The Professors passion for "The Science of Deceit" started here...

Employed by the Ministry (in a covert capacity) to help introduce the law ending dishonest politics, you can see his hand all over the posts of past.

Current political circumstances have forced him to reveal himself and as we speak, MPs are signing up to re-introduce The Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill for debate with over 80,000 voters supporting them.

Posts before Jan '08 are purely for the record (with hindsight they make fascinating reading). Posts after May 13th mark the Professor's return.


Meet the Professor

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

the Lord Chancellor calls

Questioning the Lord Chancellor was an unexpected by-product of asking the simple question, "How do I prosecute an MP for lying.". Prod hard enough and you expose all sorts of constitutional conflicts - some of them all too convenient for those in power.

For example, we interviewed George Bathurst, the man who reported our right honourable Deputy Prime Minister to the police (over the Super-Casino Anschutz hospitality gig). The Crown Prosecution Service made Monty Python look like a bunch of rank amateurs in their correspondence with him. You see, the CPS reports to the Atorney General. He decides whether prosecutions should go ahead. He also happens to be the legal advisor to the Government and a friend of the right Honourable Tony Blair. The "Cash for Honours" business is going to be interesting for him.

We figured we might as well ask the man at the top, Charles Falconer, the Lord Chancellor. Gatekeeper of the Constitution. Head of the Department of Constitutional Affairs ("responsible in government for upholding justice, rights and democracy").

In true Parliamentary fashion we weren't expecting an answer. Maybe Sir Philip Mawer (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) put in a good word for us. In any case, we've had a green light and are getting a date in the diary.


E-mail/post any questions you've got for him. In the meantime, we're busy figuring out our next move.

Naturally, we'll keep you posted.

14 comments:

  1. Quick Falconer fact -

    Charlie and the young Tony Blair shared ;
    A flat
    A girlfriend

    (not necessarily in that order, or indeed simultaneously)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Forget Falconer, get an interview with the bird he shared w. Teflon Tony ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. girlwhohadtony&thefalcon30 Jan 2007, 12:20:00

    ask me no questions i tell ya no lies???

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tony the hairdresser30 Jan 2007, 12:28:00

    girlwhohadtony&thefalcon said...

    "ask me no questions i tell ya no lies???"

    Are you a Minger ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Question for Falconer - who went first, him or Tony ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Peter Stringfellow30 Jan 2007, 13:22:00

    Menage a trois anyone ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Some great stuff on Falconers commitment to constitutional reform here

    http://www.dca.gov.uk/speeches/2003/lc081203.htm

    I quote "There is, I believe, a dissonance between our values as citizens of a liberal democracy and some of our constitutional arrangements. We should not ignore that dissonance. If, for example, we believe in equal opportunity and do not accept that education or jobs should be distributed according to which family you were born into, then why should our legislature include hereditary peers? Shouldn't we have the courage of our convictions, especially when it comes to deciding something so fundamental as our constitutional arrangements?"

    Basically saying what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So why is it we have to live under statutes which can send us to prison if we lie but the legislature doesn't.

    Ask him. Guwwaaaaaaan.

    Guwaaaan, guwaaan, guwaaan.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Your first photo the side of Falconers head is missing. Is that why he wears the wig in photo 2 ?

    ReplyDelete
  9. it was Kimberley Quinn! I hear she digs the Sword of ther Lord

    ReplyDelete
  10. do you think the girl was sober during sessions with either of them? thanks tone - pull the ladder up mate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ask Falconer about Levy!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Inspector Yatesy31 Jan 2007, 10:58:00

    Ruth Turner said...
    "Ask Falconer about Levy!!"

    We wouldn't have to if you opened your gob.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm not up on British politics, so you'll have to forgive my ignorance, but the point here is that you want to be able to punish the government for lying without waiting for an election, right? So are we talking about relieving people of their duties, or fining them, or putting them in jail, or what? While I agree that you should be able to impeach those who lie, or fail to represent the people, does anyone worry at all that removing unsatisfactory representatives before their term is up might be a slippery slope leading to a sentiment that the elections themselves are meaningless? Perhaps to an unacceptable level of instability after a while?
    I'm seriously asking, now. I'm curious what people think.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The role of any politician in a democracy is to serve the people. What this website is campaigning against is the shameless distortion of fundamental democratic principles by the very people who we elect, and therefore trust, to do the best for our nation. Through lies, deceit and, most importantly, immunity from the consequences of such actions, politicians have successfully twisted their positions to serve themselves, not the people who placed them there in the first place. Why should we tolerate such fraudsters with issues that will effect us, our children and all future generations? We are being duped, mocked and conned, simultaneously conquered and humiliated, a “Great” British laughing stock. These people do not have our best interests at heart. At the very least, in my opinion, they should be removed from office and publicly named and shamed.

    As for “meaningless elections”, I would venture that we have been cascading down a “slippery slope” for some time now. Take for example the 2004 establishing of the North East Regional Assembly that was voted against and set up anyway by Labour. The same is true for our now established national network of regional assemblies, all of which contradict the will of the electorate. Meaningless elections? In ten years we will be a fractured country, divided into weak regions and ruled undemocratically from Brussels, all through the lies and the deceit of our own government whose moves do not reflect the desires of this country. Our powers and our liberty were handed over to Europe fifty years ago, and what happened? Politicians lied, blustered, feigned innocence and let the spin doctors do the rest. So many truths have been lost this way. If we do not do something about the treachery in the ruling bodies, rid ourselves of the “unsatisfactory representatives” and ignore the apathy they try to indoctrinate us with, we are potentially shunning the lifeline on this “slippery slope” into undemocratic control.

    ReplyDelete