D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] OT: MP Accountability

 

On 17/10/2007, Ralph Smithen <ralph_smithen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 03:17 +0100, 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
>
> > 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
>
> which group do you think should be allowed to deceive us with impunity?
>
> > 2. Does not distinguish between party and government
>
> the measure refers to an "elected representative of the people" -
> entities like "state" and "government" have no soul to save, and no body
> to incarcerate
>

except politicians have a dual role relating to party (political
action) and government/opposition


> > 3. How do you distinguish a lie from difference of interpretation
>
> trial by jury, once probable cause is established
>

this would paralyse politics. Potentially MP's would have to do their
campaigning in the witness stand

Does anyone remember that Robert Maxwell used the laws of Slander and
Libel to prevent any investigation of his corrupt practises

> > 4. Often lies are justified for very good reasons
>
> there are enough planted journalists working to MI5 or MI6 briefs
> without our public servants being mouthpieces for propaganda

I'm not talking about this

for example back in the 80's Militant lied through their teeth about
not being a "party within a party" because if they had not they would
have been expelled for POLITICAL reasons. At the time they had 3 MP's
who were very highly regarded even by their political enemies.

This law would attack both establish and radical politicians

Another example being Al Gores "an inconvenient truth" which several
people , not including me but including a judge , believe is biased
and full of lies. But also part of Nobel Peace Prize for Gore.

>
> > 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
>
> refusing to answer questions that may threaten national security is of
> course still permitted
>

This would be a blanket justification for Government

> >
> > To me a good example of idea that sounds fine in theory, but which on
> > further examination is not neccesarily a good thing
> >
>
> I think that now with open intelligence resources and collaborative
> research at our disposal, accountability becomes a possible, good and,
> yes, neccesary thing
>

I do not believe this would be the result. Accountability is far more
than the "truth test".

Perhaps Soviet style would, which is

MPs serving fixed terms
Right of recall of representatives (by both party and electorate)
Ban on outside remuneration

>
>

-- 
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