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.
Martin Bell for Prime Minister !!!!
ReplyDeleteHe's clearly sitting on some kind of WMD. Off with his head.
ReplyDeletevital that the bill is backed by white suit sorts// those with internal knowledge of the system faced to succeed with such a bill..
ReplyDeleteHe stumbled when it came to defining a lie ....
ReplyDelete"The world is turning your way"...that's all you need to hear
ReplyDeleteThe world may be turning your way but the government isn't. Check out what they're trying to do with the Freedom of Information Act - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/23/ufrankel.xml
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said... "He stumbled when it came to defining a lie .... ". Actually, it's fairly easy to define a lie. There are plenty of existing definitions in statutes today. Basically it's making a statement with knowledge of its falsity and intention to mislead or deceive.
ReplyDeleteDefining lies is all well and good - but a statement can be just as misleading because of what it doesn't say. You can't go about prosecuting people for not saying something !
ReplyDeleteWho is the right MP though? Did he tell you?
ReplyDeleteangus mcneil got revoked for "dredging up the past" something that any politician worries about/ but by attacking a minister in the house requires enough fact to force a thought from outside spectators/ of course it matters not of truth but how they can be-little he who accuses// (madness) something that requires dredging up the past// so to re-invent a political future??
ReplyDeleteperhaps...
The question is, who'll propose a bill. And proposing a bill is one thing - getting a majority in the Commons to pass it is another.
ReplyDeleteCameron and Co would jump on this bandwagon faster than you can say "do anything to get into power" - get them to push it.
ReplyDeleteCameron and cronies would be the death knell on anything attempting integrity.
ReplyDeleteah but then he might have to admit whether he actually dis-likes hoodies??
ReplyDeleteor policies??
camerons honest legislation!!!
don't lie/ but don't ask me about hoodies/ and don't ask anything about my policies.. job done..
Would you trust a politician trying to pass a law enforcing their honesty ? You'd know there'd have to be something bent about it.
ReplyDeleteTry Bob Marshall Andrews, Norman Baker or Adam Price. All like a ruck with TB.
ReplyDeletepolitical junky said...
ReplyDelete"Try Bob Marshall Andrews, Norman Baker or Adam Price. All like a ruck with TB."
True, they like a ruck - but not one of them's ever won a commons majority to put him on the canvas.
And this week..."Cash for Dinners". The Chairman of the Committee for Standards and Priviledges under investigation by his own committee.
ReplyDeleteWriters on Eastenders can't hold a candle to it.
Martin Bell said, "One thing it can do (government) is to make its priority, restoring confidence in public life. There's nothing stops them doing it. They just didn't do it".
ReplyDeleteAmen
George Young is actually under investigation by Sir Philip Mawer, but his findings will be looked at by George Young's Committee. And Sir George won't be able to comment, obviously. Don't see the problem myself.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDelete"George Young is actually under investigation by Sir Philip Mawer, but his findings will be looked at by George Young's Committee. And Sir George won't be able to comment, obviously. Don't see the problem myself."
Problem is ;
1) The Committee was introduced with the very specific purpose of restoring the public perception of trust. If the committee is filled with MPs, it runs the risk of having to investigate its own members. Irrespective of whther Sir George is guilty or not - it looks shabby when the chairman is investigated. You could only avoid this if the committee is comprised of individuals who aren't MPs.
2) Because Sir George (and one other Tory MP) can't be involved in the investigation or subsequent ruling, we're left with a Labour weighted committee - so whatever it's decision, it'll be accused of being biased
Elizabeth Filkin is a prime example of what happens if you get on these guys backs too much. All very well being the Parliamentary commissioner for Standards but you don't wanna be too enthusiastic about it. Haven't heard any other MPs being too pissed off about it.
ReplyDelete