Skip to main content

Early Day Motions

I am not quite sure what this link will do as it appears that the parliament server uses cookies.

Through the EDM Web Server one can find all of the current Early Day Motions. I have "sponsored" 7 which means I have written 7 and proposed them and others have seconded them.

I am working on a database of EDMs with comments to enable me to work out which others to support. In the mean time I have signed a couple.

I put two more EDMS in Yesterday. One related to Family Tax Credit (the same issue as below). The Employments Right Act 1996 has been pointed out to me. This act basically means that before an employer can deduct overpayments from wages "there is a general rule that an employer must not act in such a way as to undermine the employment relationship or to breach trust and confidence. In the light of this general duty, the best advice for an employer is to discuss the overpayment with the employee and propose repayment over a reasonable period of time depending upon the size of overpayment and the period over which it occurred."

In other words although an employer needs to discuss and ideally agree deductions before making them the government does not need to do the same in relation of deduction of over paid Family Tax Credit.

The other EDM is about Iatrogenic Diseases (MRSA, Difficile etc) calling for more disinfectant to replace detergent.

Checking Hansard I don't seem to have any written answers yesterday. However, I did definitely get some on paper. The departments post them in internal mail. Which is a real nuisance as I would much prefer an Email. It is also difficult to track where they go in Hansard as that does not seem to correlate either.

I have one of my researchers doing a question and answer reconciliation to find out which questions the government has failed to answer. One I can remember is when the government expects global crude oil production to peak. No answer yet.

I have also managed to identify some logical inconsistencies in the government's position. One is in relation to Carbon emissions and Air Traffic growth. Although the government ignore international air flight (inconsistency 1), there is a need to constrain growth in carbon emissions from here. This is an important consituency issue as people living in Sheldon are blighted by the possibility of a second runway. What I need to prove is that the second runway will never happen and then the blight will be removed.

I have received some interesting answers recently, but for most of them I need to wait until they are on the net before commenting here.

One is that it appears that the marked registers for Woking Constituency have been lost. (Answer they are trying to find them.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…