Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BigTom

Misleading or lying to parliament

7 posts in this topic

There must be many examples of trafficking/coercion figures quoted in parliament that are contradicted by later figures. I realise that they are always qualified as estimates but this really amounts to deliberately attempting to mislead parliament. Misleading parliament should result in resignations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trafficking is one of the justifications used to pass this law which would make it illegal to use parlours or agencies. There is a feeling that trafficking has been exaggerated and the government has been spreading myths. If the government has lied about the extent of trafficking, could this be used to appeal against the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trafficking is one of the justifications used to pass this law which would make it illegal to use parlours or agencies. There is a feeling that trafficking has been exaggerated and the government has been spreading myths. If the government has lied about the extent of trafficking, could this be used to appeal against the law.

How are you going to prove that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trafficking is one of the justifications used to pass this law which would make it illegal to use parlours or agencies. There is a feeling that trafficking has been exaggerated and the government has been spreading myths. If the government has lied about the extent of trafficking, could this be used to appeal against the law.

I suppose the Freedom of Information legislation could be useful in ascertaining a good estimate of the number of trafficked persons in the UK. Requests could be sent to the Home Office, Borders Agency, Justice Dept, Local Police Forces, Local Authorities requesting information on numbers of trafficked individuals over different periods of time, numbers of trafficked individuals by trade they were working in, Numbers of sex workers, numbers of people deported (sexual/non sexual), number of cases that have gone to court for trafficking, number of individuals found guilty of trafficking.

Finally a tally could be kept of responses on here with the full expectation that Home office figs dont tally with the individual Local Authority responses. Thereby showing the quoted figures as pie in the sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont believe you can be prosecuted for lying in parliment. Thats why Blair lied about weapons of mass destruction in iraq and that there was no deal with bernie eccelstone with cig adverts in formula 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lying to the house is seen as being a very serious matter; hence the proscription on one member accusing another of having done so, but will not result in prosecution. At most it will result in censure of the member & a suspension from the house until susch time as they both appologise & retract the false statement they knowingly made.

Unfortunately, it happens all the time, due to the fact that being caught out very much depends on there being someone else, who knows the facts of the matter under discussion, being present at the time.

An example of this comes from the process motion debate ont eh 3rd reading of the CJIB, during which Fiona Mactaggart presented a Epetition, calling for a Swedish style ban on the purchase of sexual services, to the House for further consideration. At the time, she claimed that the Government didn't accept such online petitions, but that, by her chasing around Wesminster & having people append their names to it, it had managed to amass slightly less than 200 signatures & therefore she was presenting it in person; due to the obviously huge support such a policy it demonstrated.

Now, there are two lies here:

1. Parliament does accept online petitions, hence the fact that there is a dedicated, Government, website for such things;

2. The online pettion in question would not have received furhter consideration due to the fact that it had failed to meet the necessary criteria for such condiseration; in that it had failed to attract 200 signatures within the required time (so she breached Parliamentary rules for such petitions at the same time).

Mactaggart got away with this, because no other MP had a clue as to how the Epetition system worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0