ForumGarden

I just found out that in the UK there isn't a law to prosecute politicians who knowingly deceive the public - surely this is a fundamental flaw in the uk political system? Is anyone familiar with The Ministry of Truth? It's a fantastic website/blog that I've been checking for a while now. They're making a documentary about this subject& it's going to be broadcast on BBC2 on 11th October 2007 - really excited to see if the discussion becomes widespread

Here's the link to the website:

www.ministry-of-truth.net

green elephant;701276 wrote: I just found out that in the UK there isn't a law to prosecute politicians who knowingly deceive the public - surely this is a fundamental flaw in the uk political system? Is anyone familiar with The Ministry of Truth? It's a fantastic website/blog that I've been checking for a while now. They're making a documentary about this subject& it's going to be broadcast on BBC2 on 11th October 2007 - really excited to see if the discussion becomes widespread

Here's the link to the website:

www.ministry-of-truth.net


Much as I would like to see Tony Blair being prosecuted it was fairly obvious at the time he was lying although the only ones who didn't seem to notice are all the MP's that supported him. How about a law against stupidity in politics? or against supporting a policy you don't really believe in but you want to be part of the group?

While it is true you can't take a govt agency to court in this country you can now take them to the European courts in Strasbourg as several groups have been doing successfully in recent times from part time employees to standard life policyholders. Perhaps this is why so many politicians now want the human rights act repealed as it has dawned on them that the government itself can be taken to court and the action of it's agencies contested.

How on earth could you have a body that is truly independent and objective?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Who watches the watchers?


It's an age old question.

There are already plenty of laws and sanctions in place to deal with crooked MP's all that's lacking is the will to use them. Bear in mind who is going to have to pass the law. We don't have a written constitution which is arguably one of the best features of it so people don't spend the time arguing about what was meant when it was written and shouldn't we go back to the good old days-it's flexible enough to keep up with changing times. Have a look at that English bill of rights some of the rights might surprise you.

Our MP's are elected to represent us not delegates to do only as they are told. If you don't like what your MP does then don't vote for him, stand against him at election time but since they nominally represent the whole of his constituency then acting for one groups interests may be against the interests of another-for one interest group to claim dominance over another would be unrealistic. Say for instance you have an MP that votes to do away with separate religious schools-he's conceivably just gone against the perceived interests of catholics, church of England and nowadays muslim parents but probably done a great deal for the community as a whole so who was he supposed to represent?

If you want greater accountability in government them the way forward is proportional representation which neither of the two main parties support as it means they would never be able to form a government since neither has the supports a majority of the population. Each government over the last thirty years has failed to get the majority of the people behind them effectively disenfranchising 2/3rds of the voters.

this kind of legislation is usually mooted by interest groups that feel they aren't being listened to and think they should be the ones telling MP's what to do. Ministry of Truth? Ever read 1984? Do you think they were trying to be ironic? Any group that would have Neil Hamilton advocating for them is bit hard to take seriously.

Of course there isn't a law to prosecute politicians who knowingly deceive the public, and neither should there be. There are times when that's part of their job. What we have instead is the polling booth. It allows the general public to vote secretly, regularly and with the knowledge that their vote will be added up and used to decide whether to extend the life of an administration or not.

Americans don't have this, they have government-owned audit-free no-paper-record uncheckable "voting machines" to allow their electorate to fool themselves that they had a hand in an election. The British won't wear idiocy like that, at least we're not total morons.

spot;701361 wrote: Of course there isn't a law to prosecute politicians who knowingly deceive the public, and neither should there be. There are times when that's part of their job. What we have instead is the polling booth. It allows the general public to vote secretly, regularly and with the knowledge that their vote will be added up and used to decide whether to extend the life of an administration or not.



Americans don't have this, they have government-owned audit-free no-paper-record uncheckable "voting machines" to allow their electorate to fool themselves that they had a hand in an election. The British won't wear idiocy like that, at least we're not total morons.

Spot, if the British are so much better at controlling their government than the idiot American morons, How the hell did you end up in Iraq?

YZGI;701447 wrote:

Spot, if the British are so much better at controlling their government than the idiot American morons, How the hell did you end up in Iraq?


Touche - a million protesters and we still couldn't stop the bastards!

YZGI;701447 wrote: Spot, if the British are so much better at controlling their government than the idiot American morons, How the hell did you end up in Iraq?The UK maintains the minimum possible armed forces compatible with our requirement for tourist and ceremonial purposes. That provides employment for some of the most degenerate social misfits in our society and puts them under the authority of sadists who would otherwise be detained in secure mental hospitals. The controlling hierarchy consists of the younger sons of the gentry who find there's no place for them any longer in the Church of England, or in the professions where birth is no longer a good predictor of financial success.

Now, given that we're already committed to that expense, the government is free to deploy those wastrel scum anywhere it sees fit. We let them loose on the Irish for thirty years and finally decided it wasn't a fair contest. Since we dragged in the leash, and confined the bastards to their barracks, Northern Ireland does seem to have settled into civility and peace.

Why did we end up in Iraq? We loaned Tommy Atkins to the Americans who seem to have found a use for him. It props up what we're pleased to call the "Special Relationship", in which we act as a condom between Europe and the USA. It's cost-free. Either a proportion of our fighting force dies in training - it's scarcely realistic training if none of them do, after all - or they die in more realistic settings. They'd get bored if they just had Salisbury Plain to run around on.

spot;701489 wrote: The UK maintains the minimum possible armed forces compatible with our requirement for tourist and ceremonial requirements. That provides employment for some of the most degenerate social misfits in our society and puts them under the authority of sadists who would otherwise be detained in secure mental hospitals. The controlling hierarchy consists of the younger sons of the gentry who find there's no place for them any longer in the Church of England, or in the professions where birth is no longer a good predictor of financial success.



Now, given that we're already committed to that expense, the government is free to deploy those wastrel scum anywhere it sees fit. We let them loose on the Irish for thirty years and finally decided it wasn't a fair contest. Since we dragged in the leash, and confined the bastards to their barracks, Northern Ireland does seem to have settled into civility and peace.



Why did we end up in Iraq? We loaned Tommy Atkins to the Americans who seem to have found a use for him. It props up what we're pleased to call the "Special Relationship", in which we act as a condom between Europe and the USA. It's cost-free. Either a proportion of our fighting force dies in training - it's scarcely realistic training if none of them do, after all - or they die in more realistic settings. They'd get bored if they just had Salisbury Plain to run around on.


Okay, I'll laugh at this nice diversion.

YZGI;701502 wrote: Okay, I'll laugh at this nice diversion.


The difference between the Brits and the Yanks is that we Brits have no desire whatever to profit from our presence in the Middle East. That is such an obvious fact it seems to have been left unstated so far. Nobody, on the other hand, thinks that your slimy money-tainted administration can claim such a disinterested status.

spot;701509 wrote: The difference between the Brits and the Yanks is that we Brits have no desire whatever to profit from our presence in the Middle East. That is such an obvious fact it seems to have been left unstated so far. Nobody, on the other hand, thinks that your slimy money-tainted administration can claim such a disinterested status.
That wasn't the question. You inferred that Americans were idiotic morons because we cannot control the antics of our government and that the British wouldn't put up with their government trying any antics. So I ask you, How do you explain your government going to Iraq without the consent of the British people?

YZGI;701517 wrote: That wasn't the question. You inferred that Americans were idiotic morons because we cannot control the antics of our government and that the British wouldn't put up with their government trying any antics. So I ask you, How do you explain your government going to Iraq without the consent of the British people?


They had it, that's the point. They didn't have mine, or Gorgeous George's, or Bryn's, but they had a majority of the country behind them. Public opinion was on their side. Gorgeous George, Bryn and me turned out to be right, that's all.

YZGI;701447 wrote:

Spot, if the British are so much better at controlling their government than the idiot American morons, How the hell did you end up in Iraq?


Our electoral system is not perfect in that consistently we get governments in power that do not reflect sentiment across the country. somewhat less than a third of the voters actually voted for TB and his cronies, about the same as voted for Maggie and hers. First things both parties tend to do is gerrymander electoral boundaries to ensure their supporters are a majority in as many constituencies as possible.

You seem to have a similar problem- in the states as candidates get knocked out their supporters are effectively disenfranchised and they go for the next best unless of course two parties can realistically reflect such a diverse nation. At least here it's about a third of the electorate in the states I read somewhere it is around 15% although i can' find the link and I don't know enough about the american system to decide the truth or otherwise of that but I am dubious to say the least.

posted by spot

They had it, that's the point. They didn't have mine, or Gorgeous George's, or Bryn's, but they had a majority of the country behind them. Public opinion was on their side. Gorgeous George, Bryn and me turned out to be right, that's all.




No they bloody didn't. Westminster is increasingly becoming a detached bungalow in the middle of London with the electorate left outside wondering who the hell they let take charge. The majority were opposed and now it's the vast majority.

