Didn’t read the link but how the fk is this not normal?
Edit:- because it’s modern UK politics = everyone for themselves. My bad.
What this is saying is they’re currently not subject to any sort of CRB check?
Why the fuck not? (I’d have thought that was a given!)
You’d like to think that no one would vote for a convicted sex offender really
Is this actually an issue? How many people are elected as an MP while already having a conviction for sexual offences?
Seems better to just let the parties and electorate choose/elect candidates.
Come on Baldrick, you’re going into Parliament. I’ll just put down “Fraud and sexual deviancy”.
Government should not be able to remove the right of a citizen to vote.
Government should not be able to remove the right of a citizen to elect who they want as their representative.
You would think that this would already be policy. We should go further, prospective MPs convicted of any crime, should be blocked.
That sound you can hear is David Cameron googling “How to unfuck a pig”
You know he won’t put it in writing either.
Been 3 in the past year for the conservatives
They should just remove “as MP” from the end of the headline
Should still be up to the electorate to decide.
We shouldn’t start putting limitations on who should/could stand for election as that’s a slippery slope.
If someone has a bad sexual assault on their record the voting public should be aware of it and they would be very unlikely to be elected.
So he’s been in power for what 2 yrs and he’s finally begun to read the section on criminal/previous convictions in the Tory sex scandal Party
Funny, I though making sure candidates had a dodgy past so that they could be leaned on was part of the selection process… /s
Oh my god, brainwave!! Well done Sunak, I can’t believe it’s never occured to anyone before now. A clear thinker of our generation
Most jobs with any kind of responsibilities don’t allow sex offenders.
Kind of wild this is even a discussion.
I remember not to long ago, an MP would resign for having an affair or being caught out in a lie – not nessacariky saying that is right but it’s a contrast to today where MPs seemingly can do pretty much anything and it doesn’t really matter.
I wonder if it is a Trump affect we’ve imported
It’s not really the sort of thing anyone should be urged to do. I appreciate there’re currently limited restrictions and the move would be pro-active but Christ, you’d think there’d be minimum standards.
I mean, how is this not a thing?
If you’re convicted of a sexual assault, you can’t be a police officer, paramedic or firefighter. Why can you be an MP?
Most of them would be kicked out! Just look over the last decades how many MPs have been done with SA and to minors too!
Insane. Any criminal conviction should mean automatic exclusion.
In any sort of sane world there would be absolutely no need for this. It’s an election. Who in their right mind would vote for an MP convicted of sexual offences. And who, therefore, would choose one as their candidate. But these days you have things like Trump and Brexit to prove that easily influenced people will vote for more or less anything.
There are probably people I’d put higher up the list to make a law blocking them from standing though. People who have had bankrupt companies, people who hide their money overseas to avoid paying taxes, people who have been shown to have lied, and any other demonstrably untrustworthy or incompetent individuals.
Literally burst out laughing. How is this not already a rule?
The road to hell is lined with well meaning intentions. Can people not think logically on this subreddit, as to why this might be a terrible idea? The same reddit users who lambast Trump and Brexit voters of being devoid of logic and voting. Come on it ain’t that hard, I’ll give it a day.
“Urged” is there even a bit of a chance of sexual offenders running for MP????
Why not say any one with a criminal record should not stand as MP? Why this one specific crime?
I also want monthly drug tests. If you’re part of a government setting laws on what’s considered class A and B, that better not be turning up in your system.
25 comments
Didn’t read the link but how the fk is this not normal?
Edit:- because it’s modern UK politics = everyone for themselves. My bad.
What this is saying is they’re currently not subject to any sort of CRB check?
Why the fuck not? (I’d have thought that was a given!)
You’d like to think that no one would vote for a convicted sex offender really
Is this actually an issue? How many people are elected as an MP while already having a conviction for sexual offences?
Seems better to just let the parties and electorate choose/elect candidates.
Come on Baldrick, you’re going into Parliament. I’ll just put down “Fraud and sexual deviancy”.
Government should not be able to remove the right of a citizen to vote.
Government should not be able to remove the right of a citizen to elect who they want as their representative.
You would think that this would already be policy. We should go further, prospective MPs convicted of any crime, should be blocked.
That sound you can hear is David Cameron googling “How to unfuck a pig”
You know he won’t put it in writing either.
Been 3 in the past year for the conservatives
They should just remove “as MP” from the end of the headline
Should still be up to the electorate to decide.
We shouldn’t start putting limitations on who should/could stand for election as that’s a slippery slope.
If someone has a bad sexual assault on their record the voting public should be aware of it and they would be very unlikely to be elected.
So he’s been in power for what 2 yrs and he’s finally begun to read the section on criminal/previous convictions in the Tory sex scandal Party
Funny, I though making sure candidates had a dodgy past so that they could be leaned on was part of the selection process… /s
Oh my god, brainwave!! Well done Sunak, I can’t believe it’s never occured to anyone before now. A clear thinker of our generation
Most jobs with any kind of responsibilities don’t allow sex offenders.
Kind of wild this is even a discussion.
I remember not to long ago, an MP would resign for having an affair or being caught out in a lie – not nessacariky saying that is right but it’s a contrast to today where MPs seemingly can do pretty much anything and it doesn’t really matter.
I wonder if it is a Trump affect we’ve imported
It’s not really the sort of thing anyone should be urged to do. I appreciate there’re currently limited restrictions and the move would be pro-active but Christ, you’d think there’d be minimum standards.
I mean, how is this not a thing?
If you’re convicted of a sexual assault, you can’t be a police officer, paramedic or firefighter. Why can you be an MP?
Most of them would be kicked out! Just look over the last decades how many MPs have been done with SA and to minors too!
Insane. Any criminal conviction should mean automatic exclusion.
In any sort of sane world there would be absolutely no need for this. It’s an election. Who in their right mind would vote for an MP convicted of sexual offences. And who, therefore, would choose one as their candidate. But these days you have things like Trump and Brexit to prove that easily influenced people will vote for more or less anything.
There are probably people I’d put higher up the list to make a law blocking them from standing though. People who have had bankrupt companies, people who hide their money overseas to avoid paying taxes, people who have been shown to have lied, and any other demonstrably untrustworthy or incompetent individuals.
Literally burst out laughing. How is this not already a rule?
The road to hell is lined with well meaning intentions. Can people not think logically on this subreddit, as to why this might be a terrible idea? The same reddit users who lambast Trump and Brexit voters of being devoid of logic and voting. Come on it ain’t that hard, I’ll give it a day.
“Urged” is there even a bit of a chance of sexual offenders running for MP????
Why not say any one with a criminal record should not stand as MP? Why this one specific crime?
I also want monthly drug tests. If you’re part of a government setting laws on what’s considered class A and B, that better not be turning up in your system.