John Hemming's Web Log

I have linked to the debate as to Labour's alternative. They proposed on Wednesday a "temporary cut" in VAT (which implies they have changed their policy on VAT such that the permanent rate is now 20%). This would increase borrowing in the year. I asked a number of Labour MPs who they would borrow the money from and how much interest they would pay. It shows a considerable ignorance of economic policy relating to those who spoke in this debate. The link gives the debate: John Hemming The hon. Gentleman’s party’s solution is to borrow more money. From whom is it going to borrow it and how much interest is it going to pay? David Anderson My party’s policy is not to borrow more money—it is to increase taxes on bankers and make those people pay. John Hemming Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that Tony Blair said in his memoirs that it was the Labour Government who did it? Chris Evans No, he did not. This debate would be far more honest if we said that it was the banks....

This story is the details of the PIBS story. This is an interesting issue from the perspective of capital heirarchies and the voting against class interests (bondholder classes). However, the human story is quite real. So, you want to burn all the bank bondholders? Read Albert the pensioner's story... By Ciaran Byrne Saturday June 18 2011 Meet Albert Kempster: he's 73, has a pension of just £56 a week and usually shops at night to buy the food supermarkets are about to throw out. Financially, life isn't too easy. With the rising cost of food and utility bills, he enjoys no luxuries and rents a one-bed flat in the bleak high-rise suburb of Sighthill, Glasgow. Albert is pretty much struggling to stay afloat. Now Bank of Ireland is about to sink him. Thanks to an extraordinary move by the bank, adrift after years of disastrous lending and property speculation, Albert's lifetime savings of £24,000 (€27,294) invested in high- interest bonds are about to be snatched from hi...

I think the way in which the NHS reforms have been produced is a good example of how government should work. I was always concerned that we should keep the NHS as an essentially co-operative organism with European competition law being kept out. What has happened through a process of consultation is that a set of proposals for reform that deal with most of the serious criticisms have been developed. I personally think that a government that listens and sometimes changes is a good thing for the country. The examples on Forestry, EMA (£100m extra money for 6th formers), the NHS and student finance (higher payments by higher earners) are all cases where the initial policy has been changed in a positive way as a result of a conversation with citizens. We have failed to explain the student finance one, but people will find out how it works over time.

There is a story today in the Sunday Independent which includes the following text: John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP who used parliamentary privilege to reveal that Ryan Giggs was the footballer behind the recent superinjunction, is a leading Pibs-holder and part of the campaign. The group intends to write to the Irish government to condemn its "lack of common decency and fair play". I would ask that people note that the quotation here is not quoted as something that I have said. My concern about the proposals from the Irish Government (aka Bank of Ireland) is that they are designed to protect the equity at the cost of the subordinated holders. This turns on its head the normal processes. There is no need for the Irish government to put any more cash in than is proposed under the current scheme. In fact if the Sub holders were given a normal deal then the Irish government would put less money in. However, the plan the Irish government has involves preferring one set o...

The link is to Anna Raccoon's story about Steven Neary. Steven Neary was a victim of judicial secrecy. Happily he has been released from the clutches of the state and his case can now be talked about. Sadly there are many others still trapped in the Kafkaesque world of secret imprisonment.

There is another post of alleged injunctions on Twitter. This time it is done by someone who associates themselves with "anonymous" - this is clear from the use of the anonymous mask image. For the avoidance of doubt I don't support putting up lists of injunctions. However, there are lots of issues with trying to stop this. Firstly, it is very easy for anyone who intentionally wishes to put something up anonymously on the internet to do so. If someone is in England or Wales they can go to an internet cafe and establish an anonymous account with false details. Secondly, if someone is out of the relevant jurisdiction (that is England and Wales) then they are not breaking the law if they do this. I am not myself sure what the authorities can do to deal with this. The only people who are likely to be trapped by any legal action relating to twitter are the innocent people who have been making jokes and gossiping. In the medium to long term it is, of course, possible to pro...

Best to go to the link.

This is a spreadsheet with the full information for England as to what happened to children Under 5 in terms of destinations in and out of care over the last 15 or so years.

YouGov performed a survey of people to find out what proportion knew "the secret" before I mentioned it in the House of Commons. Of the total sample of 2,442 82% were sure they knew, 14% were sure that they didn't know and 4% didn't know whether they knew or not. Of the 82% 3% got the name wrong, but 79% got the name right. From the perspective of the "Law of Confidentiality" I would argue, therefore, that the name was already in the public domain. This really highlights the total absurdity of the situation.

