doyle-Price, Tory MP for Thurrock, abstained from the vote. 

She said: "I chose to abstain because although I believe in equality for same sex couples, the Bill before us is divisive.

"Some people describe marriage as an institution. I view it as a sacrament. 

"Approaching this issue in the way the current bill does puts the established church in conflict with the law of the land and unnecessarily challenges those whose faith underpins their view of what marriage is.

"My proposal is that we should replace civil partnerships and civil marriages with a new civil union. 

"This would achieve equality, it would allow those who wish to marry in church to do so, and it would uphold the christian values which underpin our society. 

"I hope the Bill can be amended accordingly, or I will not be able to support it."

Stephen Metcalfe, East Thurrock MP, said: “This is a particularly contentious issue and one which I very carefully considered over many months. I voted against the Bill because I felt the Government had no mandate for the change.”

Comments (55)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:45am Wed 6 Feb 13

DannyButcher says...

Stephen Metcalfe made an unpopular vote that will undoubtedly see the court of public opinion label him homophobic. I think, to make such a vote knowing the backlash, this man deserves some respect for it, standing up for his ideals.

As far as Jackie Doyle Price, to abstain is appalling. Is this because she wanted to vote against but knew their would be a backlash? If so it shows our MP cannot be expected to stand up for anything. (Except maybe to get a Big Mac, fries and milkshake at her surgery)

At as member of her constituency, I only think it right she explains her actions. If she does not, how can you trust her to stand up for any of our rights?
Stephen Metcalfe made an unpopular vote that will undoubtedly see the court of public opinion label him homophobic. I think, to make such a vote knowing the backlash, this man deserves some respect for it, standing up for his ideals. As far as Jackie Doyle Price, to abstain is appalling. Is this because she wanted to vote against but knew their would be a backlash? If so it shows our MP cannot be expected to stand up for anything. (Except maybe to get a Big Mac, fries and milkshake at her surgery) At as member of her constituency, I only think it right she explains her actions. If she does not, how can you trust her to stand up for any of our rights? DannyButcher
  • Score: 0

11:51am Wed 6 Feb 13

I-say-you-say says...

DannyButcher - I could not agree more!

I just hope that "our MPs" votes do not reflect on the public they are meant to represent as I for one am appalled to be represented by these fools!

Get with the times! It's the 21st Century not the 17th!

I am not gay myself but I have no problem with anyone who is and if they are lucky enough to find love then why can't it be supported irrespective of the fact they are both men or women!
DannyButcher - I could not agree more! I just hope that "our MPs" votes do not reflect on the public they are meant to represent as I for one am appalled to be represented by these fools! Get with the times! It's the 21st Century not the 17th! I am not gay myself but I have no problem with anyone who is and if they are lucky enough to find love then why can't it be supported irrespective of the fact they are both men or women! I-say-you-say
  • Score: 0

11:54am Wed 6 Feb 13

Cvh says...

I have never felt any MP has ever represented my views its all about thier parties whims not the people that vote them in
I have never felt any MP has ever represented my views its all about thier parties whims not the people that vote them in Cvh
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Wed 6 Feb 13

DannyButcher says...

Neither have I really CVH, but I do believe that our MP should at least have AN opinion. If that opinion is 'I'm not going near it because if i express my opinion I will be villified', then frankly that MP should not be standing at all.

That is why I think JDP need to tell us, her constituents, what the hell she was thinking when this important vote came up, and just did not vote.
Neither have I really CVH, but I do believe that our MP should at least have AN opinion. If that opinion is 'I'm not going near it because if i express my opinion I will be villified', then frankly that MP should not be standing at all. That is why I think JDP need to tell us, her constituents, what the hell she was thinking when this important vote came up, and just did not vote. DannyButcher
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Wed 6 Feb 13

ebagumtrebor says...

Watching the news this morning, they had 4 apparently intelligent people discussing this issue and not one of them knew what MP's were actually voting for. Gay people have gained no extra legal rights out of this than was already available through civil ceremonies. As I understand churches will have the right to refuse to marry same sex couples even if this bill is passed. So what's the big deal. Nothing has changed except the symbolic recognition of the right of gay people to get married, which they already had through civil ceremonies. A huge waste of time that has achieved very little.
Watching the news this morning, they had 4 apparently intelligent people discussing this issue and not one of them knew what MP's were actually voting for. Gay people have gained no extra legal rights out of this than was already available through civil ceremonies. As I understand churches will have the right to refuse to marry same sex couples even if this bill is passed. So what's the big deal. Nothing has changed except the symbolic recognition of the right of gay people to get married, which they already had through civil ceremonies. A huge waste of time that has achieved very little. ebagumtrebor
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Thurrock Trojan says...

What a surprise! Thurrock's useless Tory MPs fail to vote and support a serious motion.

They both voted for the 1% benefit cap and a 3p increase in petrol at the end of last year.

One last thing, Jackie Doyle-Price expects us to feel sorry for the bankers, most of whom are probably her rich banker friends.

It's clear which side of the fence both Doyle-Price and Metcalfe are on. They're a waste of space.
What a surprise! Thurrock's useless Tory MPs fail to vote and support a serious motion. They both voted for the 1% benefit cap and a 3p increase in petrol at the end of last year. One last thing, Jackie Doyle-Price expects us to feel sorry for the bankers, most of whom are probably her rich banker friends. It's clear which side of the fence both Doyle-Price and Metcalfe are on. They're a waste of space. Thurrock Trojan
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Thurrock Trojan says...

ebagumtrebor wrote:
Watching the news this morning, they had 4 apparently intelligent people discussing this issue and not one of them knew what MP's were actually voting for. Gay people have gained no extra legal rights out of this than was already available through civil ceremonies. As I understand churches will have the right to refuse to marry same sex couples even if this bill is passed. So what's the big deal. Nothing has changed except the symbolic recognition of the right of gay people to get married, which they already had through civil ceremonies. A huge waste of time that has achieved very little.
Labour introduced civil partnerships in 2005. I'm surprised you haven't made one of your puerile sweeping generalisations about it.
[quote][p][bold]ebagumtrebor[/bold] wrote: Watching the news this morning, they had 4 apparently intelligent people discussing this issue and not one of them knew what MP's were actually voting for. Gay people have gained no extra legal rights out of this than was already available through civil ceremonies. As I understand churches will have the right to refuse to marry same sex couples even if this bill is passed. So what's the big deal. Nothing has changed except the symbolic recognition of the right of gay people to get married, which they already had through civil ceremonies. A huge waste of time that has achieved very little.[/p][/quote]Labour introduced civil partnerships in 2005. I'm surprised you haven't made one of your puerile sweeping generalisations about it. Thurrock Trojan
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Wed 6 Feb 13

DannyButcher says...

