MPs to exempt themseves from FOI Act

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Herrumph, Apr 20, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Heard on news that MPs are to vote on exempting themselves from parts of the FOI Act. This will mean that they won't have to tell the great unwashed just how much they claim in expenses!

    How dare we demand to know how many thousands of pounds they blag for (fictional?) journeys - after all it is only our money, which we would otherwise waste.

    Most worrying is a Tory MP is leading this :evil:
  2. My immediate thought is that this is a deception plan to draw attention away from some far more serious changes to the FOI.
  3. Yes, it's true.

    However, it is a private member's bill so as far as I'm aware hasn't any party support although I know that R4 said that the Govt hadn't made any moves to squash it. There is a proposed amendment to make sure that all expenses etc are published.
  4. Nice to see the Tories are still as sleazy and corrupt as New Labour. God how I despise them. We are living in a banana republic.

    We must find out which MP's are voting Yes to this scandalous amendment and ensure they are named and shamed on arrse. We may not be able to stop this but at least we can ensure that we and our peer groups do not put a cross in the box next to anyone who supports this.
  5. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    The BBC is reporting that this idea has, according to a main opponent, received the 'tacit approval' of the Government.
    Surely neither this, nor any other Government has any interest in stopping the Public seeing what expenses their members claim, or what their incomes are?

    I simply cannot believe that a Government could be so self-seeking and corrupt.

    Hang on, going for a lie-down until the tablets kick in......................

    Just when I thought my contempt for most politicians had reached a nadir, this comes along.
  6. Thing is the stupid reason given is already covered by the Data Protection Act. You can ask for generalised info under FOIA but not for info related to individuals
  7. My Bold - I don't have any problem with the concept :evil:

    Cad - you are right - the Tories are also a disgraceful shambles - the shame is I'm not flabbergasted - this fine land of ours is being dragged to the lowest levels by these scumbags :!:
  8. Sigh.
  9. Bet they'd make a move to squash it if it was a private members bill to reintroduce the death sentence the money grabbing cnuts!
  10. The sad thing is this doesn't surprise me.

    A paper earlier this week (don't remember which one) outlined how MPs were upgraded to first class on BA flights, and mentioned that MPs earn a salary of £60k pa but get expenses to an average of £143k :x

    I'm usually the last person to speak up for the cheese-eating surrender monkeys, but I feel that "vivé le révolution" needs to be heard echoing in the halls of this banana republic.

    :!: Why the hell not?
  11. I am not surprised either. One rule for them and another rule for everyone else.

    Come the Revolution....

  12. The knobjockey proposing it argued that an MP has a duty of confidentiality to the constituent, in the same way as a Priest has at confession. Hence the need to exempt MPs.

    Found that a bit of a liberty making that sort of comparison.
  13. I can fully understand that our representatives find it irritating and galling to be obliged to disclose to us, the great unwashed, all the details about their 'goings on' - damned inconvenient.

    As for it being proposed by a Tory, - yet another attempt at ensuring that they (we actually in my case) remain unelectable ! How stupid can one party get ?!

    I truly believe the Liberals are 'dopey and dangerous' and I was miffed when they won Lewes, but my hat is doffed to the Lewes MP the man who really is the champion of freedom of information.
  14. Just goes to show the only person who has ever entered the Palace of Westminster with good intentions was Guy Fawkes
  15. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Why on earth would a politician want to be subject to the FOIA?

    The government, our elected representatives, the house of parliament and the house of lords are not supposed to be in the public eye, and they are certainly not supposed to be scrutinised.

    After all, this is why we have cameras in both houses, the politicians regularly leak to the press, speak on television, vote on matters that effect us, grab as much publicity as they can for themselves, spend our money, make our laws, make big speeches, call for our support and expect us to follow their lead. I mean, it's not exactly like they are public figures or in the public eye is it? Let's try and be fair.

    Now, if these people were shagging our prostitutes, have gay sex in public toilets, were selling out our armed forces, the British electorate, stealing money, mis-spending ours, claiming ludicrous running costs for the constituency offices, second, third and fourth homes, one of whic is grace and favour, crying about the environment whilst driving two, or even three jags and jetting around the world on holidays paid for by gambling interests or musicians, taking drugs, selling drugs, proposing to decriminalise drugs whilst banning smoking in public place or other heinous acts - THEN I'd want to know about it, THEN I'd disagree with this private members bill.

    Until our elected representatives are found guilty of such things, I for one agree that they should not be subject to public scrutinee!!!