Policing the Police Act of 2014 (Redraft passed)

[windjammer]

Well, firstly, TNF has motioned for a final vote.

So, senators a vote to cloture the debates is now open. Please, vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

[windjammer]

Nay, I believe the debate about this bill is far from being over.

[Blair]

Nay

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[Adam Griffin]

Perhaps these are all wishy-washy suggestions that deviate so much from the original bill because the entire spirit of the original bill was an unfortunate insult to public heroes.

Don't act like you care. Way to be a Serious Senator ("BUT MUH FEELINGS"): this is exactly why I'm against any Laborites acquiescing to watering down legislation to appease the "center" (lol).

Hagrid's demonstrated the primary attitude of what several Senators in this chamber have but don't have the balls to say: they never had any intention for voting for this legislation in any form because of a combination of intangible rhetoric that supposedly "offended" them, and their tendency to want to please everyone while doing nothing, so to hell with what they think - no more concessions.

Kill the bill, let it fail or let it pass, but make them vote on it and don't give them any more opportunities to screw it up so that they can grandstand in PMs and in their campaign booths. You're 60% of the Senate, Laborites, and you were given that mandate by the voters: start fycking acting like it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Poor Griffin.

My intentions haven't exactly been secret. You want it clear? I'll make it clear: I believe in our law enforcement officials. I would like the final version of the bill to be as friendly to them as possible. If we're going to open the can of worms where we're regulating the beliefs cops hold in their personal lives or exposing them to dangerous situations by limiting the selection of tools at their disposal (see Section 4, Clause 1C), I'm not okay with it. That's what this amendment does. I prefer Polnut's. Since I see where things are going, I'd rather stop with what we've got. Whether Senator Polnut's version of the bill fails or passes, I can rest easy knowing that these people will have our respect and support, not our evil eye. I don't know whether I'd support Polnut's version if it reaches a final vote; I do know I'd have a ton of trouble supporting Senator Blair's.

There you go. Read it and weep. And then grow up.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

NAY

On the amendment - again, I come back to the fundamental constituionality of what this re-write is asking.

I am firmly of the view that we don't have the the jurisdictional authority to dictate how individual police services are to function, respectfully to Senator Blair, you can't just say "the Federal Government will have the authority" and suddenly the issue is nullified. I can't support this amendment as it stands.

And on the comments above - no, I was never going to support an unconstitutional Bill as Mr Griffin is ordering his Senators, including a number who have already expressed concern about this, to do.

[Adam Griffin]

Poor Griffin.

My intentions haven't exactly been secret. You want it clear? I'll make it clear: I believe in our law enforcement officials. I would like the final version of the bill to be as friendly to them as possible. If we're going to open the can of worms where we're regulating the beliefs cops hold in their personal lives or exposing them to dangerous situations by limiting the selection of tools at their disposal (see Section 4, Clause 1C), I'm not okay with it. That's what this amendment does. I prefer Polnut's. Since I see where things are going, I'd rather stop with what we've got. Whether Senator Polnut's version of the bill fails or passes, I can rest easy knowing that these people will have our respect and support, not our evil eye. I don't know whether I'd support Polnut's version if it reaches a final vote; I do know I'd have a ton of trouble supporting Senator Blair's.

There you go. Read it and weep. And then grow up.

No need to write out some supposedly moral tripe when you've already said all that needs to be said: you're an obstructionist, pure and simple.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I do what I think is best for the country, yes.

[DemPGH]

Cloture: No.

[Lief 🗽]

NAY

[TNF]

Aye

[Cranberry]

No


I said clearly out from the beginning that I would under no circumstances support the bill unless severely amended, and I believe every other non Labor-Senator did as well.

[Senator Cris]

Abstain

[windjammer]

The debates continue.

Senators have 36 hours to object on Blair's amendment

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Unfortunately, I do have to object - there remains elements that are clearly beyond our remit.

Should this amendment pass, I will be proposing further amendments.

[Adam Griffin]

No


I said clearly out from the beginning that I would under no circumstances support the bill unless severely amended, and I believe every other non Labor-Senator did as well.

It has been severely amended...


Laborites, you know what you have to do...6-6-6.

[Talleyrand]

Nay

[Cranberry]

No


I said clearly out from the beginning that I would under no circumstances support the bill unless severely amended, and I believe every other non Labor-Senator did as well.

It has been severely amended...

Yes, and I support it as stands.

The thing this was directed to is your complaint over an apparent "emasculation" of this bill, in lack of better words.

[windjammer]

A vote is now open. Please, vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

[Cranberry]

On what?

[windjammer]

Here it is, I don't want this to be the final draft at all because it's my first attempt at writing major federal legislation, and there's likely to be holes in it. Other than that I feel it offers necessary protections for police officers whilst allowing civilian oversight. Any questions bout it, give me a shout

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This.
Sorry, I was on my phone.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

[Lief 🗽]

AYE

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

NAY