Except for take the focus from the real issues ebagumtrebor. And of course, the ability to now label MP's who voted against, as homophobes, apparently.

I want to make clear that in my opinion, if an MP voted against this, it DOES not make them a homophobe. Apparently if you post on twitter, it does. Are we going full circle now, where people are unable to have certain views for fear of being villified by the PC brigade?

As far as equal marriage, as you have said ebagumtrabor, it makes no realistic difference, except symbolically. With the economy, unemployment, ATOS, housing benefit, banks etc etc all bigger issues, it is obvious this is designed to detract from the real issues. Well look at twitter, and it certainly has done that!
Except for take the focus from the real issues ebagumtrebor. And of course, the ability to now label MP's who voted against, as homophobes, apparently. I want to make clear that in my opinion, if an MP voted against this, it DOES not make them a homophobe. Apparently if you post on twitter, it does. Are we going full circle now, where people are unable to have certain views for fear of being villified by the PC brigade? As far as equal marriage, as you have said ebagumtrabor, it makes no realistic difference, except symbolically. With the economy, unemployment, ATOS, housing benefit, banks etc etc all bigger issues, it is obvious this is designed to detract from the real issues. Well look at twitter, and it certainly has done that! DannyButcher
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Wed 6 Feb 13

ebagumtrebor says...

I can only assume that the Limp Dems played a big part in this and that Cameron has made a deal with them on issues that are going to mean more politically to him and the Tories. Maybe they'll give him free reign over Europe. I can't see the point otherwise. The Labour party don't appear to have made a big deal over the fact that more than half the Tory party voted against Cameron so they must be thinking the same.

Love you Thurrock Trojan kiss kiss
I can only assume that the Limp Dems played a big part in this and that Cameron has made a deal with them on issues that are going to mean more politically to him and the Tories. Maybe they'll give him free reign over Europe. I can't see the point otherwise. The Labour party don't appear to have made a big deal over the fact that more than half the Tory party voted against Cameron so they must be thinking the same. Love you Thurrock Trojan kiss kiss ebagumtrebor
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Thurrock Trojan says...

David Cameron is very pleased with the result and has been very vocal about it.
David Cameron is very pleased with the result and has been very vocal about it. Thurrock Trojan
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Cvh says...

Still JDP far better then anything Labour ever did for any of us
Still JDP far better then anything Labour ever did for any of us Cvh
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Freddy K says...

As has been said on here, gay couples already have the right to be married under civil partnership which gives them the same legal rights as a man and woman.

What I don't understand is why gay couples would want to get married in a church, after all the Christian mantra has always stated that homosexuality is a sin and man should not lie with another man, this is religion not law, a Church Wedding is a religious ceremony as well as legal and they should maintain the right to be able to refuse a ceremony that goes against their doctrine, or are we now to assume that the Government are now on a higher plain than their God?

Personally I am not a Christian or against homosexual marriage but we have to be very careful when mixing politics and religion as they are two very different things and they should be kept seperate. this could eb the start of a very slippery slope
As has been said on here, gay couples already have the right to be married under civil partnership which gives them the same legal rights as a man and woman. What I don't understand is why gay couples would want to get married in a church, after all the Christian mantra has always stated that homosexuality is a sin and man should not lie with another man, this is religion not law, a Church Wedding is a religious ceremony as well as legal and they should maintain the right to be able to refuse a ceremony that goes against their doctrine, or are we now to assume that the Government are now on a higher plain than their God? Personally I am not a Christian or against homosexual marriage but we have to be very careful when mixing politics and religion as they are two very different things and they should be kept seperate. this could eb the start of a very slippery slope Freddy K
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Wed 6 Feb 13

ebagumtrebor says...

I note that Polly Toynbee of the Guardianista's was labelling all Tory MP's that voted against this as bigots. Obviously spent the last 3 years living with the ebulient Gordon Brown. As a supporter of the most divisive party of modern times, It's not surprising to see Comrade Toynbee surfacing on this issue. Only surprising she didn't manage to slip in racist bigots along the line.
I note that Polly Toynbee of the Guardianista's was labelling all Tory MP's that voted against this as bigots. Obviously spent the last 3 years living with the ebulient Gordon Brown. As a supporter of the most divisive party of modern times, It's not surprising to see Comrade Toynbee surfacing on this issue. Only surprising she didn't manage to slip in racist bigots along the line. ebagumtrebor
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Wed 6 Feb 13

DannyButcher says...

CVH, I cannot agree with you on that one. JDP appears not to be standing for normal, working class people. You only need to look at her track record to see that.

Freddy K, I couldn't agree more. How the state thinks that they can tell the church what to do, really bemused me.

The public opinion is that same sex couples should be allowed to 'marry', but realistically, if a religion is against such a thing, how can you force the Church to do things that make a mockery out of their belief system? Considering, as you said, civil partnership already allows same sex couples the same legal rights as everyone else, what really is the point?

I'd love to see someone forcing an Islamic marriage between a same sex couple. There would be a civil war.
CVH, I cannot agree with you on that one. JDP appears not to be standing for normal, working class people. You only need to look at her track record to see that. Freddy K, I couldn't agree more. How the state thinks that they can tell the church what to do, really bemused me. The public opinion is that same sex couples should be allowed to 'marry', but realistically, if a religion is against such a thing, how can you force the Church to do things that make a mockery out of their belief system? Considering, as you said, civil partnership already allows same sex couples the same legal rights as everyone else, what really is the point? I'd love to see someone forcing an Islamic marriage between a same sex couple. There would be a civil war. DannyButcher
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Bernard 87 says...

"What a surprise! Thurrock's useless Tory MPs fail to vote and support a serious motion"

Thurrock Trojan - I think we need to put a few things into perspective here. It was up to both MPs to decide how they wanted to vote or not vote. As Danny has said it will be up to our MPs to explain their actions and I'm certain that both will inform us of how they came to their decisions in the coming weeks. I would hardly call this a "serious motion" either and I have a feeling that this whole issue was designed to detract from the misery that we are currently facing thanks to Labour.

