Reviews the papers. Falls for spoof. Argues for signs in Mandarin. Listen to Colin.
Copyblogger theme design by Chris Pearson | Hosted by ENTANET
The inside track since 2003
Reviews the papers. Falls for spoof. Argues for signs in Mandarin. Listen to Colin.
Copyblogger theme design by Chris Pearson | Hosted by ENTANET
5 comments ↓
Would you mind telling those of us who you expect to vote for you in a few weeks time, why you are so keen to help the Carter-Rucks of this world to continue banking shed-loads of money through their current use of the scandalous libel system?
John Edwards
Yes of course, John. Here’s the explanation:
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/03/31/why-i-opposed-libel-costs-reform-yesterday/
You are trying to veto one change for the better in this murky world of rich, fat lawyers while we await a complete package of reforms at some undefined point of time in the future. And that moment will not arrive in your political lifetime.
Carter Ruck and their ilk are basking in your opposition to the proposed change, which should give you a clue to just how wrong you are on this issue.
John Edwards
I’m not sure if you have fully appreciated all the points I make, John. Reformers will only get one shot at this. Even Dr Evan Harris, who plays a leading role in the libel reform campaign in Parliament, opposes the measures as they stand.
Anyway, regardless of our disagreements over the years, can I wish you well for the future in your new constituency.
Best wishes
Tom
How is it that we have so many politicians who support a situation but not in its current form? Why didn’t they oppose it before it came about?
The LibDems support the EU but say they want to change it, as they said about the CAP forty years ago (and they still think the EU can be changed by negotiation from within it). Opponents recognised that the only way to get it right was to oppose membership until the conditions were acceptable.
In the case of the new libel legislation, many journalists and MPs saw the dangers in preventing a free press from exposing corruption. Why did the bill still get passed?
Why did the ID Card / NIR legislation get passed (with support from Tom Watson) even though it was condemned by the Government’s Gateway Review because it broke all 10 of the principles set for our protection, such as: an ID Card should merely be to verify identity; there should not a database; government should not be involved with it; the details should be owned by the ID Card carrier (not by government as is the case); there should be no biometrics kept; it should be voluntary (and not sneakily forced onto an unwilling population by ‘designation’); errors should be easily corrected, etc. Gordon Brown initiated the Gateway Review, yet when it produced negative findings he tried to block FoI access to the results, defying the Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal in the process.
These actions are not those of a government or parliamentary party that believes in democracy or freedom, except for the freedom of their powerful friends.
Leave a Comment