Comments on: A funny thing happened to my parliamentary evidence…

By: Gus Friar

Gus Friar — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:35:53 +0000

@ Kris Jones: in fact, you’re spectacularly ignorant. The CSPL report will not be published by order of either House.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:43:23 +0000

@Kris Jones: this isn’t a Parliamentary committee. It’s a quango, so not necessarily covered by the Parliamentary Papers Act.

By: Kris Jones

Kris Jones — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:30:28 +0000

A further thought. It may be that your submission to the Committee is not covered by privilege. However, its publication as part of the Committee’s report would be. If you gave the statement as oral evidence rather than just submitting it in writing, I think it would be very hard for them to resist publishing your statement in full.

By: Kris Jones

Kris Jones — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:26:17 +0000

According to a House of Lords Report on Parliamentary Privilege, “Papers published by order of either House have absolute privilege under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840.” That being the case, there can be no question of the Committee’s report being subject to defamation proceedings.

See the penultimate paragraph of the executive summary at http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4303.htm

The text of the Act can be found here: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1033804

By: John Page

John Page — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:58:27 +0000

“Potentially defamatory” is an interesting concept.

Like the good journalist we know you are, you wrote facts. They’re in the public domain.

What does “potentially defamatory” mean? Just that ’somebody might not like them republished and take exception, and we can’t be arsed to check whether they’re true or not’?

‘Potentially defamatory’ in this sense could cover anything controversial.

Attack the committee robustly on this curtailment of freedom of speech.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:05:54 +0000

This is from a “Committee of standards in public life”!

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:04:06 +0000

What times are we living in when a parliamentary commission of enquiry can be trying to intimidate witnesses? And, worse, so few people notice and care!

By: PhilC

PhilC — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:08:51 +0000

Very odd and well done for publicising (and publishing) the info anyway.
Even if not covered by absolute Parliamentary privilege I would have thought there was qualified privilege and that would have been enough.
Is it too much to expect them to release their legal advice that led to this decision?

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:28:01 +0000

I don’t get it. I’ve just read your submission and I can’t see anything potentially defamatory in it.

If your submission is defamatory, then the various articles I’ve been reading in the Guardian for many months about MP’s expenses and allowances must also be defamatory. I’d imagine that the newspaper disagrees.

Perhaps their message to you should have parts redacted:

…due to the following reason: “it contains statements about named individuals which are potentially [REDACTED].”

By: heather

heather — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:57:00 +0000

Charles – according to the Committee’s secretary they are not covered by parliamentary privilege.

Matt – Yes feel free to re-publish!

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:27:00 +0000

So is the CSPL not actually partt of Parliament? Otherwise it could publish that stuff under Parliamentary privilege. How bizarre.

By: Matt Wardman

Matt Wardman — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:48:44 +0000

Heather

May I republish your statement in full, with attribution?

Am I right that I can do this under the Parliamentary “one-click” license, anyway? I think I can but I’m not sure whether the CPL actually fall within the terms.

Rgds

By: John L Bell

John L Bell — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:49:21 +0000

Re: censorship of your statement!

Does this mean that my oft repeated use of the term ‘This Fraudsters’ Parliament’ when I define parliament as ‘the largest single concentration of shysters, thieves and frauds this side of prison bars’ may be libellous?

If so, is the law of this land brought to bear in some form of alphabetical order… so that offences under the Fraud Act 2006 would be dealt with BEFORE offences undet any Libel Law?

By: John L Bell

John L Bell — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:37:21 +0000

Have I missed the tanks in the streets? ……. or is this still meant to be a democray!?

Or perhaps like many dictatorships past and present, there is a nod to consultation and freedom of speech ….. until, that is, there is any criticism of those in power?

P.S.
Have you heard on the grapevine of any MPs due to be charged with fraud for contravening the Fraud Act 2006?