"They both voted for the 1% benefit cap and a 3p increase in petrol at the end of last year"

Like many people in Thurrock I am glad that both MPs voted for a benefits cap. You may be more than happy for the 'never-worked working class' to continue to have huge rises in their subsidised 'wages' but I, and many in Thurrock are not. It has nothing to do with not caring or being 'nasty'. It's about fairness and equality, to use two lefty phrases. This culture of something for nothing which Labour relied on to gain votes has to end...most importantly because we have no money left for it to carry on. I would be more than happy that when our country's finances improve more money should be given to those who have been made redundant, fallen ill, had to become a carer etc etc. But I do not want any more taxpayers money being dished out to people who have put absolutely nothing in.

I completely agree with you on the petrol increase however, petrol needs to be a great deal cheaper not more expensive. This would have a massive positive effect on the average family budget.

"One last thing, Jackie Doyle-Price expects us to feel sorry for the bankers, most of whom are probably her rich banker friends"

One last thing. You seem to constantly attack Jackie Doyle Price and her 'rich banker friends'. Not every Tory is wealthy or has city connections - Thurrock is proof of that - but you seem to ignore the fact that it was Labour who tinkered with the banking system. It was Labour who allowed the banks to do what they wanted, and it was Labour who enjoyed the company of the city between 1997-2010. Bankers simply did what they were allowed to do by the government of the day so to try and pretend that they are this evil group of people who spent like it was going out of fashion is ridiculous. It was also Labour who were advocates of cheap credit which has caused major problems for a large amount of people.

Both our MPs represent Essex seats and both our MPs live in Essex with Jackie Doyle Price living in that salubrious banker hotspot of Purfleet. Mr Mackinlay never lived in Thurrock and I'm pretty certain he never lived in Essex.

I'm all for criticising our MPs and councillors but sometimes I find your rants pointless and not well thought through.
"What a surprise! Thurrock's useless Tory MPs fail to vote and support a serious motion" Thurrock Trojan - I think we need to put a few things into perspective here. It was up to both MPs to decide how they wanted to vote or not vote. As Danny has said it will be up to our MPs to explain their actions and I'm certain that both will inform us of how they came to their decisions in the coming weeks. I would hardly call this a "serious motion" either and I have a feeling that this whole issue was designed to detract from the misery that we are currently facing thanks to Labour. "They both voted for the 1% benefit cap and a 3p increase in petrol at the end of last year" Like many people in Thurrock I am glad that both MPs voted for a benefits cap. You may be more than happy for the 'never-worked working class' to continue to have huge rises in their subsidised 'wages' but I, and many in Thurrock are not. It has nothing to do with not caring or being 'nasty'. It's about fairness and equality, to use two lefty phrases. This culture of something for nothing which Labour relied on to gain votes has to end...most importantly because we have no money left for it to carry on. I would be more than happy that when our country's finances improve more money should be given to those who have been made redundant, fallen ill, had to become a carer etc etc. But I do not want any more taxpayers money being dished out to people who have put absolutely nothing in. I completely agree with you on the petrol increase however, petrol needs to be a great deal cheaper not more expensive. This would have a massive positive effect on the average family budget. "One last thing, Jackie Doyle-Price expects us to feel sorry for the bankers, most of whom are probably her rich banker friends" One last thing. You seem to constantly attack Jackie Doyle Price and her 'rich banker friends'. Not every Tory is wealthy or has city connections - Thurrock is proof of that - but you seem to ignore the fact that it was Labour who tinkered with the banking system. It was Labour who allowed the banks to do what they wanted, and it was Labour who enjoyed the company of the city between 1997-2010. Bankers simply did what they were allowed to do by the government of the day so to try and pretend that they are this evil group of people who spent like it was going out of fashion is ridiculous. It was also Labour who were advocates of cheap credit which has caused major problems for a large amount of people. Both our MPs represent Essex seats and both our MPs live in Essex with Jackie Doyle Price living in that salubrious banker hotspot of Purfleet. Mr Mackinlay never lived in Thurrock and I'm pretty certain he never lived in Essex. I'm all for criticising our MPs and councillors but sometimes I find your rants pointless and not well thought through. Bernard 87
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Wed 6 Feb 13

DannyButcher says...

'I would hardly call this a "serious motion" either and I have a feeling that this whole issue was designed to detract from the misery that we are currently facing thanks to Labour.'

Why does David Cameron, at almost every second line, feel the need to say 'the mess that Labour have left us'? If you look at George Osbourne's policies, some of them are not aimed at helping the people that need it, and you cannot deny overall he has helped the rich.

In fact, the whole coalition government is a joke, and as a long time Conservative voter, I am ashamed to say that UKIP or Labour are by far the more realistic choices come election day. That really pains me to say, but this government really has let a lot of people down, especially the most vulnerable. But all we hear is 'the mess Labour left us with.' Of course, we all know Labour caused the global economic downturn...
'I would hardly call this a "serious motion" either and I have a feeling that this whole issue was designed to detract from the misery that we are currently facing thanks to Labour.' Why does David Cameron, at almost every second line, feel the need to say 'the mess that Labour have left us'? If you look at George Osbourne's policies, some of them are not aimed at helping the people that need it, and you cannot deny overall he has helped the rich. In fact, the whole coalition government is a joke, and as a long time Conservative voter, I am ashamed to say that UKIP or Labour are by far the more realistic choices come election day. That really pains me to say, but this government really has let a lot of people down, especially the most vulnerable. But all we hear is 'the mess Labour left us with.' Of course, we all know Labour caused the global economic downturn... DannyButcher
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Wed 6 Feb 13

ebagumtrebor says...

DannyButcher a lot of what happened in the so called global economic meltdown can be traced back to the beginning of the Euro and Clinton, Bush and Obama's encouragement of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac getting ever deeper into guaranteeing **** mortgage debt and bringing down the rest of the banks with them. Massive increases in public expenditure on welfare etc in all western economies also forms part of it. For a large proportion of that time Labour wholeheartedly encouraged the banks to lend stupid amounts to prop up the economy and the housing market. So yes it was their fault. The politicians keep blaming the banks when in fact it wasn't just the banks greed that was to blame, it was the politicians who encouraged them to do so. Labour never lowered unemployment at all in their time in office. It was actually lower when they came to power than when they left. The number of economically inactive between the age of 16 tot 64 went up by nearly three quarters of a million. They increased public expenditure from £340 billion a year to over £700 billion a year. Real public debt in this country is around £2.3 trillion. We're skint and it don't matter who's in power now or in 2015, they will have no option but to cut spending. Crap the Tories may be, but not as crap as the last lot we had.
DannyButcher a lot of what happened in the so called global economic meltdown can be traced back to the beginning of the Euro and Clinton, Bush and Obama's encouragement of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac getting ever deeper into guaranteeing **** mortgage debt and bringing down the rest of the banks with them. Massive increases in public expenditure on welfare etc in all western economies also forms part of it. For a large proportion of that time Labour wholeheartedly encouraged the banks to lend stupid amounts to prop up the economy and the housing market. So yes it was their fault. The politicians keep blaming the banks when in fact it wasn't just the banks greed that was to blame, it was the politicians who encouraged them to do so. Labour never lowered unemployment at all in their time in office. It was actually lower when they came to power than when they left. The number of economically inactive between the age of 16 tot 64 went up by nearly three quarters of a million. They increased public expenditure from £340 billion a year to over £700 billion a year. Real public debt in this country is around £2.3 trillion. We're skint and it don't matter who's in power now or in 2015, they will have no option but to cut spending. Crap the Tories may be, but not as crap as the last lot we had. ebagumtrebor
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Wed 6 Feb 13

