Parliament/House of Lords/Police Fit for Purpose ?
Discussion
I would like to ask about the above statement.
We have had various scandal, one after the other, decade after decade:
MP's Expenses
Saville investigation
Hillsborough disaster
Waterhouse Inquiry
Etc etc
Public & charitable organisations, victims & their families have highlighted IMO the inadequacy of certain individual MP's & government officials in public institutions, to satisfactorily lead a public inquiry & provide a non-biased outcome. The word 'cover-up' could be used.
They expect us to obey the law, but it seems a few not all, are overstepping the mark as if the law of the land does not apply to them, & it's leading to some very serious outcomes for the public.
We the electorate voted for them, so should they not be accountable for their actions & failings to the public they serve.
Personally I am sick & tired of the closed ranks, we need a completely independent body to investigate who is fit for the job.
Please no naming of MP's etc, don't want mods to lock the thread, & my heartfelt sympathy to all the victims of an injustice carried out by certain people in an institution designed to protect the people.
We have had various scandal, one after the other, decade after decade:
MP's Expenses
Saville investigation
Hillsborough disaster
Waterhouse Inquiry
Etc etc
Public & charitable organisations, victims & their families have highlighted IMO the inadequacy of certain individual MP's & government officials in public institutions, to satisfactorily lead a public inquiry & provide a non-biased outcome. The word 'cover-up' could be used.
They expect us to obey the law, but it seems a few not all, are overstepping the mark as if the law of the land does not apply to them, & it's leading to some very serious outcomes for the public.
We the electorate voted for them, so should they not be accountable for their actions & failings to the public they serve.
Personally I am sick & tired of the closed ranks, we need a completely independent body to investigate who is fit for the job.
Please no naming of MP's etc, don't want mods to lock the thread, & my heartfelt sympathy to all the victims of an injustice carried out by certain people in an institution designed to protect the people.
Edited by RJJ on Thursday 8th November 21:56
Have you been watching the news, & am on about the recent highlights of high profile people ? abusing their positions.
I am not bashing, just asking for an educated discussion & people's thoughts, on some very serious issues, which have left some of the public very traumatised.
Remember these were some of the most vulnerable people in our society, & it's repugnant what's being told on the news & every other media channel at the moment.
Can't believe you have not heard about it, it's very high profile, PM is firmly on the spot to sort this mess out & I dearly hope he does & does it properly once & for all, so there is some closure for the people & families affected.
I am not bashing, just asking for an educated discussion & people's thoughts, on some very serious issues, which have left some of the public very traumatised.
Remember these were some of the most vulnerable people in our society, & it's repugnant what's being told on the news & every other media channel at the moment.
Can't believe you have not heard about it, it's very high profile, PM is firmly on the spot to sort this mess out & I dearly hope he does & does it properly once & for all, so there is some closure for the people & families affected.
Edited by RJJ on Thursday 8th November 21:48
I do think that MPs involved in the expenses fiddle should have been fired as MPs, same as any of their electorate in a real job would be. It is hard to respect the law-makers when they won't respect the laws they impose on the rest of is and that is damaging to society.
Also, I don't think they should be allowed to have a second job like the well-known lawyer up here who represented a client in a long and involved court case instead of working (?) in Parliament or his constituency, or be able to go off to Australia for a month in "term-time". At a very minimum, they should NOT still draw public salary while working on their other "projects".
Finally, I am sick to death hearing about all the "lessons to be learned". I have no idea who coined the term, but it is trotted out whenever something has gone wrong and been discovered, like it will make everything ok and stop it happening again!
Also, I don't think they should be allowed to have a second job like the well-known lawyer up here who represented a client in a long and involved court case instead of working (?) in Parliament or his constituency, or be able to go off to Australia for a month in "term-time". At a very minimum, they should NOT still draw public salary while working on their other "projects".
Finally, I am sick to death hearing about all the "lessons to be learned". I have no idea who coined the term, but it is trotted out whenever something has gone wrong and been discovered, like it will make everything ok and stop it happening again!
GoneAnon said:
I do think that MPs involved in the expenses fiddle should have been fired as MPs, same as any of their electorate in a real job would be. It is hard to respect the law-makers when they won't respect the laws they impose on the rest of is and that is damaging to society.
Also, I don't think they should be allowed to have a second job like the well-known lawyer up here who represented a client in a long and involved court case instead of working (?) in Parliament or his constituency, or be able to go off to Australia for a month in "term-time". At a very minimum, they should NOT still draw public salary while working on their other "projects".
