Quizzes & Puzzles63 mins ago
MP's privilages
6 Answers
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/40371/Shou ld-we-pay-for-Cheeky-Girl-s-travel-expenses-
Is there no end to MP's privilages, might this include the partners of gay MPs also?
Is there no end to MP's privilages, might this include the partners of gay MPs also?
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Good god! Not 'The Gays'?
Aaarrrrgggggh! Run, everyone; 'The Gays' are coming and they want equal rights... aaahh, they're all spangly and fey... arrrrggghhh, their music is so happy... they're even on Doctor Who spin offs and now you can no longer call someone a 'dirty stinking unnatural p00fter' without there being an outcry - will no one save us from these people?
Someone call Mail Man and his sidekick (non-gay) Express Boy, quick! We need an idealised notion of an England that never existed to hide behind...
Aaarrrrgggggh! Run, everyone; 'The Gays' are coming and they want equal rights... aaahh, they're all spangly and fey... arrrrggghhh, their music is so happy... they're even on Doctor Who spin offs and now you can no longer call someone a 'dirty stinking unnatural p00fter' without there being an outcry - will no one save us from these people?
Someone call Mail Man and his sidekick (non-gay) Express Boy, quick! We need an idealised notion of an England that never existed to hide behind...
I think AOG's point is that travel expenses are being extended too far, and is using gay MPs' partners as a potential example of this (which to me seems a bit more justifiable than the case he links to).
Regarding the reform in question, I think the idea behind it might be to include partners of gay MPs (which in fact seems entirely justifiable as we're not allowed to call it a marriage...), and to extend the travel allowance to MPs who are not married.
I can kind of see the logic behind that if the spouses of MPs are covered, but what I don't understand is why they can't just say that.
Regarding the reform in question, I think the idea behind it might be to include partners of gay MPs (which in fact seems entirely justifiable as we're not allowed to call it a marriage...), and to extend the travel allowance to MPs who are not married.
I can kind of see the logic behind that if the spouses of MPs are covered, but what I don't understand is why they can't just say that.
The story clearly states that there is a possibility that the scheme may be extended to cover the partners of unmarried MPs.
Whether one should agree or disagree with that proposal is one thing.
To then ask "might this include the partners of gay MPs also?" clearly indicates the original poster sees the partners of gay MPs as distinct from the partners of straight MPs and almost certainly perjoratively (history of Daily Mail and Express reading are presented as evidence along with thick calluses and scarification on the knees, caused by repeated smashing on the underside of a table).
Whether one should agree or disagree with that proposal is one thing.
To then ask "might this include the partners of gay MPs also?" clearly indicates the original poster sees the partners of gay MPs as distinct from the partners of straight MPs and almost certainly perjoratively (history of Daily Mail and Express reading are presented as evidence along with thick calluses and scarification on the knees, caused by repeated smashing on the underside of a table).
1 to 6 of 6