DannyButcher says...

I believe the UK owes 1.1+ trillion,which is only going to increase. (estimated 1.6 trllion by 2016)

Even George Osbourne doesn't know his own figures, as proved on TV a while back. (May have been Andrew Marr's show) If people really want to believe the figures being banded about, they can, but there are many sources out there that say otherwise. At the end of the day, probably none are totally correct.

This coalition is failing in so much as George Osbourne is not reducing the deficit, but always appears to helping out the rich. Whatever Labour did or didn't do, is in the past, we should judge a government on the success they bring today. The problem is, they appear to be making all the wrong, misguide and arrogant decisions.
I believe the UK owes 1.1+ trillion,which is only going to increase. (estimated 1.6 trllion by 2016) Even George Osbourne doesn't know his own figures, as proved on TV a while back. (May have been Andrew Marr's show) If people really want to believe the figures being banded about, they can, but there are many sources out there that say otherwise. At the end of the day, probably none are totally correct. This coalition is failing in so much as George Osbourne is not reducing the deficit, but always appears to helping out the rich. Whatever Labour did or didn't do, is in the past, we should judge a government on the success they bring today. The problem is, they appear to be making all the wrong, misguide and arrogant decisions. DannyButcher
  • Score: 0

5:04pm Wed 6 Feb 13

DannyButcher says...

'David Cameron’s policy is to increase Britain’s debt by 60 per cent, more than any European country. To increase it more over five years than Labour did over 13 years. Just yesterday, we learned the national debt had hit £1,111 billion and it’s heading to £1,400 billion.'

The above and below are excerpts from the spectator online. 23/1/2013.

'By no stretch of the English language can this be described as “paying down Britain’s debts.” What Cameron said is not an exaggeration. It’s a straight falsehood, and one that demeans his office. He has previously used different language, saying that he is “dealing with the debt”. The below graph says it all:'
'David Cameron’s policy is to increase Britain’s debt by 60 per cent, more than any European country. To increase it more over five years than Labour did over 13 years. Just yesterday, we learned the national debt had hit £1,111 billion and it’s heading to £1,400 billion.' The above and below are excerpts from the spectator online. 23/1/2013. 'By no stretch of the English language can this be described as “paying down Britain’s debts.” What Cameron said is not an exaggeration. It’s a straight falsehood, and one that demeans his office. He has previously used different language, saying that he is “dealing with the debt”. The below graph says it all:' DannyButcher
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Wed 6 Feb 13

skinthegoat says...

The economy is in meltdown.

Immigration is unchecked.

NHS has thousands of deaths they may be responsible for.

Islamist vigilantes patrol our capital city.

Muslim Paedophile gangs target young white girls.

WHAT does this useless , lying , Cessminster do?

Debate about homosexual "marriage"!

I am sick to the teeth with it.

8"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately...Depart, I say, and let us have done with you;In the name of God, go!" *Oliver Cromwell
The economy is in meltdown. Immigration is unchecked. NHS has thousands of deaths they may be responsible for. Islamist vigilantes patrol our capital city. Muslim Paedophile gangs target young white girls. WHAT does this useless , lying , Cessminster do? Debate about homosexual "marriage"! I am sick to the teeth with it. 8"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately...Depart, I say, and let us have done with you;In the name of God, go!" *Oliver Cromwell skinthegoat
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Thurrock Trojan says...

Bernard 87 wrote:
"What a surprise! Thurrock's useless Tory MPs fail to vote and support a serious motion"

Thurrock Trojan - I think we need to put a few things into perspective here. It was up to both MPs to decide how they wanted to vote or not vote. As Danny has said it will be up to our MPs to explain their actions and I'm certain that both will inform us of how they came to their decisions in the coming weeks. I would hardly call this a "serious motion" either and I have a feeling that this whole issue was designed to detract from the misery that we are currently facing thanks to Labour.

"They both voted for the 1% benefit cap and a 3p increase in petrol at the end of last year"

Like many people in Thurrock I am glad that both MPs voted for a benefits cap. You may be more than happy for the 'never-worked working class' to continue to have huge rises in their subsidised 'wages' but I, and many in Thurrock are not. It has nothing to do with not caring or being 'nasty'. It's about fairness and equality, to use two lefty phrases. This culture of something for nothing which Labour relied on to gain votes has to end...most importantly because we have no money left for it to carry on. I would be more than happy that when our country's finances improve more money should be given to those who have been made redundant, fallen ill, had to become a carer etc etc. But I do not want any more taxpayers money being dished out to people who have put absolutely nothing in.

I completely agree with you on the petrol increase however, petrol needs to be a great deal cheaper not more expensive. This would have a massive positive effect on the average family budget.

"One last thing, Jackie Doyle-Price expects us to feel sorry for the bankers, most of whom are probably her rich banker friends"

One last thing. You seem to constantly attack Jackie Doyle Price and her 'rich banker friends'. Not every Tory is wealthy or has city connections - Thurrock is proof of that - but you seem to ignore the fact that it was Labour who tinkered with the banking system. It was Labour who allowed the banks to do what they wanted, and it was Labour who enjoyed the company of the city between 1997-2010. Bankers simply did what they were allowed to do by the government of the day so to try and pretend that they are this evil group of people who spent like it was going out of fashion is ridiculous. It was also Labour who were advocates of cheap credit which has caused major problems for a large amount of people.

Both our MPs represent Essex seats and both our MPs live in Essex with Jackie Doyle Price living in that salubrious banker hotspot of Purfleet. Mr Mackinlay never lived in Thurrock and I'm pretty certain he never lived in Essex.

I'm all for criticising our MPs and councillors but sometimes I find your rants pointless and not well thought through.
I find it ironic that anyone can support the views of Jackie Doyle-Price. I don't appreciate an out-of-touch Tory MP telling me to feel sorry for bankers when they caused the global economic crisis.

Labour are not to blame for the greed and corruption of bankers; this activity was occurring globally.

What is this government doing about bankers? Nothing. They're still being paid extortionate bonuses whereas the average person is expected to suffer at the hands of austerity all thanks to an uncaring, rotten, evil government.

Mention Jackie Doyle-Price or Stephen Metcalfe to anyone in Thurrock and most agree that the pair of them are a waste of space.

In the meantime, let's look forward to the triple-dip recession caused at the hands of this incompetent government.
[quote][p][bold]Bernard 87[/bold] wrote: "What a surprise! Thurrock's useless Tory MPs fail to vote and support a serious motion" Thurrock Trojan - I think we need to put a few things into perspective here. It was up to both MPs to decide how they wanted to vote or not vote. As Danny has said it will be up to our MPs to explain their actions and I'm certain that both will inform us of how they came to their decisions in the coming weeks. I would hardly call this a "serious motion" either and I have a feeling that this whole issue was designed to detract from the misery that we are currently facing thanks to Labour. "They both voted for the 1% benefit cap and a 3p increase in petrol at the end of last year" Like many people in Thurrock I am glad that both MPs voted for a benefits cap. You may be more than happy for the 'never-worked working class' to continue to have huge rises in their subsidised 'wages' but I, and many in Thurrock are not. It has nothing to do with not caring or being 'nasty'. It's about fairness and equality, to use two lefty phrases. This culture of something for nothing which Labour relied on to gain votes has to end...most importantly because we have no money left for it to carry on. I would be more than happy that when our country's finances improve more money should be given to those who have been made redundant, fallen ill, had to become a carer etc etc. But I do not want any more taxpayers money being dished out to people who have put absolutely nothing in. I completely agree with you on the petrol increase however, petrol needs to be a great deal cheaper not more expensive. This would have a massive positive effect on the average family budget. "One last thing, Jackie Doyle-Price expects us to feel sorry for the bankers, most of whom are probably her rich banker friends" One last thing. You seem to constantly attack Jackie Doyle Price and her 'rich banker friends'. Not every Tory is wealthy or has city connections - Thurrock is proof of that - but you seem to ignore the fact that it was Labour who tinkered with the banking system. It was Labour who allowed the banks to do what they wanted, and it was Labour who enjoyed the company of the city between 1997-2010. Bankers simply did what they were allowed to do by the government of the day so to try and pretend that they are this evil group of people who spent like it was going out of fashion is ridiculous. It was also Labour who were advocates of cheap credit which has caused major problems for a large amount of people. Both our MPs represent Essex seats and both our MPs live in Essex with Jackie Doyle Price living in that salubrious banker hotspot of Purfleet. Mr Mackinlay never lived in Thurrock and I'm pretty certain he never lived in Essex. I'm all for criticising our MPs and councillors but sometimes I find your rants pointless and not well thought through.[/p][/quote]I find it ironic that anyone can support the views of Jackie Doyle-Price. I don't appreciate an out-of-touch Tory MP telling me to feel sorry for bankers when they caused the global economic crisis. Labour are not to blame for the greed and corruption of bankers; this activity was occurring globally. What is this government doing about bankers? Nothing. They're still being paid extortionate bonuses whereas the average person is expected to suffer at the hands of austerity all thanks to an uncaring, rotten, evil government. Mention Jackie Doyle-Price or Stephen Metcalfe to anyone in Thurrock and most agree that the pair of them are a waste of space. In the meantime, let's look forward to the triple-dip recession caused at the hands of this incompetent government. Thurrock Trojan
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Wed 6 Feb 13

skinthegoat says...

" A house divided cannot stand".

Here we have the classic EUSSR Marxist cultural divisiveness. Argue amongst yourselves whilst the country is being taken over. OPEN your eyes and see what is going on . The Government is no more than a Parish Council with 70% of laws being enacted by unelected Brussels Kommissars.

look up "Frankfurt School" " Leading beyond authority" and " Common Purpose".
" A house divided cannot stand". Here we have the classic EUSSR Marxist cultural divisiveness. Argue amongst yourselves whilst the country is being taken over. OPEN your eyes and see what is going on . The Government is no more than a Parish Council with 70% of laws being enacted by unelected Brussels Kommissars. look up "Frankfurt School" " Leading beyond authority" and " Common Purpose". skinthegoat
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Thurrock Trojan says...

Vote UKIP.
Vote UKIP. Thurrock Trojan
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Let's be glad says...

Reading these posts could make me despondent. But the fact that the MP's did not follow a party line and instead followed their conscience showed their character. I am sure that many posters here would happily have said that both were party hacks if the had voted in favour. I respect them following their conscience. As an earlier poster said at least both are local residents working for the local community. Not champagne socialists who turn up for a meeting then head home to their home elsewhere.
Reading these posts could make me despondent. But the fact that the MP's did not follow a party line and instead followed their conscience showed their character. I am sure that many posters here would happily have said that both were party hacks if the had voted in favour. I respect them following their conscience. As an earlier poster said at least both are local residents working for the local community. Not champagne socialists who turn up for a meeting then head home to their home elsewhere. Let's be glad
  • Score: 0

8:50pm Wed 6 Feb 13

DannyButcher says...

With the greatest respect Let's be glad, but can you read? I only ask, because your post shows little relation to what most people have said.

I do NOT believe that someone who didn't vote,could have it said about them that they were to have 'followed their conscience and showed their character.' I believe Jackie Doyle-Price has sold out her constituents by not bothering to vote. It is disgusting that my elected representative didn't even bother showing an opinion.

As I said, I think Stephen Metcalf should be applauded for making an unpopular vote, as it shows he is at least willing to do as he see's right. Jackie Doyle-Price on the other hand, did naff all. As I said before, she needs to explain to us why she didn't bother voting, as that really is pathetic.

It yet again makes me feel that 'my' MP may as well not even bother being there if she is going to pick and choose on what she has an opinion. My fears are that she abstained as her opinion may have had a backlash. At least have the respect for your constituents to bother voting, either way. Let me just put this straight, if she had have voted for, or against, I would have respected that. But doing nothing, is a real kick in the teeth.

