Skip to main content

Today in Business Questions

I have been contacted about my comments in parliament today. My response is: "It is a legally complex situation and I am not saying anything outside parliamentary proceedings".

On the wider question, however. I would say:
"I am concerned about two things. Firstly the development of a law of privacy without the proper statutory underpinning or public support. Secondly, the lack of accountability for super injunctions."

It is parliament's role to deal with both of these issues.

Hansard has now published the exchange:
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): In a secret hearing, Fred Goodwin has obtained a super-injunction preventing him from being identified as a banker. Will the Government hold a debate, or make a statement, on freedom of speech, and whether there is one law for the rich, such as Fred Goodwin, and another for the poor, such as Lee Gilliland who has had his mental capacity removed on the basis of a report from his GP that he is not allowed to see?

Sir George Young: I know that in a week’s time my hon. Friend will have a debate in Westminster Hall which may impinge on some of these issues. I will raise with the appropriate Minister the matter that he has just raised, but it seems to impinge on the responsibility of the courts and any Minister would be cautious about commenting on that.

Comments

Jerry said…
While I have the up most Respect for Sir George Young, he comments just like the Majority of Ministers in Chambers, unless he has witness these situations first hand like you John then he doesn't really know what goes on and how one sided these unfair cases and hearings are taking place daily throughout the courts in the land, Article 6 of the HRA seems to not cut muster in the courts of the land any more and its people like Sir George Young who is in a position to act don't

""but it seems to impinge on the responsibility of the courts and any Minister would be cautious about commenting on that"".

Why would any Minister be Cautious? Truth hurts doesn't it.

Leaving it up to the courts is why these situations continue to occur and looking at the case of Lee Gilliland only highlights how messed up the courts really are, they need to be held accountable and the Judges who continue to allow this to happen should be removed from the Bench
john said…
It is about separation of powers. That is why parliament needs strengthening and to be more assertive.
Jerry said…
John, I just hope your debate Sir George Young mentions really does make an impression

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…