Man2k

Queen's Speech Today

32 posts in this topic

Well, today we should find out if the 'proposed' legistlation is on the schedule for its passage through the houses next year!

My guess is, if it isn't in the speech today, it is unlikely to happen before the next election (and let us pray they don't get in again!), of course it can be introduced into Parliament at anytime, but with the current Economic problems they have had to cut down the number of draft Bills to introduce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

deleted, posted part of 2006 queens speech by mistake!

Edited by mirror
deleted, posted part of 2006 queens speech by mistake!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a transcript of this year's Queen's speech. I just glanced through it and I don't see anything. Maybe somebody with more knowledge of the strange ways of Westminster can tell us what it means.

There's a video of it at the link below.

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/infocus/features/in-focus/queen-s-speech-in-full-$1252608.htm

"My lords and members of the House of Commons.

"My government's overriding priority is to ensure the stability of the British economy during the global economic downturn. My government is committed to helping families and businesses through difficult times.

"The strength of the financial sector is vital to the future vibrancy of the economy.

"Therefore, legislation will continue to be taken forward to ensure fairer and more secure protection for bank depositors and to improve the resilience of the financial sector.

"My government will also bring forward proposals to create Saving Gateway Accounts to encourage people on lower incomes to save more by offering financial incentives.

"My government will bring forward legislation to promote local economic development and to create greater opportunities for community and individual involvement in local decision-making.

"A bill will be brought forward to reform the welfare system, to improve incentives for people to move from benefits into sustained employment and to provide greater support, choice and control for disabled people.

"A bill will be brought forward to increase the effectiveness and public accountability of policing, to reduce crime and disorder and to enhance airport security.

"My Government will also bring forward a bill to deliver a more effective, transparent and responsive justice system for victims, witnesses and the wider public. The bill would also improve the coroners service, and the process of death certification, and provide increased support for bereaved families, including the families of servicemen and women.

"My government is committed to ensuring everyone has a fair chance in life. My government will bring forward a bill to promote equality, fight discrimination and introduce transparency in the workplace to help address the difference in pay between men and women.

"My government will enshrine in law its commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020.

Because the health of the nation is vital to its success and well-being, a bill will be brought forward to strengthen the National Health Service. The bill would create a duty to take account of the new National Health Service Constitution that will set out the core principles of the service and the rights and responsibilities of patients and staff. The bill would also introduce measures to improve the quality of health care and public health.

"My government will bring forward a bill to reform education, training and apprenticeships, to promote excellence in all schools, to improve local services for children and parents and to provide a right for those in work to request time for training.

"My government will continue to take forward proposals on constitutional renewal, including strengthening the role of parliament and other measures.

"My government will bring forward measures to protect the environment for future generations. A bill will be introduced to manage marine resources and to create a new right of public access to the coastline.

"My government will continue to work closely with the devolved administrations in the interests of all the people of the United Kingdom. My government is committed to the Northern Ireland political process and will bring forward further measures for sustainable, devolved government.

"Members of the House of Commons: Estimates for the public services will be laid before you.

"My Lords and members of the House of Commons: My government will work for a coordinated international response to the global downturn, including by hosting the next G20 Summit on financial markets and the world economy in the United Kingdom in April next year and reforming financial institutions. My government will continue to work as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation including at its sixtieth anniversary summit.

"My government will press for a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East, for continued progress in Iraq and for effective measures to address concerns over Iran's nuclear programme.

"My government will work with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan for security, stability and prosperity.

"The Duke of Edinburgh and I look forward to receiving the President of Mexico.

Other measures will be laid before you.

"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Telegraph's summary mentioned the reclassification of lap-dancing clubs as sexual establishments, but nothing else that I could see.

PS (five minutes later): whoops, sorry, I see from the neighbouring thread that the Telegraph was just not sufficiently interested, and the proposals haved been included. Bugger!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Telegraph's summary mentioned the reclassification of lap-dancing clubs as sexual establishments, but nothing else that I could see.

PS (five minutes later): whoops, sorry, I see from the neighbouring thread that the Telegraph was just not sufficiently interested, and the proposals haved been included. Bugger!

Where does it say it has been included? As I cannot see it anywhere..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar confusion in The Times:

Measures to toughen laws against benefit fraud, ban irresponsible alcohol promotions and reclassify lap-dancing clubs as "sex encounter establishments" were trailed yesterday.

Can't see where that fits into what was actually said by Her Majesty - maybe it would have been too freaky to have her talking about Lap Dancing and Prostitutes :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the Conservatives are likely to oppose the proposals and that the possibility of a summer election is becoming ever more likely, I don't think we need to get over excited. Chances are it will disappear into the ether alongside Ms Smith and Ms Harman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I suppose that is what they are doing, though that Guardian piece was written as she was speaking, so was it hopeful or leaked!!