Noting the fact that according to press reports Ryan Giggs's lawyers are still trying to get information from Twitter can I offer to organise a collective defence of twitter users in the English and Welsh jurisdiction. Anyone who receives notification from twitter is welcome to contact me via the parliamentary systems.

I have a link to a story about getting data from Twitter. It remains my view that they will give up trying to prosecute tweeters for contempt, but think how much worse it would be with everyone anonymous and in secret as is happening with Zam. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8536641/Twitter-prepared-to-hand-over-user-data.html "TWITTER yesterday said it was prepared to hand over information identifying tens of thousands of people who have used the social-networking website to break privacy injunctions."

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members will be aware that I have a long-time concern about secrecy in court processes, which was highlighted in the story in The Guardian today. We have no true freedom of speech when people can be jailed for complaining about their problems. This country seems to have a penchant for covering up problems that would be discussed openly in others. Florence Bellone, a Belgian journalist, recorded an interview with Carol Hughes and Lucille O’Regan in Ireland, which was broadcast on RTBF in Belgium. A copy was placed on YouTube, but access in the UK is now blocked as a result of what YouTube calls a “government request”. What can be so frightening about that interview that people in the UK are not allowed to see it, but it can be broadcast in Belgium? The policy of international websites varies. The Twitter account containing the names of lots of people subject to super-injunctions is still there, and will remain t...

"If the third party publishes information which is already fully and clearly in the public domain by reason of the acts of others, then the third party's act of publication does not have this effect. It does not have an adverse effect on the administration of justice in the action. The court's purpose in making its interlocutory order has, by then, already been defeated by the acts of others. This is so, whether those acts occurred before or after the court made its order." So, the question I asked in The House on Monday would not have been in contempt of court if asked outside parliament. The information was in the public domain already. Widely so. I hadn't even seen a copy of the order.

The link is to a story about a secret committal for a breach of confidentiality.

The link is to Jonathan Walker's article on the Birmingham Post website. This is a good summary. Most reports had lost track of the fact that enforcement activities had started on two injunctions. On both occasions against people who tweeted on twitter.

Answering questions as to why he named the twitter footballer today, but not before John Hemming said "When he sued twitter it was clear what he was doing. He was going after the ordinary people who have been gossiping about him on twitter. To prosecute someone for contempt of court is quite a serious step. It comes with an up to two year jail sentance." "I have spoken to people of ordinary means who have received these injunctions. I have also spoken to people who faced jailing in secret hearings and who were subject to anonymity orders themselves. This is a really oppressive system. "So on one side you have a footballer upset that people are gossiping about him and on the other side you have ordinary people facing the threats of a two year jail sentance. I think it is wrong that he has the power to do this, but at least if he is going to do this let him be held to account." "Before he sued twitter there was no public interest in naming him. Ho...

Anyone who likes baby pictures should look at the link. Vicky hasn't sent me a photo to upload yet. However, there is at least one more child that has been saved from the adoption machine. See the link in The Telegraph.

Here is a question. What is the public interest in identifying CTB? The answer is very clear. Anyone who believes they have a legal right of access to Kelvin Mackenzie's emails should not be anonymous. Similarly if they are going to hunt down and attempt to imprison people who tweet on twitter they should not do this anonymously. Personally I believe that trying to get journalists emails is an anti-democratic action.

Well, well, well I didn't think that CTB could be that stupid. 2 million people have seen the Twitter account. Over 116,000 have subscribed to it. Twitter have highlighted it. Now CTB has decided to sue Twitter to get the account details. All they can get is the Internet Protocol address unless someone has been stupid enough to use their normal email address. This could be the address of an internet cafe. All of the computers in parliament on the parliamentary network have the same external IP address. Hence it is a bit difficult to pin down the person who posted the details even if twitter divvy up the information. What it has done, however, is to send the information global (apart from in the UK). Something that very few people are actually bothered about has now got the maximum promotion. I have said for some time that getting the injunction is often worse than that which it is supposed to conceal. What it does do, however, is make this particular case sub judice and hence n...

The link is to the judgment today in the above case. Section 12 of the 1998 Human Rights Act can be found here Where in the judgment can you find reference to 12 (4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to— (a)the extent to which— (i)the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or (ii)it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published; (b)any relevant privacy code. Here is another injunction that ignores S 12 (4)