Jump to content

General Politics Thread


Granny Danger

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

A 'state veto' on who gets to teach children already exists and we all (maybe not you?) think that's fine. I see no issue with this as party vetting clearly misses things.

 

Teaching isn't democracy. MPs and MSPs aren't employed they are representatives. They don't need oversight the fact of being elected is enough.

Set something up like this and before you know it supporting BDS or having a criminal record will be reason to exclude someone from Holyrood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teaching isn't democracy. MPs and MSPs aren't employed they are representatives. They don't need oversight the fact of being elected is enough.
Set something up like this and before you know it supporting BDS or having a criminal record will be reason to exclude someone from Holyrood.

So youre ok with elected Tory councillors with links to far right extremist groups? Background checks for any public sector worker should be mandatory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:


So youre ok with elected Tory councillors with links to far right extremist groups? Background checks for any public sector worker should be mandatory.

I don't vote for them but if they get the votes then they are entitled to do their job as a councillor.  If you start excluding people from public office then eventually the criteria will widen.

I'm making a distinction between elected representatives and public sector employees. Obviously there should be some background checks for public sector workers dependent on their roles but we also need to be aware that all the architecture already exists to provide employers with all the data that Google, Facebook and all the other surveillance corporations hold on us. It's a dangerous path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Detournement said:

So if someone gets elected who fails the background check then it would be an offence for them to meet with some of their constituents?

Sounds great.

It doesn't say that at all. 

It would be an offence for them to meet a child or a vulnerable person alone. There would be no bar on them meeting people in those categories as long someone that had passed a PVG check was also present.

Personally, if I was an elected official in today's poisonous climate, I would want to have a witness present when I met my constituents!

(and yes, before you ask, I have to have a PVG for work) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...