The thing with Parliamentary Priviledge though is it’s a constitutional PRINCIPLE not a legal right, merely a device established by a Parliament tired of Crown interference in the seventeenth century.  The antics of James II and his predecessors in intervening in the affairs of the elected government of the country are however, not anolougus with the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP)’s decision.

The bone of contention in the present case is not however the monarchs overbearing influence in legislation and policy, but whether the prosecution of members of both Houses is permitted under section 17 of the Theft  Act 1968 (false accounting).

Can Members of Parliament be Liable for Criminal Offences?

The short answer is ‘yes’.

The Bill of Rights 1688 was drawn up following the ‘Glorious Revolution’ (the one where we chopped our King’s head off) in order to declare once and for all the ‘Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne’ (Bill of Rights 1688, section 1) following the Catholic reign of James II and its influence on the protestant  country as it stood then (largely influenced by Oliver Cromwell).  The purpose of the Bill is not to set MP’s above the law, but to regulate relationships between the higher bodies of state and to ensure a Catholic monarch never reigns again (a very out-dated principle now, which ironically in our largely secular country still stands).

The Bill establishes

‘That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament’

Bill of Rights 1688, section1

Nowhere in the Bill is there any mention of protection of Members from prosecutions for criminal offences.  The Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770 establishes that

‘Any person or persons shall and may at any time commence and prosecute any action or suit in any court …  against any peer or lord of Parliament of Great Britain, or against any of the knights, citizens, and burgesses, and the commissioners for shires and burghs of the House of Commons of Great Britain for the time being, or against their or any of their menial or any other servants, or any other person intitled to the privilege of Parliament of Great Britain; and no such action, suit, or any other process or proceeding thereupon shall at any time be impeached, stayed, or delayed by or under colour or pretence of any privilege of Parliament.’

Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770, section 1

So, no immunity from prosecution for those sitting in either the Lords or the Commons (or their staff and family etc), and no right to invoke Parliamentary Privilege as a reason to delay proceedings.  For the MP’s concerned by the DPP’s action therefore to claim that they have QC’s advising them that they will be able to defend the action on this ground is a little bizare and one can’t help but question the morals of the silks involved in taking such a case and citing these arguments, billing the honourable members for their time (or, more likely the tax payer).  What mi’learned friends may be referring to is section 2 of the 1770 Act which provides that MP’s cannot be arrested or imprisoned for such acts.  This does not however prevent action being brought.

There is no immunity for members against criminal proceedings as is the case for civil proceedings ( for which members of the Commons may not be arrested for a period of 40 days before to 40 days after each session).  Privelege does not extend to MP’s private lives (Re Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770(1958))

The actions of MP’s’ inside Parliament’ are protected by privelege.  What ‘inside Parliament’ actually means however is subject to debate, however it may be argued that Article 9 of the Bill of Rights relates to the Parliamentary work of MP’s in representing their constituents, not the methods employed for achieving these means, as such an application (which would cover applications for expenses) would condone corruption, the very thing which the Bill was trying to prevent.

This being the case, the individuals facing proceedings can be held to have been acting outside of Parliament and are therefore not protected by privilege and thus ammenable to prosecution.  It would be contrary to public policy and the rule of law if this were not the case – would it be right to permit corruption, fraud and theft occurring within the walls of Westminster on the grounds that it is within the physical confines of Parliament?  If we establish this as a precedent to define the abstract of Article 9, would we by default establish that ANY criminal act committed by an MP within Westminster is subject to privilege?  By this reasoning we would be sanctioning rape, murder and any other hienous act not allowed to the common man, clearly a ridiculous scenario, so why should those concerned argue they are immune from prosecution under the Theft Act?

Has an Offence Been Committed?

The offence of false accounting is defined in section 13 of the Theft Act 1968 as

‘(1) Where a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another,—

(a) destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account or any record or document made or required for any accounting purpose; or

(b) in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such record or document as aforesaid, which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular;

he shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

(2) For purposes of this section a person who makes or concurs in making in an account or other document an entry which is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, or who omits or concurs in omitting a material particular from an account or other document, is to be treated as falsifying the account or document.’