Finally, I am sick to death hearing about all the "lessons to be learned". I have no idea who coined the term, but it is trotted out whenever something has gone wrong and been discovered, like it will make everything ok and stop it happening again!
i agree on all 3 points.Also, I don't think they should be allowed to have a second job like the well-known lawyer up here who represented a client in a long and involved court case instead of working (?) in Parliament or his constituency, or be able to go off to Australia for a month in "term-time". At a very minimum, they should NOT still draw public salary while working on their other "projects".
Finally, I am sick to death hearing about all the "lessons to be learned". I have no idea who coined the term, but it is trotted out whenever something has gone wrong and been discovered, like it will make everything ok and stop it happening again!
I think they are fit for purpose as a whole, but there have been exceptions.
These exceptions need to be clamped down on; MPs expenses is one that is almost working at the moment.
The issues you highlight are several years old, so the current system must be doing something half decent for them now to be out in the open and people being actively pursued for their illegal activities.
These exceptions need to be clamped down on; MPs expenses is one that is almost working at the moment.
The issues you highlight are several years old, so the current system must be doing something half decent for them now to be out in the open and people being actively pursued for their illegal activities.
GoneAnon said:
I do think that MPs involved in the expenses fiddle should have been fired as MPs, same as any of their electorate in a real job would be. It is hard to respect the law-makers when they won't respect the laws they impose on the rest of is and that is damaging to society.
Also, I don't think they should be allowed to have a second job like the well-known lawyer up here who represented a client in a long and involved court case instead of working (?) in Parliament or his constituency, or be able to go off to Australia for a month in "term-time". At a very minimum, they should NOT still draw public salary while working on their other "projects".
Finally, I am sick to death hearing about all the "lessons to be learned". I have no idea who coined the term, but it is trotted out whenever something has gone wrong and been discovered, like it will make everything ok and stop it happening again!
Also, I don't think they should be allowed to have a second job like the well-known lawyer up here who represented a client in a long and involved court case instead of working (?) in Parliament or his constituency, or be able to go off to Australia for a month in "term-time". At a very minimum, they should NOT still draw public salary while working on their other "projects".
Finally, I am sick to death hearing about all the "lessons to be learned". I have no idea who coined the term, but it is trotted out whenever something has gone wrong and been discovered, like it will make everything ok and stop it happening again!
- Completely agree. I would take it further and an automatic prison sentence for their actions as well. Not just paying back the money.
- I kind of agree, the problems come about when several MPs have set up their own businesses and are shareholders or chairs. I do think that any money made from public appearances and the like should go into a charity fund for their constituents.
- True, need some real world PR, rather than the middle management BS
there is alot of 'practice' in the house, I.e things have to be done certain ways.
this makes police investigations hard as you can't just march in willy nilly
My godfather was very very senior in the house and involved in many of the investigations you speak about it and there are/were much more to them than the press talk s
t about
this makes police investigations hard as you can't just march in willy nilly
My godfather was very very senior in the house and involved in many of the investigations you speak about it and there are/were much more to them than the press talk s
t about z4chris99 said:
there is alot of 'practice' in the house, I.e things have to be done certain ways.
bks! If something doesn't work, change it. The MPs are the decision-makers and they won't change things because "tradition" gives them cover. The people can't fire an MP unless he gets a jail-term of 12 months or more (I think) but normal people would be fired under gross misconduct rules in most contracts.Why are we in the 21st century and making men put on tights and shiny buckled shoes to go to work in Parliament? Leading processions down the corridor to the "other" place and knocking on the door with a big stick? Having a debating chamber that doesn't have a seat for every member?
z4chris99 said:
this makes police investigations hard as you can't just march in willy nilly
And who, exactly, is that designed to protect? The people with the power to change that are the ones who are able to hide behind it. I reckon we could have (maybe we already do?) some CID or specialist officers who are security-screened and briefed on the need for secrecy over anything they discover that IS NOT connected to the investigation, like state secrets or national security matters. But if a Minister is selling nuclear details or small children he can be investigated, prosecuted, fired and imprisoned.z4chris99 said:
My godfather was very very senior in the house and involved in many of the investigations you speak about it and there are/were much more to them than the press talk st about
I'm not sure I would admit to that!t about z4chris99 said:
there is alot of 'practice' in the house, I.e things have to be done certain ways.
this makes police investigations hard as you can't just march in willy nilly
My godfather was very very senior in the house and involved in many of the investigations you speak about it and there are/were much more to them than the press talk st about
I am cynical about the press, they are akin to highlighting areas to cover a story from their point & maximum impact on the public.this makes police investigations hard as you can't just march in willy nilly
My godfather was very very senior in the house and involved in many of the investigations you speak about it and there are/were much more to them than the press talk s
t about It just seems, like public pressure from victims & their families & some undercover reporting, keep on highlighting areas where a public inquiry should have dealt with the issue appropriately, for the victims to provide some closure.
