Monday, 26 December 2011

There is no need for a trial in an independent court (Parliament is itself a court).

Allegra Stratton, the Guardian, reports that MPs are planning a new criminal offence of not attending Select Committee hearings.

In a report on Parliamentary Privilege, published in 1999, it concluded that the crime of "contempt of Parliament" included "without reasonable excuse, failing to attend before the House or a committee after being summoned to do so". The report stated:

"Historically the power to adjudge a contempt is linked to the power to commit to prison. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries committal to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, or to prison, was a regular punishment. The House of Commons has power to imprison until the end of the current parliamentary session, however long or short that may be."
The end of the Parliamentary session is usually taken to mean until the Queen's Speech in October or November, whilst it should be noted that there is no need for a trial in an independent court as Parliament is itself a court - points that Stratton does mention in the article.

That the proposal is subject to the cabinet committee which oversees constitutional change must surely bring forth the query, yet again, of by what right do our politicians enact constitutional change without consulting those that they are elected to serve and who maintain them in a lifestyle we 'ordinary' people can only imagine? That Select Committees do have enhanced power - too much power some would maintain - is a fact, as illustrated by my previous post in which an MP had his 'fine reduced by circa £4,000.

We are most definitely being led towards a situation by a section of our society who have no regard whatsoever for democracy and the 'rights' of the people - a situation of dictatorship, the birth of which is all too apparent if one looks. How many more 'steps' will be taken by politicians before the people awake to what is happening around and to them? How many more steps will be taken by politicians until any hope of a change whereby the introduction of 'Referism' and Direct Democracy will be impossible?


Stuart said...

It seems that for those with safe seats, once voted to parliament, the person leaves our world behind. If we spare a thought about the original fundamentals of representation, it was supposed to be a representative from a community sent to the nations parliament. How many times now do we get a person who appears to move where the work is? My own MP Sir George Young represented Wandsworth in London and moved to North West Hampshire when our MP retired. So he never came from our community and now is not of our world. He is a Conservative, and for the majority of people in NW Hampshire that is enough it appears. He believes we should be in the EU because he is a greasy pole climber of the highest degree.

WitteringsfromWitney said...


"He is a Conservative, and for the majority of people in NW Hampshire that is enough it appears. He believes we should be in the EU because he is a greasy pole climber of the highest degree."

That the majority of people in NW Hants are as brain dead as they appear means you have my sympathy.

That he is a "greasy pole climber" shows that he is a career politician who has swopped his seat with a London allowance for one with the ability to create a property empire.

GY is a prime example of all that is wrong with our political system and democracy!

TomTom said...

The Complacency of the Electorate has been significantly enhanced by the availability of easy credit and consumer goods. The expansion of credit has made voters impervious to the advancement of oligarchy and the corruption of the body politic.

It is the argument of the Victorian patriarchs whose education in Ancient Greek and Latin taught them that the mob would destroy liberty and focus on gorging themselves, and so it would appear as there is a hige swathe of the public who would happily wallow in consumerist frenzy even if their existences were terminated after consumption like some stuffed goose

WitteringsfromWitney said...

TT: An interesting comment and one that I can agree with as it is but part - one factor - of 'their plan' to subjugate the people.

Stuart said...

One day I quoted parts from the Act Of Settlement about the laws of this country being our birthright. I quoted several things like that to GY and asked him how he reconciled that with the ECA 1972. he simply said the ECA and all the treaties were created by parliament. The bare facts are that parliament can pass any law it chooses and no parliament can bind its successors. There is no law higher than parliament. Parliament is not constituted by the people.

Stuart said...

The majority of people are braindead unfortunately. NW Hampshire des not have a monopoly.