The actus reus of the offence under s.13(1)(b) (governing the use of accounts rather than provision of information – the MP’s submitted their receipts to the relevent authorities, so presumably we know what the money was spent on, so we aren’t looking at an information offence)  is made out by the defendants in this case making use of an account in a misleading, false or deceptive manner for personal (or another’s) gain.  The argument presented against the defendants is that they did not use their expense accounts in the prescribed manner, i.e. to facilitate their acting as MP’s.  In all of the cases raised by the DPP, those concerned have used their accounts for items which were not necessary to their acting on behalf of their constituents.  Try as he might, the infamous Mr Viggers cannot argue that a duck house / island is an authorised use of tax payer’s money (this example is going to be constantly cited because I feel it is the most ridiculous and therefore deserving of constant ridicule, and I disliked intensely the statements and comments Viggers made to the press).  The MP’s have gained from the use of their accounts in this manner as they have enabled the purchase of goods and services with no cost to themselves.

The mens rea for a section 13 (1)(b) offence is dishonesty, intent to cause loss to another and knowledge that the purpose is false or misleading.

The Theft Act does not define what dishonesty is, but it does provide guidance on what it is not in section 2:

1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—

(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or

(b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or

(c) (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

Looking at the above, it takes little skill to know that the MP’s concerned are not protected by these exclusions.  Those who have already made repayments and aren’t being prosecuted likewise would still be dishonest based on section 2.  The only argument which may be raised on their behalf is that they believed they had the right in law to act as they did, however given the circumstances it is unlikely that this would be successful – they knew the system was open to abuse and were acting in a guilty manner in exploiting this loophole.

Intent cause loss to another (the tax payer) is an either or, however it can be argued that this element was present directly – they knew their expenses were paid from the public purse and intentionally utilised this fund.

Finally, the funds were acquired in the knowledge that the accounts were not being used for authorised purpose.  An MP would have to be either incredibly naive or stupid to believe that a duck house was an authorised use of public money.

The offence under section 13 of the Theft Act 1968 can therefore be made out

(note: this is a very brief consideration using only application of statute to skeleton facts and totally devoid of case law.  Because this is a blog, not a law essay.  And I’m busy / lazy.)

Conclusion

And finally…  In the grand tradition of tying up all lose ends and summarising, the MP’s whom the DPP has chosen to prosecute are indeed guilty of a criminal offence (should a jury decide that is the case of course).  The arcane Bill of Rights is no defence or protection for these individuals, as if the court takes a purposive approach to the application of the legislation, it will find that it will find that to protect MP’s from prosecution for criminal acts committed either in a personal or Parliamentary capacity is perverse and in fact contrary to the rule of law, possibly THE overriding constitutional principle (definition of which is uncertain, Dicey being the most respected authority).

Nobody is above the law, not even an MP.

]]> http://antidisestablishmentarianist.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/the-bill-of-rights-1688-or-why-certain-mps-are-still-scum/feed/ 0 antidisestablishmentarianist http://antidisestablishmentarianist.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/formalities-for-gifts-and-trusts/ http://antidisestablishmentarianist.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/formalities-for-gifts-and-trusts/#comments Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:23:22 +0000 antidisestablishmentarianist http://antidisestablishmentarianist.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/formalities-for-gifts-and-trusts/ ]]> … Unit 2: Sub-unit 1 and it’s time to get technical in and equitable way! This follow-up activity takes the form of a problem question examining the correct method of transferring property, either as an outright gift or to form part of a trust. Note this exercise concerns life time giving, I’ll look at wills properly later.

‘Two months ago Peter decided to dispose of his property amongst his friends and relatives, and go and work for a charity in South Anerica. He therefore entered into the following transactions:

1. He transferred his house Greenacres into Alan’s name. He then telephoned Alan and told him to hand over the house to Belinda on her 25th birthday. Alan agreed. [Belinda is 23]

2. He wrote to Edwin as follows:’As you know I am the beneficiary under David’s will. You can have it all.’ [David is still alive]

3. He wrote to Francis as follows: ‘I want you to have my portfolio of quoted shares. George my stockbroker looks after them for me.’ [The shares are registered in George's name as nominee for Peter.] Peter rang George up and told him to transfer the shares.

4. He wrote to Herbert as follows: ‘I want you to have my shares in AB Enterprises Ltd and enclose my certificate and a stock transfer form.’ AB Enterprises Ltd is a private company. The directors have refused to register Herbert as shareholder, as they are entitled to do so under AB Enterprises Ltd’s constitution.

5. He made a will leaving ‘all my estate’ to the RSPCA.

Peter has just realised the full enormity of what he has done and wishes to recover all his property.

Advise him.’

In order to successfully transfer legal or equitable interest in a property, the individual making the transfer must follow the correct formalities appropriate to that type of property, but also the rules governing the type of transfer (an outright gift or creation of a trust for instance).

1. Transaction: Gift

For a gift to be valid:
1) the donor must have the mental capacity to make such a gift
2) the donor must have intended the gift, manifested by words or conduct
3) the property must be transferred in the correct manner.

Subject: Property – Greenacres
The only way in which land may be transferred is by is by deed, any other conveyance will be void (Law of Property Act 1925 s52(1)
Any declaration of trust over land must be evidenced in signed writing in accordance with s53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

We do not know Peter’s state of mind, but given he was leaving the country for work purposes and appears to have made complex plans, other than slight nervous anticipation and excitement, he appears to have had full mental capacity. It has been ruled however that where the gift involves the transfer of a donor’s main asset, not only must the donor understand the nature of the transaction and its consequences, but they must do so to a very high degree (Re Beaney [1978] 1 WLR 770). Did Peter fully appreciate that transferring the property to Alan ammounted to a gift? Did Peter fully understand that he would have no interest in or control over Greenacres once this transaction was completed? Given Peter tried to set up a trust (below) after the property had passed, the answer to both these questions would be ‘no’, as Peter believes he still had some control over the property, thus it may be possible to imply he lacked mental capacity to make the gift.
NB Re Beaney involved an elderly woman suffereing from dementia, so in the absence of any medical conditions or duress Peter may still be found to have had mental capacity despite belief evidenced by subsequent action.

It appears the transfer of the property was intentional as Peter actually transferred it to Alan and acknowledged Alan’s ownership of the legal title by phoning him to request Greenacres be held on trust for Belinda. This call may have the effect of implying that what Peter actually inteded was to create a trust in land for Belinda’s benefit with Alan acting as trustee. This event occured after the transaction however and is not clear indication of Peter’s intent at the time of coveyance.

Peter has transferred the property to Alan, however we do not know the manner in which this conveyance occured. If it was managed by any method other than deed, the legal title to the property will not have passed, voiding the transaction and returning the property to Peter. There are no contractual issues involved here as Alan does not appear to have provided valuable consideration for the land.

Peter has also attempted to transfer an equitable interest in the property to Belinda. This is also required to be created by deed to be valid (LPA 1925 s 52(1)).

Peter attempted to create a trust over land in favour of Belinda (who would have an absolute in possession interest contingent upon her reaching the age of 25), however he attempted to do this over the phone. As there is no written evidence of this and Peter may have attempted to declare the trust at a time when he no longer held any interest, legal or equitable, in Greenacres, there is no valid beneficial interest in the property for Belinda and therefore no trust exists.

Summary: if Greenacres was transferred to Alan by deed he will be both the legal and equitable owner as no valid trust over land has been created. The gift will probably be valid unless Peter can successfully establish he lacked mental capacity relying on the rule in Re Beaney.

2. Transaction: Gift
Subject: Expectation under a Will

As beneficiary under a will, Peter has a mere expectancy and as such owns nothing as David is still alive and free to change his will at any point. There is no certainty of any object and therefore there can be no gift. An expectation under a will can however be transferred by contract, however although Peter wrote to Edwina to transfer his expectation it is unlikely that this will constitute a contract and she does not appear to have provided any valid consideration. No transfer has therefore taken place.