And my point is there are laws for the public to abide, for a structured & civilised society, but it seems the law makers are playing by a different set of rules at times.
No one should be above the law, it's their for all of us.
Edited by RJJ on Thursday 8th November 23:35
RJJ said:
z4chris99 said:
there is alot of 'practice' in the house, I.e things have to be done certain ways.
this makes police investigations hard as you can't just march in willy nilly
My godfather was very very senior in the house and involved in many of the investigations you speak about it and there are/were much more to them than the press talk st about
I am cynical about the press, they are akin to highlighting areas to cover a story from their point & maximum impact on the public.this makes police investigations hard as you can't just march in willy nilly
My godfather was very very senior in the house and involved in many of the investigations you speak about it and there are/were much more to them than the press talk s
t about It just seems, like public pressure from victims & their families & some undercover reporting, keep on highlighting areas where a public inquiry should have dealt with the issue appropriately, for the victims to provide some closure.
And my point is there are laws for the public to abide, for a structured & civilised society, but it seems the law makers are playing by a different set of rules at times.
No one should be above the law, it's their for all of us.
Edited by RJJ on Thursday 8th November 23:35
I think parliament is fit for purpose - it's the people who work in it that are the problem.
I'm not being flippant either. A lot of the protocols and customs are in place rightly to protect the sanctity of parliament and the freedom of elected representatives to do their work. It's right that the police can't march in willy nilly to (read "at the behest of the powerful") as this would lead to the police being used as a tool to harass opposition and suppress dissent.
The expenses scandal leaves a bad taste, but such things happen in every country - the fact that it became a scandal rather than carrying on as routine probably vindicates the model if anything, but also highlights certain aspects of it that need improvement. A simple receipt based system that is open to public scrutiny, like most companies operate, would be a huge improvement and not that difficult to implement.
The paedophile scandal is a more serious matter. But beyond accusations that a small number of parliamentarians were involved there doesn't seem to be any reason (as yet?) to think that parliament as a whole was in anyway involved in this or even turning a blind eye to it.
The major reform I would like to do is to sort out the House of Lords. Directly elected by proportional representation on a national level. 100 members, elections falling mid term between general elections. The small number of members is designed to encourage them to have a bigger profile, and be campaigners and advocates for certain things, rather than the current jumble of appointed, bought and divinely proclaimed seats in the HoL. Not quite sure how I'd work out the elections to avoid having 500 names on the ballot.
I'd then beef it up by repealing the Parliament Act, allowing the Lords to block legislation and force amendments, and preventing the government of the day railroading their legislation through.
I'm not being flippant either. A lot of the protocols and customs are in place rightly to protect the sanctity of parliament and the freedom of elected representatives to do their work. It's right that the police can't march in willy nilly to (read "at the behest of the powerful") as this would lead to the police being used as a tool to harass opposition and suppress dissent.
The expenses scandal leaves a bad taste, but such things happen in every country - the fact that it became a scandal rather than carrying on as routine probably vindicates the model if anything, but also highlights certain aspects of it that need improvement. A simple receipt based system that is open to public scrutiny, like most companies operate, would be a huge improvement and not that difficult to implement.
The paedophile scandal is a more serious matter. But beyond accusations that a small number of parliamentarians were involved there doesn't seem to be any reason (as yet?) to think that parliament as a whole was in anyway involved in this or even turning a blind eye to it.
The major reform I would like to do is to sort out the House of Lords. Directly elected by proportional representation on a national level. 100 members, elections falling mid term between general elections. The small number of members is designed to encourage them to have a bigger profile, and be campaigners and advocates for certain things, rather than the current jumble of appointed, bought and divinely proclaimed seats in the HoL. Not quite sure how I'd work out the elections to avoid having 500 names on the ballot.
I'd then beef it up by repealing the Parliament Act, allowing the Lords to block legislation and force amendments, and preventing the government of the day railroading their legislation through.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff