And, to be fair it seems, Bob Spink and Chris Paul, is this:
Labour will not always be in government. It is true that many on the Labour benches have not known opposition, and also will never know it on those benches because when Labour eventually do lose power, many Labour MP's will have had to have lost there seats. What they need to realise is that many Labour MP's will be left and will need to hold the government to account.
They will find that very difficult to do, if as now, the police and civil service are politicised to the point where they will not only hunt down leakers (fair enough) but seek to intimidate and prosecute not only the leaker but the MP.
They will no doubt witter on about police operational independence, in which case they ought to read this, or indeed that MP's are not above the law, in which case they ought to read history.
Showing posts with label Constitution Under Threat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution Under Threat. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Greengate, Jill Pays, Speaker Martin and the Police
The Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin made a statement in the house of commons today which as Iain Dale notes tends to lead to more questions than it gives answers.
Lets look at the arguments.
No body is above the law!
Rubbish. How is the archery practice going, and how many hackney carriages carry a bale of hay? Further more the police and other emergency services get away with speeding when on an emergency.
Clearly there are circumstances where the law is not applied because it is ridiculous or overlooked in the public interest.
Firstly many parliamentarians, and indeed many journalists and commentators have cited parliamentary privilege, and its breach in this case. This is not some antiquated old rule that allows members of parliament to do what ever they want, it is a protection that parliament has so that it can do its job of protecting people and their liberties from an over mighty state. The following resolution is passed before each session of parliament:
The crime it is alleged has been committed is that of misconduct in public office, or aiding abetting conspiring to cause misconduct in public office, defined in CPS guidance as:
In order for the crime to be committed it has to in effect injure the public interest as well as falling well below the standards of the office holder. Rather obviously the leaks which are complained about are in the public interest and in fact have caused to government to fix things which it knew were broken but sought to hide.
Even if you could accuse Chris Galley of the offence (which you can't because you can't show he injured the public interest) then we have the question of parliamentary privilege. This protects an MP from interference in his job as an MP amongst other things, and in this case the job of holding the government to account. Clearly if the government is trying to hide its failings then the only way to get hold of information is via leaks. It is the legitimate business of parliament and there have been leaks for as long as there has been government.
It gets worse for the government because the cases involving leaks to the press have all either been lost by the Crown on appeal or thrown out before the jury trial started.
Some say "Ah but that does not put him above the law!" well, I say cobblers. It does not put him above the law as in he can ignore it, but laws apply differently to different classes of people. The order which states parliamentary privilege gets passed every year by parliament and so one would have thought it superseded the common law offence which we are talking about.
Then some even cite the case of Lord Cochrane who they say was arrested whilst sitting on the government benches supposedly to prove that parliamentary privilege does not make you immune from the law. The argument is sophistry at its very best. Lord Cochrane was arrested after having escaped from prison having been found guilty of fraud. It can't be said that the criminal act of which he was accused was part of the legitimate business of a parliamentarian so obviously the question of parliamentary privilege did not arise for it to be put aside.
Lets look at the arguments.
No body is above the law!
Rubbish. How is the archery practice going, and how many hackney carriages carry a bale of hay? Further more the police and other emergency services get away with speeding when on an emergency.
Clearly there are circumstances where the law is not applied because it is ridiculous or overlooked in the public interest.
Firstly many parliamentarians, and indeed many journalists and commentators have cited parliamentary privilege, and its breach in this case. This is not some antiquated old rule that allows members of parliament to do what ever they want, it is a protection that parliament has so that it can do its job of protecting people and their liberties from an over mighty state. The following resolution is passed before each session of parliament:
Any action taken by either a Member of Parliament or a stranger which obstructs or impedes either Parliament in the performance of its functions, or its Members or staff in the performance of their duties, is a contempt of Parliament. Examples of contempt include giving false evidence to a parliamentary committee, threatening a Member of Parliament, forgery of documents and attempting to bribe members.This law clearly protects parliament and its members, not in all circumstances but where they are carrying out their duty. The main duties of an MP are to represent their constituents and to hold the government to account. The later is what concerns us here, and that is what Damian Green was doing. Alas it is frequently the case that a department that is not fit for purpose, such as the Home Office does not try to fix it self but hide its failings instead. This is where leaks come in.
The crime it is alleged has been committed is that of misconduct in public office, or aiding abetting conspiring to cause misconduct in public office, defined in CPS guidance as:
a) A public officer acting as such.Now where do we start? If you read this article on the subject here on wikicrimeline and this case here where the Attorney general sought the advice of the court, it is clear that no crime has been committed, further more that the police would have established such by merely asking what had been leaked and where it had turned up.
b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.
c) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.
d) Without reasonable excuse or justification.
In order for the crime to be committed it has to in effect injure the public interest as well as falling well below the standards of the office holder. Rather obviously the leaks which are complained about are in the public interest and in fact have caused to government to fix things which it knew were broken but sought to hide.
Even if you could accuse Chris Galley of the offence (which you can't because you can't show he injured the public interest) then we have the question of parliamentary privilege. This protects an MP from interference in his job as an MP amongst other things, and in this case the job of holding the government to account. Clearly if the government is trying to hide its failings then the only way to get hold of information is via leaks. It is the legitimate business of parliament and there have been leaks for as long as there has been government.
It gets worse for the government because the cases involving leaks to the press have all either been lost by the Crown on appeal or thrown out before the jury trial started.
Some say "Ah but that does not put him above the law!" well, I say cobblers. It does not put him above the law as in he can ignore it, but laws apply differently to different classes of people. The order which states parliamentary privilege gets passed every year by parliament and so one would have thought it superseded the common law offence which we are talking about.
Then some even cite the case of Lord Cochrane who they say was arrested whilst sitting on the government benches supposedly to prove that parliamentary privilege does not make you immune from the law. The argument is sophistry at its very best. Lord Cochrane was arrested after having escaped from prison having been found guilty of fraud. It can't be said that the criminal act of which he was accused was part of the legitimate business of a parliamentarian so obviously the question of parliamentary privilege did not arise for it to be put aside.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
The one interesting reform
The one interesting reform that Gordon Brown has proposed is that the executive be stripped of the power to recall Parliament and it be given away.
In earlier times, or rather pre Blair times this was a non issue because Parliament was recalled when there was a clamour for it. During the war in the Lebanon this was not the case, nor (if I remember correctly) during the foot and mouth crisis.
It therefore seems a good idea to change the power just in case we elect another president by mistake, after all we are a Monarchy.
In earlier times, or rather pre Blair times this was a non issue because Parliament was recalled when there was a clamour for it. During the war in the Lebanon this was not the case, nor (if I remember correctly) during the foot and mouth crisis.
It therefore seems a good idea to change the power just in case we elect another president by mistake, after all we are a Monarchy.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Abolishing the Royal Prerogative?
One of the interesting things about Gordon Brown's changes seems to be abolishing the Royal Prerogative in the case of war and dissolving parliament. Instead of the Prime Minister exercising those powers on behalf of the Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, Parliament will have the power.
On Channel 4's News Jack Straw said that there was no place for a power dating from antiquity in a modern British democracy.
Lets deal with that first. We are an old country. Our institutions are old. What is more they have evolved over a period of time in a way that reflects our history and traditions. As long as they work why change them?
Now on to the substance rather than just hating our history (which it appears Labour does).
This country has not got to war without parliament being happy with it. Even in the time of Edward III he consulted Parliament. Parliament is consulted and was in the Iraq war, in fact it had a vote. So what is broken? Ultimately the fact that in the case of the Iraq war Parliament was sold a pup. This proposal does nothing to stop that happening again and again. The problem is not the use of the Royal Prerogative but the lies that went with it (even if Blair did not actually lie to Parliament he seems to me to have lied to himself.)
What of the dissolution of Parliament? Allow Parliament to vote on it instead? Except in the case of a hung Parliament it makes no practical difference. A whipped vote will still guarantee an election when the party of power calls one.
So there is no point to either reform other than to destroy our heritage.
On Channel 4's News Jack Straw said that there was no place for a power dating from antiquity in a modern British democracy.
Lets deal with that first. We are an old country. Our institutions are old. What is more they have evolved over a period of time in a way that reflects our history and traditions. As long as they work why change them?
Now on to the substance rather than just hating our history (which it appears Labour does).
This country has not got to war without parliament being happy with it. Even in the time of Edward III he consulted Parliament. Parliament is consulted and was in the Iraq war, in fact it had a vote. So what is broken? Ultimately the fact that in the case of the Iraq war Parliament was sold a pup. This proposal does nothing to stop that happening again and again. The problem is not the use of the Royal Prerogative but the lies that went with it (even if Blair did not actually lie to Parliament he seems to me to have lied to himself.)
What of the dissolution of Parliament? Allow Parliament to vote on it instead? Except in the case of a hung Parliament it makes no practical difference. A whipped vote will still guarantee an election when the party of power calls one.
So there is no point to either reform other than to destroy our heritage.
Nations and Regions: Divide and Rule
It appears that one of the themes of Gordon Brown's statement in the House of Commons today was "Nations and Regions" or apparently select committees for each region of England in the House of Commons.
Does this man seriously think this will address the West Lothian Question? In referendums regional assemblies have been rejected so why should we accept that?
Does this man seriously think this will address the West Lothian Question? In referendums regional assemblies have been rejected so why should we accept that?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Lords Reform to be Shelved (Hopefully)!
I hear from the BBC that Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons has shelved plans for having a preferential voting system when the Commons, and indeed Lords decide to vote on which of the dogs breakfast of options that are on offer.
It seems a victory for David Clelland Mp, who I mentioned in this article as being against the preferential voting system.
However I take the view that there won't be enough people agreeing on one system being better than what we currently have, because there is not a single better system. I do accept that you would not have ended up with what we have by design though. It does work.
Now all we need is to have Frank Fields option as well, so the status quo is an option. I think that would be popular.
You can read the BBC article here.
It seems a victory for David Clelland Mp, who I mentioned in this article as being against the preferential voting system.
However I take the view that there won't be enough people agreeing on one system being better than what we currently have, because there is not a single better system. I do accept that you would not have ended up with what we have by design though. It does work.
Now all we need is to have Frank Fields option as well, so the status quo is an option. I think that would be popular.
You can read the BBC article here.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Support this Early Day Motion!
Write to your MP and get them to support this Early Day Motion, proposed by Frank Field MP for Birkenhead.
The motion's text is:
You can contact your MP via They work for you, here.
Hat tip to Dizzy Thinks, here.
The motion's text is:
That this House believes that whatever proposals come forward on House of Lords reform, any indicative vote should include on the ballot paper the option to support the status quo.I have written on the subject of Lords reform here. I think this is a great idea. After all, if it isn't broke, don't fix it!
You can contact your MP via They work for you, here.
Hat tip to Dizzy Thinks, here.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
House of Lords reform
Jack Straw MP, Leader of the House of Commons has come up with some proposals for reform of the House of Lords. He says that if we miss this opportunity to reform the House of Lords then we will miss it for a generation. Good. Lets miss it then.
In this White Paper and speech he has proposed a number of options.
The problem is of course we have been down this road before. No one option is liked by a majority in the House of Commons (or the Lords for that matter) so each alternative gets voted down by a majority and nothing changes.
He has proposed to change the voting system in the Commons for it as well, so that instead of vote for or against each separate proposal MP's have to rank each in order or preference. The least unpopular presumably winning.
Well, as David Clelland Mp for Tyne Bridge, (Labour) does not like the idea of fiddling the voting system to get something. He will be voting against the procedural change and I hope a lot of other MP's do as well. There is a sound reason why there is no agreement thus far. Most MP's think the current system is better than any proposals so far put to them. I agree.
Meanwhile some Labour MP's wishing to do grave damage to our constitution suggest abolishing our house of Lord's and moving to a unicameral system. That is one with only one house. There are clear reasons why that is a bad idea. It would lead to the dictatorship of the mob, or perhaps party machine. The House of commons needs checks and balances. If you want to see what sort of company we would be in if we had a unicameral system, Dizzy has this helpful map. I for one do not want to join that club.
My take on the whole thing is this. If you wanted to create a second chamber today you most certainly would not come up with the House of Lords. However you have to look at what it is for, and what it does. Fundamentally it is there to prevent government doing stupid things, at least with out a fight. It does not stand in the way of manifesto pledges but will seek to amend and alter bills particularly where daft or over authoritarian or both (like the various bits of anti terror legislation).
In an ideal world the commons would hold the executive to account, but frequently it does not because the executive commands a majority in the House of Commons. The Lords does it frequently and well.
Many say we must have elected members of the house of Lords, or that having a combination of hereditary peers and appointed ones is bad. So what? Does it work? Yes. The only thing that you could do is make the Lords more powerful. I am not sure that is a good idea, or less, which I am sure would be a very bad one. Others complain of the name. They think we are a laughing stock in the 21st Century for having a House of Lords. Well what about the monarchy? Are we to lose that too? What of all our old buildings, not very "modern" either.
We were a laughing stock in Europe when we had a parliament in the first place, why should we care what anyone else thinks? We are a separate country with our own traditions and institutions. Other countries have evolved their own. Why do we need to be sheep that follow? Why can't we keep on doing our own thing?
The BBC has this here.
nourishing obscurity has this here.
In this White Paper and speech he has proposed a number of options.
- All 92 hereditaries to sit in the new chamber until they die off
- Current 605 life peers could choose to stay or leave with a generous redundancy package
- A smaller chamber of 540 Peers * 50% to be elected, 30% nominated by Party leaders and 20% by an independent commission
- Peers to be elected in batches of 90 over three elections every 5 years. Term limit of 15 years
The problem is of course we have been down this road before. No one option is liked by a majority in the House of Commons (or the Lords for that matter) so each alternative gets voted down by a majority and nothing changes.
He has proposed to change the voting system in the Commons for it as well, so that instead of vote for or against each separate proposal MP's have to rank each in order or preference. The least unpopular presumably winning.
Well, as David Clelland Mp for Tyne Bridge, (Labour) does not like the idea of fiddling the voting system to get something. He will be voting against the procedural change and I hope a lot of other MP's do as well. There is a sound reason why there is no agreement thus far. Most MP's think the current system is better than any proposals so far put to them. I agree.
Meanwhile some Labour MP's wishing to do grave damage to our constitution suggest abolishing our house of Lord's and moving to a unicameral system. That is one with only one house. There are clear reasons why that is a bad idea. It would lead to the dictatorship of the mob, or perhaps party machine. The House of commons needs checks and balances. If you want to see what sort of company we would be in if we had a unicameral system, Dizzy has this helpful map. I for one do not want to join that club.
My take on the whole thing is this. If you wanted to create a second chamber today you most certainly would not come up with the House of Lords. However you have to look at what it is for, and what it does. Fundamentally it is there to prevent government doing stupid things, at least with out a fight. It does not stand in the way of manifesto pledges but will seek to amend and alter bills particularly where daft or over authoritarian or both (like the various bits of anti terror legislation).
In an ideal world the commons would hold the executive to account, but frequently it does not because the executive commands a majority in the House of Commons. The Lords does it frequently and well.
Many say we must have elected members of the house of Lords, or that having a combination of hereditary peers and appointed ones is bad. So what? Does it work? Yes. The only thing that you could do is make the Lords more powerful. I am not sure that is a good idea, or less, which I am sure would be a very bad one. Others complain of the name. They think we are a laughing stock in the 21st Century for having a House of Lords. Well what about the monarchy? Are we to lose that too? What of all our old buildings, not very "modern" either.
We were a laughing stock in Europe when we had a parliament in the first place, why should we care what anyone else thinks? We are a separate country with our own traditions and institutions. Other countries have evolved their own. Why do we need to be sheep that follow? Why can't we keep on doing our own thing?
The BBC has this here.
nourishing obscurity has this here.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Another nail in the coffin of the Magna Carta
All the while the home Office has been burying it's own bad news in other bits of it's own bad news, and the gay adoption row has dominated the headlines you may have missed the fact that The Fraud (Trials Without A Jury) Bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons yesterday. The BBC has this.
The government does not believe that juries can handle long complex fraud trials. The fact is that this is rubbish. American juries handled Enron. (See the BBC here) The real problem is that our lawyers don't appear to be able to organise it properly.
It seems a bit like the Home Office saga. Labour can't run the Home Office so wants to split it up rather than fixing it, except of course that trial by jury was enshrined the the Magna Carta (Great Charter) back in 1215. So there we go. Another vital part of our constitution down the pan because this government can't fix simple problems and learn from others.
The government does not believe that juries can handle long complex fraud trials. The fact is that this is rubbish. American juries handled Enron. (See the BBC here) The real problem is that our lawyers don't appear to be able to organise it properly.
It seems a bit like the Home Office saga. Labour can't run the Home Office so wants to split it up rather than fixing it, except of course that trial by jury was enshrined the the Magna Carta (Great Charter) back in 1215. So there we go. Another vital part of our constitution down the pan because this government can't fix simple problems and learn from others.
Monday, January 15, 2007
We've had ASBO's, now Tony wants Super ASBO's!
According to this article in yesterday's Sunday Times, and reports I have seen on BBC News 24 the government want to introduce something called a violent offender order, or VOO.
This is aimed at violent offenders, apparently including those who have commit ed no offence. You do have to ask just how do you know someone is going to be violent if they have commit ed no offence, but there you go.
From the Sunday Times article we have this:
Surely Hazel Blears is a potential trouble maker, as can be seen from this, Tom Watson certainly has been a trouble maker as he signed a letter saying Tony Blair should go, and now. Hazel Blears is a serial protester against her own governments health policy, whilst Tom Watson was key in the attempted coup against Tony Blair last year.
ASBO's have also been used and abused against protesters as can be seen from the statewatch website section on ASBO's for protesters. It is already a disgusting travesty of justice.
However the report goes on:
Further on the article says:
The article goes on:
Well, actually ASBO frequently ban people from committing specific criminal acts for which the normal route could well have been taken had the Police and CPS been bothered in the first place, as well as legitimate protest such as this one.
I have to say this is the most bizarre thing I have heard in a long time. “cognitive deficiencies”? What? are we supposed to lock up thick people? Or just the people who can't quite see the inherent truth in the party line? Surely people with mental health issues should be cared for rather than criminalised?
The article goes on. I suggest you read it.
Needless to say Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty is against it, as I suspect would be most right thinking totalitarian dictators. This is after all a bonkers idea that further strips away what it is to be British.
This is aimed at violent offenders, apparently including those who have commit ed no offence. You do have to ask just how do you know someone is going to be violent if they have commit ed no offence, but there you go.
From the Sunday Times article we have this:
According to a Home Office document outlining the plan, to be published next month, the measures will ban potential trouble-makers from certain areas or mixing with certain people, alert police when they move house and possibly force them to live in a named hostel, give details of vehicles they own and impose a curfew on them.Hmm.. Well, technically you have to give details of vehicles you own anyway, though failure to do so is unlikely to land you in jail, but the thing that worries me most is the term "potential trouble-makers".
Surely Hazel Blears is a potential trouble maker, as can be seen from this, Tom Watson certainly has been a trouble maker as he signed a letter saying Tony Blair should go, and now. Hazel Blears is a serial protester against her own governments health policy, whilst Tom Watson was key in the attempted coup against Tony Blair last year.
ASBO's have also been used and abused against protesters as can be seen from the statewatch website section on ASBO's for protesters. It is already a disgusting travesty of justice.
However the report goes on:
A report out today, by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies in association with The Sunday Times, reveals that almost half of the offenders caught by police are getting away without a court punishment, robberies have risen and murders are up by a third. Street muggings remain stubbornly high.Well, that is a problem, but surely you have to ask why? Half of the offenders? Is this guilt before any process, or is there some other problem like the police feeling a greater need to fill in paperwork or meeting other targets so they have not investigated these crimes correctly? Are the CPS working effectively with the police to bring cases to court?
Further on the article says:
The Voos are designed to be a “preventative measure”, according to the Home Office paper. “It would mean that, where an individual was known to be dangerous but had not committed a specific qualifying offence, restrictions could still be placed on their behaviour,” it says.Known by whom? And rather more pertinently how? How can you tell someone is dangerous if they have not committed some offence? Also, breach of a VOO like an ASBO will be a criminal offence, and also like an ASBO all sorts of hearsay evidence will be taken into account, so look at some one in what they think is a dangerous way, and you could end up with a VOO.
The article goes on:
Unlike Asbos, which solely cover antisocial behaviour, Voos would be targeted at thugs who would be placed on the violent and sex offender register, a national database for intelligence on people deemed to be a serious risk to the public.
Well, actually ASBO frequently ban people from committing specific criminal acts for which the normal route could well have been taken had the Police and CPS been bothered in the first place, as well as legitimate protest such as this one.
Ministers are concerned that the Asbo regime has failed to give police and the authorities enough powers to tackle potentially violent offenders.Again the word "potentially" scares me. The police have plenty of powers to lock up people who threaten violence, (affray) or cause alarm , harassment or distress (See the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) so why do ministers feel the need for more laws?
I see. Why not just lock up all the Jews, or do a DNA test for homosexuality, perhaps even find people with DNA that says they could be a criminal? Perhaps we could get teachers to inform on misfits, whilst children in the "youth movement" will of course alert the authorities to deviant activity by both parents an teachers?The paper identifies a series of “risk factors” that could lead to a person being targeted for the new order. These include a person’s formative years and upbringing, “cognitive deficiencies”, “entrenched pro-criminal or antisocial attitudes,” “a history of substance abuse or mental health issues”.
I have to say this is the most bizarre thing I have heard in a long time. “cognitive deficiencies”? What? are we supposed to lock up thick people? Or just the people who can't quite see the inherent truth in the party line? Surely people with mental health issues should be cared for rather than criminalised?
The article goes on. I suggest you read it.
Needless to say Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty is against it, as I suspect would be most right thinking totalitarian dictators. This is after all a bonkers idea that further strips away what it is to be British.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
The Union under threat
Well according to this article in the Telegraph its all over for the United Kingdom.
More than half of all respondents either side of the Scottish English border want rid of the Union.
As a Conservative and Unionist this breaks my heart. We have to ask how we got here and more importantly how we move forward.
It seems clear to me why we have lost the plot. The Conservative party was a massive force in Scotland before Margaret Thatcher, but after the poll tax was tried on them first that is no longer the case.
Labour have also been politically opportunistic in favouring devolution.
We are now in the most ridiculous of situations. Firstly the Scots feel rightly betrayed that in the Thatcher years policies were tried there first regardless of how Scotland's MP's voted, and now under Blair the English feel the same way, with Scottish MP's passing laws on England that their constituents will never have to endure.
Meanwhile the SNP stir it up, with their LA cheer leader and by far the worst James Bond in my view their ever Scottish and no way any kind of actor Sean Connery blathers on. (If you want to see a real Scottish Actor see David Tenant. if you are a Dr Who fan you would never ever know he was Scottish until you heard him being interviewed. That man can act, Sean can't)
I have to say I don't know what to do, but I just would not start from here.
More than half of all respondents either side of the Scottish English border want rid of the Union.
As a Conservative and Unionist this breaks my heart. We have to ask how we got here and more importantly how we move forward.
It seems clear to me why we have lost the plot. The Conservative party was a massive force in Scotland before Margaret Thatcher, but after the poll tax was tried on them first that is no longer the case.
Labour have also been politically opportunistic in favouring devolution.
We are now in the most ridiculous of situations. Firstly the Scots feel rightly betrayed that in the Thatcher years policies were tried there first regardless of how Scotland's MP's voted, and now under Blair the English feel the same way, with Scottish MP's passing laws on England that their constituents will never have to endure.
Meanwhile the SNP stir it up, with their LA cheer leader and by far the worst James Bond in my view their ever Scottish and no way any kind of actor Sean Connery blathers on. (If you want to see a real Scottish Actor see David Tenant. if you are a Dr Who fan you would never ever know he was Scottish until you heard him being interviewed. That man can act, Sean can't)
I have to say I don't know what to do, but I just would not start from here.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Reid wins battle with Brown over Queens speech
According to Martha Kearney on BBC2's Newsnight, Dr John "Comrade" Reid has got the Queens speech focusing on security.
The Queens speech deals with the Governments legislation program for the coming year.
What new laws do we need? Killing people has been against the law since Babylonian times. Conspiracy to Murder since the 1861 Offences against the people act (Also murder is in there too).
Security is a matter of executive action not parliamentary action. There are plenty of laws out there to deal with the threats we face. The only issue there may be is changing the rules of evidence in court so that we can use our own wire tap evidence rather than having to use Belgian stuff.
You therefor have to assume that what is going to be in the Queen's speech is a mindless pointless attack on civil liberties which will further alienate disaffected Muslims, whilst executive inaction keeps us unsafe in our beds at night.
Fantastic! You could not make it up.
In further news, ID cards to save the world before breakfast. Sounds fantastic I know, but it is substantially more plausible than the claims the Government makes for them.
The Queens speech deals with the Governments legislation program for the coming year.
What new laws do we need? Killing people has been against the law since Babylonian times. Conspiracy to Murder since the 1861 Offences against the people act (Also murder is in there too).
Security is a matter of executive action not parliamentary action. There are plenty of laws out there to deal with the threats we face. The only issue there may be is changing the rules of evidence in court so that we can use our own wire tap evidence rather than having to use Belgian stuff.
You therefor have to assume that what is going to be in the Queen's speech is a mindless pointless attack on civil liberties which will further alienate disaffected Muslims, whilst executive inaction keeps us unsafe in our beds at night.
Fantastic! You could not make it up.
In further news, ID cards to save the world before breakfast. Sounds fantastic I know, but it is substantially more plausible than the claims the Government makes for them.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
You will notice that I now carry a link to www.saveparliament.org.uk on the left hand side of the page, as well as a link to the no2id campaign.
What is all this rubbish about saving parliament? Well it is a campaign to stop The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill from becomming The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act.
To give you an idea of how many laws have been passed, between 1945 and 1997 we had 3 Criminal justice acts passed. since we have had about 40, or a bit over 4 a year, creating about 3000 new criminal offences, or 333 new offences a year or about 2 offences for everyday Parliament has sat.
So if they realy did want to reduce the burden of legislation, stop passing so many laws and try reforming a few.
Yes, there is a similar bill listed on wikipedia here called the enabling act.
You might be a Labour party supporter and might think I am being swivell eyed about this, because a Labour government would never do any thing bad. In short you may trust this Government. Will you trust the next one though?
What is all this rubbish about saving parliament? Well it is a campaign to stop The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill from becomming The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act.
What the bill is for
Well according to some estimates extra regulation since 1997 is costing business some £40 billion a year according to some sources. If a regulation turns out to be a wrong un, surely we want rid of it?
What the bill allows is for any act to be amended, replealed or replaced by a minister and in some cases by an official, except where it affects tax rates. It does allow for the creation of new criminal offences, but these are limited to ones with a sentence of less than 2 years (In a Crown court, less if the offence is to be tried in a magistrates court).
The original draft allowed for the act to be used to redraft it self, though that has now been restricted.
However, to give you an idea, a minister could make carrying ID cards compulsory by the back door, as a criminal offence with a sentence of 2 years.
As far as I can tell, it would also allow for the extension of a Parliament beyond 5 years. Truely scary stuff, particularly if you watched Spooks the other night.
There are in fact so many ways that ministers can change the law in dangerous ways with this bill, if it becomes law that I urge you to visit the saveparliament website and write to your MP. The blogosphere can if it wants to defeat this bill if we all act.
Well, because of the relentless pace of legislation in the last 9 years creating many acts that have given more power than they should have, and indeed given power which has been used in ways that Parliament never intended.
What the bill allows
What the bill allows is for any act to be amended, replealed or replaced by a minister and in some cases by an official, except where it affects tax rates. It does allow for the creation of new criminal offences, but these are limited to ones with a sentence of less than 2 years (In a Crown court, less if the offence is to be tried in a magistrates court).
The original draft allowed for the act to be used to redraft it self, though that has now been restricted.
However, to give you an idea, a minister could make carrying ID cards compulsory by the back door, as a criminal offence with a sentence of 2 years.
As far as I can tell, it would also allow for the extension of a Parliament beyond 5 years. Truely scary stuff, particularly if you watched Spooks the other night.
There are in fact so many ways that ministers can change the law in dangerous ways with this bill, if it becomes law that I urge you to visit the saveparliament website and write to your MP. The blogosphere can if it wants to defeat this bill if we all act.
Why do we have this problem?
Well, because of the relentless pace of legislation in the last 9 years creating many acts that have given more power than they should have, and indeed given power which has been used in ways that Parliament never intended.
To give you an idea of how many laws have been passed, between 1945 and 1997 we had 3 Criminal justice acts passed. since we have had about 40, or a bit over 4 a year, creating about 3000 new criminal offences, or 333 new offences a year or about 2 offences for everyday Parliament has sat.
So if they realy did want to reduce the burden of legislation, stop passing so many laws and try reforming a few.
Has any one else done this sort of thing before?
Yes, there is a similar bill listed on wikipedia here called the enabling act.
You might be a Labour party supporter and might think I am being swivell eyed about this, because a Labour government would never do any thing bad. In short you may trust this Government. Will you trust the next one though?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
