Monday, 12 October 2009

Interesting

Well, well

20 comments:

hangemall said...

Ve-e-e-r-r-y-y-y interestink.

Stop Common Purpose said...

Curious.

WV: cheri (even curiouser)

defender said...

Then there is this,

MEPs to lose Commons access
MEPs to lose Commons access

MEPs are to be barred from having automatic access to the Commons in a move that comes after the British National Party's successes in the last European election.

Under existing rules, party leader Nick Griffin and fellow MEP Andrew Brons are entitled to Westminster security passes after being elected to the European Parliament in June.

However, Griffin, Brons and 70 other British MEPs will lose that right under a Commons motion due to be passed tonight.

The "growing pressure on facilities" has been cited as the reason for the change.

But the move will be seen as a way of ensuring that BNP members cannot make use of the Commons.

The motion set to be agreed in the Commons on Monday says that resolutions of January 1989 relating to services and December 1991 relating to access for MEPs and former MPs "shall cease to have effect insofar as they relate to United Kingdom members of the European Parliament".

When the passes were first granted to MEPs in 1989, the then leader of the Commons John Wakeham said it was a "modest concession to our Strasbourg colleagues".

http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/meps-to-lose-commons-access/

Anonymous said...

It appears the access to Commons may be onto a winner.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmagenda/ob91012.htm

All questions from today are listed therein.

Snowolf said...

Yes, it is scandalous, outrageous, deeply, deeply disturbing and against the grain of everything a democracy and a free press stands for, but isn't it ironic that the paper which has been so close, such an apologist for this corrupt government, ...is the one which is making the most fuss?

wv: willing

Gareth said...

Surely they'd have to ban all MEPs or allow all MEPs rather than single out the UK MEPs.

Comply you bastards, thought crimes will not be tolerated said...

The groundwork has been done, now the main event has started...

Guy Fawkes said...

Roll on November 5th

Delphius1 said...

Very interesting and very disturbing at the same time. That the press can be prevented from reporting such a broad range of items relating to one subject, is deeply disturbing indeed.

Whatever it is, we all know eventually it'll come out. If not in the dead tree press, then here in the blogosphere the truth will out.

Dick the Prick said...

Bollox - what fucking useful question could those cunts ask? Toys from pram shite. They're sending messages out to their friends - it's fucking pathetic. Liberal conspiracy not a bad blog and it's proper fair for them to think that because they're liberals and tossers that they're a minority but they've overlooked the fact that they're liberals and tossers.

Bob Oggin said...

Rumour mill at Guido's has thrown up Douglas Carswell's name in connection with this. Pure speculation, of course, but not beyond the bounds of possibility, given his known badthink opinions.

This grotesque breach of accepted constitutional practise will, of course, invoke the Streisand Effect in full force. PMQ's might be interesting this week.

Or it could be a load of irrelevant cockwaffle setting up for El Gordo's departure...

General Stiltskin said...

The Bill of Rights was 1689 wasn't it? Fucking useless Guardian... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1688
I think the prospect of Labour losing must be messing their heads up.

I imagine they'll be alluding to this bit:
"Freedom of speech and debates; or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament."

Could in theory be something regal I suppose... d'ya think Lizzie's had enough of 'em as well?!
Legally, she has every right to send in the military and turf 'em out... the military's loyalty is to the monarch, not to the government.

The Harman banning the BNP thing is curious, as the timing seems to be related to the forthcoming appearance on QT in 10 days time...

How about these though:
16
Secretary of State for Justice: Access to the Contingencies Fund: Ministry of Justice on behalf of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
(This is the money they use to deal with terrorism and national emergencies I believe);

17
Secretary of State for Justice: Controlling costs in defamation proceedings.
(sounds legal enough to relate to a newspaper report on someone "special");

18
Secretary of State for Justice: Freedom of Information Act 2000—FoI quarterly monitoring statistics: publication of Q2 2009 statistics.
(something they don't want us to know ...yet?).

Judging by their record of using terrorism laws to arrest and manhandle old ladies, tory immigration MPs, and holocaust survivors, one can only imagine that this some bizarre Brownian motion to protect the regime somehow.

I'm sure the Gaydian are hyping it up... newspaper are professional trolling organisations after all.

Anonymous said...

The Bill of rights is 1688, the 1689 Bill of rights is actualy an amendment (some very usefull amendments as well as it makes it unrepealable)

Gareth said...

Due to be answered on Thursday

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmordbk2/cmob2.htm

Mr Nick Hurd (Ruislip-Northwood): To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the Answer to the Rt hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden of 21 July 2009, Official Report, column 1166W, on Members: surveillance, whether the Wilson doctrine prohibits surveillance of hon. Members by (a) the police and (b) local authorities, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.


Mr Nick Hurd (Ruislip-Northwood): To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, pursuant to the Answer of 21 July 2009, Official Report, column 1756-7W on the Union Modernisation Fund, if he will place a copy of the audit reports from those additional companies in the Library.



Wednesday

Norman Baker (Lewes): To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, for what reason the Secretary of State has not registered with the appropriate authorities his visit to the Bildenberg Conference in Greece in May 2009.

Lorely Burt (Solihull): To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many draft reports from the investigators of the collapse of MG Rover were provided to the Government for comment before publication of the final report on 11 September 2009.

Mr William Cash (Stone): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, for what reason he has not yet replied to the letter dated 20 July 2009 from the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee in respect of legal matters pertaining to the Lisbon Treaty.

Flagged up by Guido: Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

General Stiltskin said...

Yeah, just caught that.

Not so exciting then.

Just a red herring to throw the hounds off the scent.

Fausty said...

Stiltskin, I believe the Bill of Rights is well and truly f*cked by the odious bills this government has brought in.

Not to mention the innocuous-sounding clauses it has slipped into totally unrelated bills.

They've given them a get-out-of-jail-free card, along with executive powers (terrorism, et al) to do as they please, without fear of prosecution.

Are there any legals in the country who have not been bought who can beat a path through their legal dross, rushed through parliament without sufficient scrutiny or debate?

That the Guardian is waking up is a fine thing. Pity it's a bit late in the day!

Lorenzo said...

Am I up the wrong alley here?

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2009/10/carter-ruck-and-super-injunctions.html

Anonymous said...

Hansard?

Anonymous said...

Not interesting in the slightest,

the Guardian of fascism and NWO propaganda has been protecting, defending and propagandising the destruction of this country and it's democracy for it's real masters of the NWO for many years now.

this will be nothing more than a red herring, possibly something to further discredit - and therefore aid in their gleeful dismantleling of our democracy, just as the expensises red herring was designed to do - all the while people are focussed on trivia such as expenses that discredits politicians but more to the point aids in the propagandistion of the descruction of our democracy, all welcomed by the largely controlled and corrupt media.

if you think these closed circle media shits would ever come out on the side of the public where it matters, rather than the usual trivia then you are insane.

remember such papers that have an orgasm over the fact that our democracy is comming to an end, that we are ruled by the unelected and that that even war criminals are to be worshipped.

and here you are waiting for them to throw you a bone!

tut tut, if you are looking to the media for any relevant answers to anything that truly matters such as the costitution they are so happy to demolish then you may as well give up now.

if democracy changed anything they would ban it! said...

The European Parliament is blocking access to the BNP website and Andrew & Nick´s MEP websites.

EUSSR fascism.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails