Skip to main content

Freedom of Speech (aka Privilege) debate

The BBC have a video of the debate here.

What I find surprising is that Withers have not apologised. The last time this happened (in 1981) the firm concerned apologised by telegram before the motion was moved.

There was a case with some similarities in Australia in 2006. The report can be found here. A law firm was found guilty of contempt for threatening defamation proceedings linked to a speech in parliament.

Quoting from the findings:

The Committee finds that the provision of information by Mr Cannard to
Mr Leighton for use in the House, as part of his role in representing his
constituents, was a proceeding in parliament and therefore protected by
parliamentary privilege. The letter sent by Mills Oakley Lawyers to
Mr Cannard constituted an attempt to interfere with the provision of this
information and is therefore a breach of privilege.

In relation to the question of whether the threat of adverse action against a
constituent could be considered an improper means to influence a member of
Parliament in the performance of their duties, the Committee finds that, in this
case, a contempt has occurred and notes:
• the subsequent letter of apology to Mr Leighton from Mills Oakley Lawyers
cannot alter the fact that the letter to the constituent had the effect, or was
intended to have the effect, of preventing the flow of information from
constituent to member and of hindering the member in the exercise of his
parliamentary duties;
• the threat of adverse action against the constituent can be seen as a contempt
in cases where the threat is intended, or could be reasonably expected to
have the effect, to prevent a member carrying out his or her duties as a
member of the House.

The Australian case has relevance to those people who threaten constituents who wish to talk to MPs.


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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…