TB stood up and LIED to the house to get support and the spineless morons we elected let him get away with it. We're in no position to smug about anything. If labour get back in we will have even less reason to be smug, fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me but three times!!

The difference between the Brits and the Yanks is that we Brits have no desire whatever to profit from our presence in the Middle East. That is such an obvious fact it seems to have been left unstated so far. Nobody, on the other hand, thinks that your slimy money-tainted administration can claim such a disinterested status.


At least you can see GW et al were acting in what they see as America's best interests however much you think they were wrong. What the F())K was TB doing?

posted by yzgi

Spot, if the British are so much better at controlling their government than the idiot American morons, How the hell did you end up in Iraq?


You can't all be morons even if you can't spell properly and don't know how to play football properly - you sort out your own lying two faced self seeking hypocritical ba)*(&S (also known as politicians) and we'll sort out ours. At least you can't have GW for a third term.

gmc;702331 wrote: No they bloody didn't. Westminster is increasingly becoming a detached bungalow in the middle of London with the electorate left outside wondering who the hell they let take charge. The majority were opposed and now it's the vast majority.http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2003/iraq.shtml is a good starting point on public opinion. I had in mind the "Three in five people (61%) would support Britain joining any American-led military action against Iraq, with UN approval - down from 71% in September. Most (77%) would oppose such action if it did not have UN approval - up from 70% in September."

I agree there was ambivalence but the idea of 3 in 5 saying yes under any circumstances prejudices me against UK public opinion altogether.

spot;702435 wrote: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2003/iraq.shtml is a good starting point on public opinion. I had in mind the "Three in five people (61%) would support Britain joining any American-led military action against Iraq, with UN approval - down from 71% in September. Most (77%) would oppose such action if it did not have UN approval - up from 70% in September."

I agree there was ambivalence but the idea of 3 in 5 saying yes under any circumstances prejudices me against UK public opinion altogether.


I fail to see how more people could possibly have supported the war without UN approval that supported the war on condition on having such approval.

Assuming then that it is 77% of the 61% and noting that the war did not have the second UN approval referred to then I make the 46.97% of the overall population supporting the war - not a majority.

Bryn Mawr;702598 wrote: I fail to see how more people could possibly have supported the war without UN approval that supported the war on condition on having such approval.

Assuming then that it is 77% of the 61% and noting that the war did not have the second UN approval referred to then I make the 46.97% of the overall population supporting the war - not a majority.


I saw those polls as well and am sceptical. I think part of it was people would support action with the UN, part disbelief that the PM would lie the way he actually did. What angers me is that they actually got back in too power. Only a politician could convince themselves that 1/3rd of the vote constitutes a mandate to govern. I suspect politicians are so so much immoral as amoral-as in they don't see themselves as doing anything wrong.

Example from the local authority where i live. A labour councillor got in to trouble for claiming car expenses for attending meetings. he doesn't drive. His defence? he blamed the ruling snp administration for being incompetent and not noticing. He really dod not see he had done anything wrong. Reality is always more unbelievable than fiction. If the story of the last eight years in international relations was a film you would give up watching it because the plot is unrealistic.

spot;701361 wrote:

Americans don't have this, they have government-owned audit-free no-paper-record uncheckable "voting machines" to allow their electorate to fool themselves that they had a hand in an election. The British won't wear idiocy like that, at least we're not total morons.


from an American moron:



Weird, I punched my last 10 votes with a mechanical punch (paper) not a supposed government-owned audit-free no-paper-record uncheckable "voting machines" that you are suggesting. Are you saying ALL us total morons in America use these rigged machines?

If so please show us REAL facts to the effect, that we don't have a hand in our elections and they are rigged.



spot, That is such a lark. I know you and all the conspiracy theory zealots want to believe a moron like President Bush could pull this off (rig voting machines).

It ain't so

BTS;702989 wrote: from an American moron:





spot, That is such a lark. I know you and all the conspiracy theory zealots want to believe a moron like President Bush could pull this off (rig voting machines).

It ain't so


maybe he's a supermoron-like a superhero but with special powers that you don't know about You've all been zapped with his stupidity raygun:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Did you know that in the UK there isn't a law to prosecute politicians when they are found to have knowingly deceived the public? In my mind this amounts to a fundamental gap in the UK political system. Thoughts?

green elephant;704466 wrote: Did you know that in the UK there isn't a law to prosecute politicians when they are found to have knowingly deceived the public? In my mind this amounts to a fundamental gap in the UK political system. Thoughts?


Maybe you should read the answers you got the last time you posed this question. That's assuming you bother looking to see if anybody replied in the first place. What's up- used to being ignored or short term memory loss?

