OnePlus 5 review
Well not all, for starters, but sufficient to be making sure that the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to them. Oh I know that that is not what they say that they are protecting and that, no longer having to make their expenses public, is just an unfortunate side effect if this Bill gets Passed
Giving this Private Members Bill a Second First Reading is said to be because there are said to be no other Private Members Bills ready for Debate.
Now that surprises me, because, I don't remember another case of this happening in the last 45 years (I'm 62 and have really only been interested in Parliaments workings since I was 15 to 16 years old).
It is particularly surprising because there are usually several Private Members Bills awaiting Debate and, usually, there is insufficient time to get through them all much to the chagrin of many an MP supporting a worthy Bill.
I think that, if that this is really what has happened, it has been done so with the connivance of the MPs involved.
This thread touches on areas which are controversial in the extreme and I am notifying FE just in case he wishes to Delete it. I shall not be in the least bit offended.
The old joke comes to mind.
Why do we bury MP's 40 feet down, because deep down we all like them!
OK time for me to exit stage left:)
If I were a libel lawyer, I'd be suggesting to MPs that you'd just published a class libel, so I'd be verrrrrry careful about that kind of allegation.
A week ago a Private Members Bill to exempt Members of Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act got talked out.
Every year there are MPs who have particular interests/Bills that the wish to to be put before Parliament. There are usually several dozen of these and Parliament holds a Ballot at the beginning of each Session to decide on a Short List of those that will get a Reading and they set up an Order of Precedence. e.g. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. They rarely get beyond a half dozen or so.
This particular Bill got it's Reading and failed to get to the Second Reading stage.
Now according to those that hold our fate in their hands. It is going to get a second First Reading because all those other MP who have won in the Ballot to get their Bills a First Reading have not prepared them in time.
There is a first for everything but it is curious that it should happen at a time such as this!
Scan the Telegraph and the Guardian and also listen to Radio 4. I'm in good company.
I mailed FE, when I posted this thread, to say that I was skating on thin ice.
It is a matter that I feel quite strongly about and know that it is a contentious issue.
I think that we should be very cynical about the present crop of <honourable members>.
Hey, if they've nothing to hide, they've nothing to fear, right?
If any group SHOULD have the FOI Act applied to them, our elected representatives should be it. Remember, no-one FORCED them to stand for election to Parliament, did they?
Can't stand the heat, people? You know the answer...
Not crooked by nature I'm sure.
In fact many are idealists for a short while, but most of those become disillusioned early on after a severe talking to by a senior member of their party.
What they do do, is to react very quickly when some piece of legislation which someone thought up on a wet Friday afternoon threatens the peace of their pond, is to slip an exclusion clause into the Bill.
Big relief in Westminster, and an unpleasant smell for the electorate.
I do think FOI should apply to MPs - definitely. And yes, some MPs - Neil Hamilton springs to mind - have been shown to be venal and corrupt. But I hope it doesn't apply to most. I used to go out with the son of a prominent Labour MP and he most certainly isn't a crook. On the contrary, he's one of the most moral people I've ever met.
I suggest they email me - a decade or so of advising libel lawyers on their IT requirements has equipped me with a reasonable understanding.
Threads like this are bound to result in some robust comment, but beware........if you make an allegation about an individual, or a group of individuals and you don't have the concrete evidence to back it up you might find yourself in court. That's your affair, but what's my affair is the fact that I might find myself there with you, if I permit the libel to stay online.
That's why some posts may be deleted without warning, and without further reference to the person who made the post.
Please act responsibly, and resist the temptation to post silly, unsubstantiated allegations.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.