Talk:Bill restricting Post Office closures defeated in UK Parliament; MP tells Wikinews why she supported the bill
Add topicI emailed Mrs.Abbott to ask her for a quote. I also contacted Alan Duncan, although his respose directed me to his website. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 20:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Quote I recieved
[edit]"Post offices are central spaces within a community. They provide invaluable services and a point of contact for vulnerable people. They are particularly important places in areas like Hackney where there are fewer bank branches and a large elderly population who rely on the post office to collect their pensions. I was appalled to learn that three post offices in my constituency - on Stoke Newington Rd, Blackstock Rd and Lower Clapton Rd - have been blacklisted for closure. Many of my constituents are entirely against these plans and this is why I chose to
vote to save the post office."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous101 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Confusing
[edit]The headline and the article both suggest that this vote will prevent post office closures, but the title says that a bill was passed and the article says a bill was defeated. Which was it? --SVTCobra 20:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- The article was accurate. Sorry, that was entirely my mistake. I should have checked the headline with more care. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 21:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- If that is the case should the word "restricting" be there in the title? Isn't it a bill that would have "allowed" or "facilitated" closures? --SVTCobra 22:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, the bill was to stop the closures. Current law permits the closures. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 22:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I think I got it now. So, Abbott was on the losing side ... thanks for clarifying. --SVTCobra 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- It still seems a little confusing. The Bill was to restrict or prevent the closures (from the headline) of Post Office branches. Dianna Abbott supported this bill. She wished to prevent the closure of PO branches. However, the last line of the first para says that Dianne Abbott told Wikinews why she voted against the Bill. So, by voting against the bill to prevent the closure of PO branches, she really isn't doing the logical thing. Surely, if she wished to prevent closure of PO branches, she should have voted FOR the bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.213.85 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good Point --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 15:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- It still seems a little confusing. The Bill was to restrict or prevent the closures (from the headline) of Post Office branches. Dianna Abbott supported this bill. She wished to prevent the closure of PO branches. However, the last line of the first para says that Dianne Abbott told Wikinews why she voted against the Bill. So, by voting against the bill to prevent the closure of PO branches, she really isn't doing the logical thing. Surely, if she wished to prevent closure of PO branches, she should have voted FOR the bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.213.85 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I think I got it now. So, Abbott was on the losing side ... thanks for clarifying. --SVTCobra 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, the bill was to stop the closures. Current law permits the closures. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 22:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- If that is the case should the word "restricting" be there in the title? Isn't it a bill that would have "allowed" or "facilitated" closures? --SVTCobra 22:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)