So carry on sticking up for the ridiculous, saying someone who doesn't vote is sticking up for their conscience! That's got to be the best joke I've heard all day.
With the greatest respect Let's be glad, but can you read? I only ask, because your post shows little relation to what most people have said. I do NOT believe that someone who didn't vote,could have it said about them that they were to have 'followed their conscience and showed their character.' I believe Jackie Doyle-Price has sold out her constituents by not bothering to vote. It is disgusting that my elected representative didn't even bother showing an opinion. As I said, I think Stephen Metcalf should be applauded for making an unpopular vote, as it shows he is at least willing to do as he see's right. Jackie Doyle-Price on the other hand, did naff all. As I said before, she needs to explain to us why she didn't bother voting, as that really is pathetic. It yet again makes me feel that 'my' MP may as well not even bother being there if she is going to pick and choose on what she has an opinion. My fears are that she abstained as her opinion may have had a backlash. At least have the respect for your constituents to bother voting, either way. Let me just put this straight, if she had have voted for, or against, I would have respected that. But doing nothing, is a real kick in the teeth. So carry on sticking up for the ridiculous, saying someone who doesn't vote is sticking up for their conscience! That's got to be the best joke I've heard all day. DannyButcher
  • Score: 0

9:47pm Wed 6 Feb 13

ThurrockResident says...

I thought Doyle-Price was pro gay marriage. I definitely won't be voting for her now! Remember this when election time comes round folks. Your local Tory MP's are in the dark ages!
I thought Doyle-Price was pro gay marriage. I definitely won't be voting for her now! Remember this when election time comes round folks. Your local Tory MP's are in the dark ages! ThurrockResident
  • Score: 0

10:02pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Let's be glad says...

I think you hold lots of assumptions and also want black and white decisions. Things are never that simple. Let us wait and see what she says. Whatever she had done would probably not win your vote.
I think you hold lots of assumptions and also want black and white decisions. Things are never that simple. Let us wait and see what she says. Whatever she had done would probably not win your vote. Let's be glad
  • Score: 0

10:22pm Wed 6 Feb 13

DannyButcher says...

I think that you sound like someone who has ties with the Conservative party in Thurrock...... otherwise, why are you brown tonguing an MP who has basically not bothered to vote?

Reasons you say? Well it would have to be a **** good reason. And if you'd bothered to read, I have voted conservative for a very long time, but with David Cameron, George Osbourne and my local MP, I feel totally let down. So maybe it is you who holds too many assumptions.
I think that you sound like someone who has ties with the Conservative party in Thurrock...... otherwise, why are you brown tonguing an MP who has basically not bothered to vote? Reasons you say? Well it would have to be a **** good reason. And if you'd bothered to read, I have voted conservative for a very long time, but with David Cameron, George Osbourne and my local MP, I feel totally let down. So maybe it is you who holds too many assumptions. DannyButcher
  • Score: 0

10:31pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Let's be glad says...

Maybe I recognise that things are never quite as simple as others here seem to think. Perhaps that makes me someone who gives these things some thought.
Maybe I recognise that things are never quite as simple as others here seem to think. Perhaps that makes me someone who gives these things some thought. Let's be glad
  • Score: 0

10:39pm Wed 6 Feb 13

DannyButcher says...

I think you'll find mate, it makes you arrogant without cause.
I think you'll find mate, it makes you arrogant without cause. DannyButcher
  • Score: 0

10:48pm Wed 6 Feb 13

DannyButcher says...

Let me put this simply for you.

As my MP, I expect JDP to at least vote for her constituency.

That vote should be for or against. I do not believe abstain should be used by anyone unless there is very real need to. In this case, I see very little cause for this to have been used in this case.

Even if it has been used for a reason, people have said here, and I have read on twitter that JDP has told constituents that she supports same sex marriage. So to do this, then abstain is odd. In this day and age, with social media, the least we can expect is to actually know a genuine reason why she abstained. This, as yet, has not been forthcoming, so I'm left wondering how long, if ever, it will be when we find out why. You cannot blame people for wondering things when we are kept in the dark.

I'm not going to just re-write what I've written previously, but if you read it, you'll see it is far from black and white. You see, now I'm left wondering how many posts you have actually read before making sweeping, arrogant statements that maybe you are someone who gives it some thought, suggesting others are not. All in all matey boy, your posts still read like a campaign for the conservatives, when in reality, this is neither the time nor the place.
Let me put this simply for you. As my MP, I expect JDP to at least vote for her constituency. That vote should be for or against. I do not believe abstain should be used by anyone unless there is very real need to. In this case, I see very little cause for this to have been used in this case. Even if it has been used for a reason, people have said here, and I have read on twitter that JDP has told constituents that she supports same sex marriage. So to do this, then abstain is odd. In this day and age, with social media, the least we can expect is to actually know a genuine reason why she abstained. This, as yet, has not been forthcoming, so I'm left wondering how long, if ever, it will be when we find out why. You cannot blame people for wondering things when we are kept in the dark. I'm not going to just re-write what I've written previously, but if you read it, you'll see it is far from black and white. You see, now I'm left wondering how many posts you have actually read before making sweeping, arrogant statements that maybe you are someone who gives it some thought, suggesting others are not. All in all matey boy, your posts still read like a campaign for the conservatives, when in reality, this is neither the time nor the place. DannyButcher
  • Score: 0

12:01am Thu 7 Feb 13

Thurrock Trojan says...

Let's be glad wrote:
Reading these posts could make me despondent. But the fact that the MP's did not follow a party line and instead followed their conscience showed their character. I am sure that many posters here would happily have said that both were party hacks if the had voted in favour. I respect them following their conscience. As an earlier poster said at least both are local residents working for the local community. Not champagne socialists who turn up for a meeting then head home to their home elsewhere.
What planet are you on because it isn't Earth?
[quote][p][bold]Let's be glad[/bold] wrote: Reading these posts could make me despondent. But the fact that the MP's did not follow a party line and instead followed their conscience showed their character. I am sure that many posters here would happily have said that both were party hacks if the had voted in favour. I respect them following their conscience. As an earlier poster said at least both are local residents working for the local community. Not champagne socialists who turn up for a meeting then head home to their home elsewhere.[/p][/quote]What planet are you on because it isn't Earth? Thurrock Trojan
  • Score: 0

6:14am Thu 7 Feb 13

ebagumtrebor says...

Actual public debt is around £2.3 trillion. The £1.1 trillion is debt that has to be serviced now. Labour left the country with a structural deficit. of about £150 billion a year so until that structural debt is corrected we will continue to have to borrow regardless of who is in power. That is why cuts have to be made to control the structural debt. Labour can promise people the moon. The fact of the matter is they will have to make a choice over what they will cut. And privately they have already said they will continue Tory policies after the next election if they win.
Actual public debt is around £2.3 trillion. The £1.1 trillion is debt that has to be serviced now. Labour left the country with a structural deficit. of about £150 billion a year so until that structural debt is corrected we will continue to have to borrow regardless of who is in power. That is why cuts have to be made to control the structural debt. Labour can promise people the moon. The fact of the matter is they will have to make a choice over what they will cut. And privately they have already said they will continue Tory policies after the next election if they win. ebagumtrebor
  • Score: 0

8:09am Thu 7 Feb 13

DannyButcher says...

This is why politics is contentious, there is never a right or wrong, and always evidence to prove otherwise for anything.

The real fact of the matter is that neither Cameron or Osbourne seem tell the truth, and whatever they say always seems to be proven to be false, especially deficit figures. If I can't trust the people in power, I'm afraid I can never take a forum poster as gospel. Osbourne interviews are always interesting, because figures that come from him always read like Harry Potter..... complete fiction.

Whatever Labour did or didn't do, they never came across as deliberately telling as many falsehoods in their whole time in power than these jokers have done in such a short time.
This is why politics is contentious, there is never a right or wrong, and always evidence to prove otherwise for anything. The real fact of the matter is that neither Cameron or Osbourne seem tell the truth, and whatever they say always seems to be proven to be false, especially deficit figures. If I can't trust the people in power, I'm afraid I can never take a forum poster as gospel. Osbourne interviews are always interesting, because figures that come from him always read like Harry Potter..... complete fiction. Whatever Labour did or didn't do, they never came across as deliberately telling as many falsehoods in their whole time in power than these jokers have done in such a short time. DannyButcher
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Thu 7 Feb 13

ebagumtrebor says...

There's one small area that seems to be a hot topic with the public that Labour were a teency bit disingenuous about but as this was a story about gay marriage I won't go there.
There's one small area that seems to be a hot topic with the public that Labour were a teency bit disingenuous about but as this was a story about gay marriage I won't go there. ebagumtrebor
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Thu 7 Feb 13

DannyButcher says...

Of course, all politicians and political parties have done/said things in the past that were at the very least misguided. I suppose it sometimes comes down to who you feel will be more likely to be untrustworthy. People like George Osbourne have shown that you cannot trust them to be in charge of a packet of biscuits.
Of course, all politicians and political parties have done/said things in the past that were at the very least misguided. I suppose it sometimes comes down to who you feel will be more likely to be untrustworthy. People like George Osbourne have shown that you cannot trust them to be in charge of a packet of biscuits. DannyButcher
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Thurrock Trojan says...

George Osborne is about as much use as a split condom.
George Osborne is about as much use as a split condom. Thurrock Trojan
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Thu 7 Feb 13

aberline 88 says...

its ment to be adam and eve, not colin and robert
its ment to be adam and eve, not colin and robert aberline 88
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Thurrock Trojan says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Of course, all politicians and political parties have done/said things in the past that were at the very least misguided. I suppose it sometimes comes down to who you feel will be more likely to be untrustworthy. People like George Osbourne have shown that you cannot trust them to be in charge of a packet of biscuits.
Eve was a bloke but had a sex change. They were previously known as Adam and Steve.
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: Of course, all politicians and political parties have done/said things in the past that were at the very least misguided. I suppose it sometimes comes down to who you feel will be more likely to be untrustworthy. People like George Osbourne have shown that you cannot trust them to be in charge of a packet of biscuits.[/p][/quote]Eve was a bloke but had a sex change. They were previously known as Adam and Steve. Thurrock Trojan
  • Score: 0

5:46pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Thurrock Trojan says...

Quoted the wrong post. I was meant to quote the homophobe's.
Quoted the wrong post. I was meant to quote the homophobe's. Thurrock Trojan
  • Score: 0

7:01pm Thu 7 Feb 13

DannyButcher says...

I've just seen this article is updated, and basically JDP didn't vote because she didn't agree with it.

Pathetic to abstain, when you disagree with something. Why she would abstain instead of voting against looks like a case of not wanting to be branded a bigot. Well thank you very much JDP, you have made my vote come next election a lot easier. Absolutely no backbone, I am totally disgusted!
I've just seen this article is updated, and basically JDP didn't vote because she didn't agree with it. Pathetic to abstain, when you disagree with something. Why she would abstain instead of voting against looks like a case of not wanting to be branded a bigot. Well thank you very much JDP, you have made my vote come next election a lot easier. Absolutely no backbone, I am totally disgusted! DannyButcher
  • Score: 0

9:13pm Thu 7 Feb 13

bossy lady says...

How very dare you! Thurrock Trojan, that is absolutely apalling, you should be ashamed of youself!
How very dare you! Thurrock Trojan, that is absolutely apalling, you should be ashamed of youself! bossy lady
  • Score: 0

12:13am Fri 8 Feb 13

Thurrock Trojan says...

bossy lady wrote:
How very dare you! Thurrock Trojan, that is absolutely apalling, you should be ashamed of youself!
Go away, Jackie!
[quote][p][bold]bossy lady[/bold] wrote: How very dare you! Thurrock Trojan, that is absolutely apalling, you should be ashamed of youself![/p][/quote]Go away, Jackie! Thurrock Trojan
  • Score: 0

9:01am Fri 8 Feb 13

DannyButcher says...

So after seeing the excuses for abstaining it is clear she made a gutless decision. Pathetic. This woman does not represent anyone but herself. I am ashamed she is my MP.
So after seeing the excuses for abstaining it is clear she made a gutless decision. Pathetic. This woman does not represent anyone but herself. I am ashamed she is my MP. DannyButcher
  • Score: 0

9:14am Fri 8 Feb 13

Thurrock Trojan says...

Both Jackie Doyle-Price and Stephen Metcalfe know they won't win another term, so in the meantime they'll just continue making life difficult for their constituents.

They're a pair of wasters, not worth the time of day.
Both Jackie Doyle-Price and Stephen Metcalfe know they won't win another term, so in the meantime they'll just continue making life difficult for their constituents. They're a pair of wasters, not worth the time of day. Thurrock Trojan
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Fri 8 Feb 13

Bernard 87 says...

Thurrock Trojan.

