[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wednesday 17 October 2007 03:17, Mike Martin wrote: > On 16/10/2007, Ralph Smithen <ralph_smithen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > sorry for the off-topic post but I think this is important. There's a > > petition to support the Prohibition of Deception Bill. > > > > sign here > > http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/2accountabilty/ > > > > text of bill here > > http://www.ministry-of-truth.net/documentation/MoTActPDF.pdf > > > > see who's voting for and against > > http://ministry-of-truth.net/mpscoreboard.php > > > > cheers, > > Ralph. > > > > > > > > -- > > The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG > > http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list > > FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html > > I've seen this around in other forums > > Despite some MP's I respect (a very dwindling band) supporting this, I > consider this to be very dangerous > > 1. It fails to differentiate between members of parliament and members > of the government > 2. Does not distinguish between party and government > 3. How do you distinguish a lie from difference of interpretation > 4. Often lies are justified for very good reasons Not in a democratic process. > 5. The whole thing is made meaningless by exception 5 - national > security which lets off the very people that should be held to account > ie: members of the government > > To me a good example of idea that sounds fine in theory, but which on > further examination is not neccesarily a good thing -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html