Comments: General Synod - Safeguarding debate

"Following a division of the Synod, the motion, as amended, was overwhelmingly carried (360 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions)."

In a subject that is very serious and important, and one where a number of apologies have been offered, and appropriately so, let me add mine for raising a rather trivial procedural issue.

I would not call 360 for, 0 against, and 0 abstentions "overwhelmingly", but "unanimously" carried. Putting that another way, if no one was against the motion, who on earth called for the division?

Perhaps there is a quirk in GS's standing orders that is not immediately obvious to the outsider.

Posted by Edward Prebble at Sunday, 7 July 2013 at 11:57pm BST

The Division was requested precisely because of the importance of putting into the public record the details of the voting. This was also done later yesterday in the welfare debate, which was not entirely unanimous.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Monday, 8 July 2013 at 8:16am BST

Thank you, Simon
That does make sense.

Posted by Edward Prebble at Monday, 8 July 2013 at 10:18pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.