Oh dear, the L word! Jacqui might have to order the Anti-Terrorist Police to arrest herself:D

Seriously, details of the Bills to be included in the Queen's Speech, started to be leaked to the media, by the Government, 2 weeks ago, with the only surprise being that they only included 13 of the original 19 Bills that were let slip (also, one should bear in mind that The Guardian is a loyal mouthpiece for NuLabour & actually pays several MPs & Monisters to contribute to the paper).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, I would expect all of us here to support a proposal to criminalise men who pay for sex with trafficked women - which as I understand it, is the watered down version

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Similar confusion in The Times:

Can't see where that fits into what was actually said by Her Majesty - maybe it would have been too freaky to have her talking about Lap Dancing and Prostitutes :eek:

YES....... I think they would not ask her to mention it.... but HM Queen does not need to for it to be included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In any case, I would expect all of us here to support a proposal to criminalise men who pay for sex with trafficked women - which as I understand it, is the watered down version

No, it isn't that simple. the proposals include a strict liability offence of paying for sexual services with someone who is controlled for gain.

This seemingly innocuous term; presented as meaning those who are controlled by a pimp, drug dealer or trafficker, actually applies to anyone who assists a sex worker in the pursuit of their trade. This means that, should a sex worker be operating entirely independently & yet make use of the services of a maid, a driver or pay rent from the proceeds of their work, then their clients would be automatically guilty & liable to a fine of up to £1000.

One need only look at the Home Office Review; in which the only referenced sources & the list of stakeholders said to have been consulted are those which approve of the criminalisation of clients (possibly due to its terms of reference having been set by an active lobbyist & ideologue, for such a policy), to see that this is an ideologically driven piece of legislation with not the least shred of interest in enhancing the safety or improving the working conditions of those who choose to earn their living in this fashion.

There are existing laws to deal with trafficking & coercion, but they are not being enforced.

One clue as to how high a priority the issue of trafficking is for this government is that they have axed funding for the Metropolitan Police's specialist anti-trafficking team, on the same day that these proposals were announced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Part of the Policing & Crime Bill:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/dec/03/queens-speech-justice

They just didn't make this clear in the Queen's Speech; probably due to the overwhelmingly negative reception these proposals have received.

Surprising:

'The Conservatives have already indicated they are likely to oppose this, making tackling prostitution one of the more unlikely flashpoints in politics over the coming months'.

I didn't expect many (if any!) members of parliament would be on ourside! Let's hope we get some more backing. I don't think the Lords will be very happy with the 'Strict Liability' clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this taken from the BBC website seems to be in direct conflict to what has been discussed before, the key words of course being KNOWINGLY and COULD.

"The home secretary has also previously announced plans to make it a crime in England and Wales to pay for sex with women who have been trafficked.

Men who knowingly pay could be charged with rape and kerb crawlers could face prosecution for a first offence."

I stand by a previous post of mine, and believe that the paid for sex scene as we know it will remain as buoyant as it is now whatever law may be passed in the future.

Quote taken from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7762594.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given that the Conservatives are likely to oppose the proposals and that the possibility of a summer election is becoming ever more likely, I don't think we need to get over excited. Chances are it will disappear into the ether alongside Ms Smith and Ms Harman

'A week is a long time in politics', is an oft quoted truism. Six months ago the Tories would have stormed to victory in a general election with an overall majority of over 120 seats, if opinion polls were to be believed. Now, despite the evidence for all to see regarding this governments financial mismanagement, the opinion polls indicate that the Tories would not win an overall majority.

It seems beyond comprehension that, after eleven years of New Labour arrogance, incompetence and corruption, they stand any chance at all of being re-elected, but fact is stranger than fiction.

I think that we need to very concerned that this illiberal and intolerant policy may well become law. Not just because of the unwarranted criminalisation of punters, but because it would undoubtedly drive prostitution further underground, resulting in a growth in the problem of trafficked and coerced working girls.

'I know what I believe, don't confuse me with the facts' is a fitting epitaph for The Mss' Harman, Smith and Blears.

The anti-hunting legislation, irrespective of whether you agreed with it or not, criminalised tens of thousands of otherwise hard-working, law-abiding citizens of this country, including judges, lawyers, churchmen, police officers, doctors and MPs. This proposed legislation, based on the same false principles of justice, will do the same to hundreds of thousands of otherwise hard-working, law-abiding men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'A week is a long time in politics', is an oft quoted truism. Six months ago the Tories would have stormed to victory in a general election with an overall majority of over 120 seats, if opinion polls were to be believed. Now, despite the evidence for all to see regarding this governments financial mismanagement, the opinion polls indicate that the Tories would not win an overall majority.

The 120 stuck out at me. There are 120 Labour MPs sponsored by the GMB. If they support the bill they will have support and funding removed from them.

The IUSW is a branch of the GMB, and have been in discussions with the GMB in stopping this legislation. Alas it failed to get it removed from the Queens speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well this taken from the BBC website seems to be in direct conflict to what has been discussed before, the key words of course being KNOWINGLY and COULD.

"The home secretary has also previously announced plans to make it a crime in England and Wales to pay for sex with women who have been trafficked.

Men who knowingly pay could be charged with rape and kerb crawlers could face prosecution for a first offence."

I stand by a previous post of mine, and believe that the paid for sex scene as we know it will remain as buoyant as it is now whatever law may be passed in the future.

Quote taken from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7762594.stm

Ooh, that one is interesting since the BBC is the mouth piece for labour (can you say that :eek: ) That is a new detail and hopefully a change to the proposed law. If this is the case I completely agree with it as long as it means trafficked as we know it and not the trafficked by being transported from place to place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems beyond comprehension that, after eleven years of New Labour arrogance, incompetence and corruption, they stand any chance at all of being re-elected, but fact is stranger than fiction.

Many people, myself included, felt the same way about the Conservatives in 1992.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many people, myself included, felt the same way about the Conservatives in 1992.

I think it must have something to do with the length of time they serve in office.. At first they want to impress and will do anything to make people happy. As time goes by, arrogance and the belief that they are always right seems to set in.. A bit like my au-pairs really!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone else seen all the hard questions in parliament about trafficking mand the legal definition of 'control' been ducked.

John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington, Labour) | Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the number of people who have been trafficked who are (a) in the UK and (:eek: working as prostitutes; on what research her estimate is based; and if she will place in the Library a copy of the research.

John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington, Labour) | Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration she has given to the application of the definition of a prostitute as controlled for another person's gain to male and female prostitutes in circumstances where the other person is (a) a receptionist, (:) also working as a prostitute, © working as a prostitute on the same premises, (d) a partner or a flatmate who shares premises with the prostitute, (e) a landlord letting the premises where the prostitute is working and (f) a dependant.

John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington, Labour) | Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration she has given to the application of the definition of a prostitute as controlled for another person's gain to male and female prostitutes in circumstances where the prostitute has voluntarily entered into a working relationship with another person.

John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington, Labour) | Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent estimate she has made of the average age of a person working as a prostitute in the UK; on what research her estimate is based; and if she will place in the Library a copy of the research.

John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington, Labour) | Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the number of prostitutes working in the UK who are (a) women, (:( men, © under the age of 16 years, (d) addicted to drugs, (e) homeless, (f) supporting dependants and (g) working for another person's gain; on what research her estimate is based; and if she will place in the Library a copy of the research.

Some how I think I missed one, But I like this MP. Seems to be asking the correct questions..

The response he got for all the questions was.

Alan Campbell (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Tynemouth, Labour) | Hansard source

It has not proved possible to respond to my hon. Friend in the time available before Prorogation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well this taken from the BBC website seems to be in direct conflict to what has been discussed before, the key words of course being KNOWINGLY and COULD.

"The home secretary has also previously announced plans to make it a crime in England and Wales to pay for sex with women who have been trafficked.

Men who knowingly pay could be charged with rape and kerb crawlers could face prosecution for a first offence."

I stand by a previous post of mine, and believe that the paid for sex scene as we know it will remain as buoyant as it is now whatever law may be passed in the future.

Quote taken from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7762594.stm

yawn and sigh and sigh again, that is what they have been saying all the time. Read the press releases not the media's sloppy interpretations of them:

1. if it can be proved that you knew the prostitute had been trafficked and did not consent to sexual intercourse. the police and prosecutors would look at prosecution for rape. (no need to change any laws for this)

2.

The new criminal offence of paying for sex with someone who is trafficked or pimped will apply even if the buyer claims he did not know the woman was being controlled for gain

the difference between 1 and 2 is that, in case 2 it doesn't matter if she did it wouthout being forced, because forced is not the word used but the vague word controlled, and even if she was forced it doesn't matter if you knew that or not because 'Ignorance will be no excuse.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a transcript of this year's Queen's speech. I just glanced through it and I don't see anything. Maybe somebody with more knowledge of the strange ways of Westminster can tell us what it means.

The sentence:

'Other measures will be laid before you.'

enables any other bills to be introduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many people, myself included, felt the same way about the Conservatives in 1992.

Fair comment, and with as much justification as those of us feeling the same way today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it must have something to do with the length of time they serve in office.. At first they want to impress and will do anything to make people happy. As time goes by, arrogance and the belief that they are always right seems to set in.. A bit like my au-pairs really!!

As usual, Shakespeare had it right. The insolence of office seems to affect all governments after a while. Maybe they become too sheltered from the real world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now