I posted this topic up a few days ago but couldn't find the thread and assumed it had been deleted, and as I wanted to discuss it properly, I thought it would be a good idea to post it up again. Do you have a link to the post I made a few days ago or any thoughts on the topic?

I've merged them for you, I hope that helps.

spot wearing his moderator's hat

OMG - thank you so much!! Honestly, after I posted I couldn't find the post so I just left it. I have enjoyed talking on the forum garden forums before and thought I'd have another go. Great responses, I'll read through them properly now and then reply

I noticed the Welsh flag - I'm from N. Wales:)

Ok, your responses are great, and I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However, it disturbs me when I read about cases such as the Elizabeth Filkin affair. She is the ex-commissioner for parliamentary standards who was hounded out of her job by 'important' figures within parliament after she rubbed them up the wrong way with her investigations. This kind of behaviour seems to be a common occurence - the various committees designed to monitor parliament are nearly always ignored or bullied which renders them worthless. Thus, I believe that the only way our elected representatives can be held truly accountable for their actions is through a law. I personally think The Misrepresentation of The People act is pretty sound, although I think section 4 is too lenient and that it consequently undermines the act. Have any of you seen the trailer that has been posted on the Mot site for the documentary? It features the Lord Chancellor!:

http://mo2-truth.blogspot.com/2007/10/d ... aches.html

green elephant;704512 wrote: Ok, your responses are great, and I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However, it disturbs me when I read about cases such as the Elizabeth Filkin affair. She is the ex-commissioner for parliamentary standards who was hounded out of her job by 'important' figures within parliament after she rubbed them up the wrong way with her investigations. This kind of behaviour seems to be a common occurence - the various committees designed to monitor parliament are nearly always ignored or bullied which renders them worthless. Thus, I believe that the only way our elected representatives can be held truly accountable for their actions is through a law. I personally think The Misrepresentation of The People act is pretty sound, although I think section 4 is too lenient and that it consequently undermines the act. Have any of you seen the trailer that has been posted on the Mot site for the documentary? It features the Lord Chancellor!:

http://mo2-truth.blogspot.com/2007/10/d ... aches.html


They're accountable for their actions through the ballot box. We have a very unusual constitution developed over time. We don't have a written constitution rather it's developed over time and arguably the mother of parliaments has survived for so long because of that inherent flexibility. This kind of law is mooted by people who lack a basic understanding of the way parliament works. Yes it's flawed but to paraphrase Winston Churchill democracy is the worst of all political systems except every other one that's been tried.

Who the heck are these people. If they are genuine where are their names and who is financing them? Ministry of Truth? they're either trying to be ironic or don't understand the irony which suggests they may be American. clearly they don't get the difference between a delegate and a representative. If they are so sure of their case put up an MP rather than try and manipulate behind the scenes -all they stand to lose is their deposit. maybe I'm cynical but anyone claiming to speak for ordinary people makes me suspicious. The ordinary people I know are quite capable of telling politicians what they think of them and can see right through them as well. maybe you should go to some public political meetings and get and earful of what ordinary people have to say. they are a lot smarter than politicains give then credit for.

I noticed the Welsh flag - I'm from N. Wales


You have my sympathy:sneaky:

posted by spot

They had it, that's the point. They didn't have mine, or Gorgeous George's, or Bryn's, but they had a majority of the country behind them. Public opinion was on their side. Gorgeous George, Bryn and me turned out to be right, that's all.


I like gorgeous george and he's arguably the best debater in the house. But I was also in Dundee during his days there. Used to be a standing joke-how do you tell a tory councillor from a labour councillor. answer- The tories are all in jail because they labour ones were too clever to be caught by the polis. I am ambivalent about how far I would trust him.

"Who the heck are these people. If they are genuine where are their names and who is financing them? Ministry of Truth? they're either trying to be ironic or don't understand the irony which suggests they may be American. "

I just typed 'Ministry of Truth' into the BBC website and this is what I got:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/listings/pr ... 4_14589_60

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/progin ... d_ministry

(got to the bottom of the page)

- so it seems it is a doc by a British film maker, and that it is supposed to be amusing. I read the old blog before they put up this new website and I think if you'd had the opportunity to do so you'd immediately see that the whole thing is presented with a smirk. It doesn't bother me that this is the way they are presenting the debate, I actually find it quite refreshing.

They've got a section of the rough cut of the Ministry of Truth up on the blog, here's the link:

http://mo2-truth.blogspot.com/2007/10/y ... lying.html