There is no alternative to the economic plans the government have taken. If Cameron called a general election tomorrow we all know he would lose and Labour would just about win or form a coalition with the Lib Dems. They would still have to make the same cuts and attempt to bring the deficit down. You may disagree with many of the cuts (which I do myself) but most people know that this country has a long way to go before we're back in the black.

The fact you seem to harbour some sort of hatred for two regional MPs does cloud your judgement on the mess Britain is in at the moment. You should write to both of them telling them how they can make your life easier. We'll all agree on cheaper petrol though!

I understand Dannys point.

When we do end up with a Labour government in 2015, if things carry on as they are going, it will be simply be a repeat of the late 70s all over again. History has a nasty way of repeating itself.
Thurrock Trojan. There is no alternative to the economic plans the government have taken. If Cameron called a general election tomorrow we all know he would lose and Labour would just about win or form a coalition with the Lib Dems. They would still have to make the same cuts and attempt to bring the deficit down. You may disagree with many of the cuts (which I do myself) but most people know that this country has a long way to go before we're back in the black. The fact you seem to harbour some sort of hatred for two regional MPs does cloud your judgement on the mess Britain is in at the moment. You should write to both of them telling them how they can make your life easier. We'll all agree on cheaper petrol though! I understand Dannys point. When we do end up with a Labour government in 2015, if things carry on as they are going, it will be simply be a repeat of the late 70s all over again. History has a nasty way of repeating itself. Bernard 87
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Sat 9 Feb 13

Bodoftheglen says...

It is these peoples human rights to get married be it all to the same gender as themselves. Now it also within my human rights to marry my sister or my pet dog or my daughters horse so I'd like to invite you all to the reception of me an dobbin
It is these peoples human rights to get married be it all to the same gender as themselves. Now it also within my human rights to marry my sister or my pet dog or my daughters horse so I'd like to invite you all to the reception of me an dobbin Bodoftheglen
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Sat 9 Feb 13

ThurrockResident says...

Bodoftheglen wrote:
It is these peoples human rights to get married be it all to the same gender as themselves. Now it also within my human rights to marry my sister or my pet dog or my daughters horse so I'd like to invite you all to the reception of me an dobbin
Fake argument as the comparisons are obviously not the same. Another technique used by homophobes is 'the list' whereby negative words are listed with the word 'gay' so we have 'thief, child molester, murderer, gay'. Quite obviously the poster is homophobic and probably worried about their own feelings.
[quote][p][bold]Bodoftheglen[/bold] wrote: It is these peoples human rights to get married be it all to the same gender as themselves. Now it also within my human rights to marry my sister or my pet dog or my daughters horse so I'd like to invite you all to the reception of me an dobbin[/p][/quote]Fake argument as the comparisons are obviously not the same. Another technique used by homophobes is 'the list' whereby negative words are listed with the word 'gay' so we have 'thief, child molester, murderer, gay'. Quite obviously the poster is homophobic and probably worried about their own feelings. ThurrockResident
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Sat 9 Feb 13

Bodoftheglen says...

Same arguement do you give everyone what they want just because its there human right to have so. Even if the arguement is they want to marry in a catholic Church even if catholism labels homsexaulality a sin. So do we ignore gods law to enforce the law of the land ?
Same arguement do you give everyone what they want just because its there human right to have so. Even if the arguement is they want to marry in a catholic Church even if catholism labels homsexaulality a sin. So do we ignore gods law to enforce the law of the land ? Bodoftheglen
  • Score: 0

6:36pm Sat 9 Feb 13

ThurrockResident says...

Churches will have their 'rights' protected under the new legislation , however discriminatory.
Churches will have their 'rights' protected under the new legislation , however discriminatory. ThurrockResident
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Sun 10 Feb 13

aberline 88 says...

ThurrockResident wrote:
Churches will have their 'rights' protected under the new legislation , however discriminatory.
ah there you are thurrock resident, are you sponge?
[quote][p][bold]ThurrockResident[/bold] wrote: Churches will have their 'rights' protected under the new legislation , however discriminatory.[/p][/quote]ah there you are thurrock resident, are you sponge? aberline 88
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Sun 10 Feb 13

ThurrockResident says...

aberline 88 wrote:
ThurrockResident wrote:
Churches will have their 'rights' protected under the new legislation , however discriminatory.
ah there you are thurrock resident, are you sponge?
I am sorry I am unable to reply to comments that make no sense. I assume English isn't your first language?
[quote][p][bold]aberline 88[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThurrockResident[/bold] wrote: Churches will have their 'rights' protected under the new legislation , however discriminatory.[/p][/quote]ah there you are thurrock resident, are you sponge?[/p][/quote]I am sorry I am unable to reply to comments that make no sense. I assume English isn't your first language? ThurrockResident
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Bodoftheglen says...

I do believe are you sponge is a reference to withnail an I a film starring richard e grant
I do believe are you sponge is a reference to withnail an I a film starring richard e grant Bodoftheglen
  • Score: 1

11:38am Mon 11 Feb 13

PoorFleet says...

Jackie Doyle-Price said: "I chose to abstain because although I believe in equality for same sex couples, the Bill before us is divisive."

So why didn't you vote against...?

If it's divisive, make a stand.
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing.

Jackie Doyle-Price said: "I chose to abstain because although I believe in equality for same sex couples, the Bill before us is divisive." So why didn't you vote against...? If it's divisive, make a stand. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing. [To the keyboard warriors out there, I'm not implying homosexuality is evil. My point is that if you find something divisive then surely you should take action against.] PoorFleet
  • Score: -1

11:39am Mon 11 Feb 13

PoorFleet says...

PoorFleet wrote:
Jackie Doyle-Price said: "I chose to abstain because although I believe in equality for same sex couples, the Bill before us is divisive."

So why didn't you vote against...?

If it's divisive, make a stand.
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing.

- To the keyboard warriors out there, I'm not implying homosexuality is evil. My point is that if you find something divisive then surely you should take action against.
[quote][p][bold]PoorFleet[/bold] wrote: Jackie Doyle-Price said: "I chose to abstain because although I believe in equality for same sex couples, the Bill before us is divisive." So why didn't you vote against...? If it's divisive, make a stand. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing. [To the keyboard warriors out there, I'm not implying homosexuality is evil. My point is that if you find something divisive then surely you should take action against.][/p][/quote]- To the keyboard warriors out there, I'm not implying homosexuality is evil. My point is that if you find something divisive then surely you should take action against. PoorFleet
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree