YD Scuba Diving Forums banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Charter Boat Skipper, Salvage Diver & YBOD abuser
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
These f*ckers are starting to really wind me up, now :
The MPs say they want to protect private letters from constituents - but critics say the move would also allow them to keep their expenses secret.
The tw*ts are pushing through a law that excludes themselves from the freedom of information act...:angry:

:angry:
:angry:
Quadruple :angry:
I reckon, come the next General Election, we should ensure the turnout is 0%... see how the cnuts manage to employ themselves then...
But maybe we need a "feasability study" first ...
Maybe I should have entitled the thread "urination /contraflow/F9"... but that would probably require an EU directive and the involvement of the tossers that can't get a job as a "proper" MP and wangle it through a .... oh , f*ck it! just put "proper" and "MP" in same sentence... we're all shafted/ shat-on/doomed!

BBC NEWS | Politics | Brown will not block secrecy bid

Too :angry:/pissed to find the words...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,810 Posts
It does seem rather at odds that they excuse themselves from an Act they passed, which everyone else has to adhere to.

It is like saying that a revenue inspector doesn't have to pay tax
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,526 Posts
Why does memories of 1981 pop into my head, and the line 'We are all equal, but some are more equal than others' reverberate around my skull like a tape on a loop?

:confused:
 

·
Lord Protector of the Pies and Defender of the Bee
Joined
·
1,021 Posts
Why does memories of 1981 pop into my head, and the line 'We are all equal, but some are more equal than others' reverberate around my skull like a tape on a loop?

:confused:
1981? Do you mean 1984 or more possibly Animal Farm (the book not the porno) or have i gone way off beam

Meanwhile back on point......yes i think those that we employ to represent us are decidedly taking the p*ss. If they think the data protection act doesnt cover the letters they recieve (despite the continued ressurences of legal types that it does) strengthen the data protection act not exclude your self from another law, which would have the by product of, "chuff me i didnt realise you cant ask questions about my expenditure never mind."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
i was somewhat surprised to find that our newly elected conservative mp had voted for this self important piece of crap law,
mark pritchard hang your head in shame :frown:
i shall be slightly tardy in erecting the vote conservative signs when the slackjawed jock eventually decides to test public opinion
 

·
YDs Most Southerly Monkey
Joined
·
6,434 Posts
How does FoI work over there? We have had an FoI system for many years over here and all our files at both State and Local Govt level are subject to FoI, the only proviso is that if the file includes a letter or information which identifies a third party who is a "private" (as opposed to corporate) individual, we have to obtain their consent before releasing the information.

It would seem that a similar system could or would address those concerns.

On the other hand, exemption in this case would hardly be revolutionary, MPs are exempt from a lot of requirements where they relate to their Parliamentary business, it would really just be an extension of existing Parliamentary privilege which exists, for good reason, in other areas.

If you look at most FoI requests, the majority are simply fishing expeditions by the media or other politicians. If there's a real suspicion of something shonky going on, that's why you have a Police Force with investigatory powers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,880 Posts
Sometimes we have to look beyond the gloss of the media.

This is a Private Member’s Bill, relating to the workings of Parliament, and as such it is a matter for individual MPs to decide. There are valid arguments on both sides, with many concerned about the protection of constituents’ correspondence and others expressing concern over MPs appearing to exempt themselves from obligations that they have placed on other public authorities. The Conservative Party is not supporting the Bill.

I am pleased that Mr Speaker has written confirming that, should the Bill pass, the level, and detail, of MPs’ expenses reported to the public will remain unchanged. The publication of MPs’ expenses is an important part of our accountability to the people who elect us, and I believe that it should continue in the form it currently takes.

I won't post on this again as I don;t like mixing my day job with my diving. But thought it might be helpful to set out a few things.
 

·
Make mine a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster.
Joined
·
1,763 Posts
Clare, is that last paragraph a quotation, or are you an MP? I know that a Clare Gledhill stood in 1992 I think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,880 Posts
This Clare Gledhill stood in 1997 - don't think there were any others :)

It's a para that I wrote in response to this issue at work. People overlook the fact that we hold very personal information about people, sometimes medical records, sometimes political or religous beliefs, and this is not suitable for inclusion under the FOI. Information regarding MPs earnings or expenditure is a matter of public record and should stay so.
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
This Clare Gledhill stood in 1997 - don't think there were any others :)

It's a para that I wrote in response to this issue at work. People overlook the fact that we hold very personal information about people, sometimes medical records, sometimes political or religous beliefs, and this is not suitable for inclusion under the FOI. Information regarding MPs earnings or expenditure is a matter of public record and should stay so.
Maybe that infomation could also include hours spent playing Pacman whilst at work :teeth:
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top