The Cabinet Office describes what happens next.
Normally only the first 2-3 Bills on any Private Members' Bill day have a realistic chance of being debated. However, any Bill on the order paper can proceed “on the nod” without a debate at the end of business, provided no Member objects.Sadly for Cunningham, his bill has been scheduled 63rd on the order paper for the day. Hardly worth him even turning up just to hear 'object' again, is it?
I'm sure this particular invasion of privacy and abuse of property rights will rear its grotesque head again at some point in the future - no doubt with Cunningham's equally grotesque gob spouting in favour of it - but, for now at least, it would appear to be as dead as a mammoth's scrotum.
Such news merits a snifter or two of the good stuff tonight, methinks.
4 comments:
Good news, indeed! But I rather suspect the motivation behind his bill. Devious buggers, the TC wallahs.
Sir,
I regret being off=topic; but, I have a question for you.
ASH-UK says: " Within 10-15 years of quitting smoking, an ex-smoker's risk of developing lung cancer is only slightly greater than that of a never-smoker."
Since a never-smoker's lung cancer can not be blamed on their having smoked, an ex-smoker with about the same risk should have the same lack of causality.
Do you have any data showing the percentage of current ex's that quit over 15 years ago?
Gary K.
I smoke just to spite the buggers ... I do!
I'm almost absolutely positively sure....
That the Human Rights Act will triumph over all and any attempts to ban smoking on (or in) private property.
But should they try it; I and thousands of others will likely take it to the courts. So Mr Government, unless you have deep pockets, lots of time and a comfortable margin in the polls, do you really want to risk it? Do yeh?
Post a Comment