3. Transaction: Gift
Subject: Shares
If shares are in a private company they must be transferred by completion of a stock transfer form, signed by transferor and transferee, which is then submitted along with the share certificates to the company. The company will then register the transfer and new owner. The transaction is not complete until the transferee’s name is registered in the Register of Members.

If George has completed the transfer and Francis has been registered as the new owner of the shares, there is nothing Peter can do. If however the process is not completed Peter may instruct George to stop the transaction.

4. Transaction: Gift
Subject: Shares

Peter has taken every effort to transfer the shares to Herbert, having completed the stock transfer form and handed the certificate to Herbert. Herbert has then taken the appropriate action to complete the transaction by sending the documents to the directors of AB Enterprises.

As legal title to shares does not pass until the new owner is registered on the Register of Members and the directors of AB Enterprises have refused to do this, the shares are still in Peter’s name and the gift is imperfect.

It may however be argued that the every effort rule applies (i.e. The transferor has done all he can to effect the transfer – Milroy v Lord) and as such following the rule in Re Rose given that Peter hashabded over the stock transfer form and share certificate this will be the case. Equitable interest in the shares will therefore have passed to Herbert, but Peter will remain the legal owner, holding on a constructive trust. Peter will therefore have to vote as instructed by Herbert and account any dividends to him.

5. Transaction: Gift in Will
Subject: Peter’s Estate

As Peter is still alive the RSPCA have only an expectancy under the will and hold no interest in Peter’s estate. Peter is therefore free to ter his will at any point before death and owes no obligation to the charity.

1. Why do you think Richard Green decided to create a trust for Sarah as opposed to making her a sole legal owner by giving her the property outright?

At the date of creation, Sarah was 13, this Richard may not have thought it appropriate that she own such large sums of money and valuable property (£10,000 cash, 5,000 RBS shares and 2,000 Tesco shares). The trust also contains a provision granting the trustee discretion as to the application of income to provide for Sarah’s maintenance and education (clause 4), so a secondary concern may have been to provide a source of financial support throughout Sarah’s adolescence. The primary stated objective however is tax planning as creating a trust of the property in his life time means Richard avoids the burden of inheritance tax provided he outlives the creation of the trust by seven years.

2. What steps did Richard Green take to create the trust?

Richard Green will most likely primarily have instructed a solicitor to advise on the matter and create the declaration of trust.
He will have then identified the intended beneficiary (Sarah Green) and named the appointed trustee (Robert Fox).
He identifies three different assets which legal titles must be transferred to the trustee following the correct formalities:

1) £10,000

Cash may be transfered by correctly completed cheque or physically, with the express intention that it is not to be a gift to the recipient but is intended for the benefit of a clearly identified beneficiary (Sarah).

2) 5,000 RBS Shares

The formalities for transferring shares vary based on whether they are within the CREST system. As RBS is a private company (?) the shares fall outside CREST a proper transfer constitutes the transferor (Richard Green) signing a stock transfer form, delivering the completed stock transfer form and share certificate to the transferee (Robert Fox) who then sends both documents to the company (RBS) to be registered. Legal title does not pass until registration is complete.

3) 2,000 Tesco plc shares

As Tesco is a public company, its shares fall within the CREST system so transfer is electronic and immediate upon the transferror instructing transfer.

Richard will then have decided on the type of trust to be created (fixed trust), the nature of the beneficiary’s interest (vested in possession absolute) and any powers he wished the trustee to have (discretion as to maintenance and education).

The declaration of trust will then have been drawn up, signed, witnessed and delivered as a deed by the settlor (Richard Green) and trustee (Robert Fox) and the property transferred as above.

3. What is the trust property?

£10,000 cash
5,000 RBS shares
2,000 Tesco shares

And any interest accruing from such and any additional property transferred to the trust fund (clause 1.1).

4. Who owns the legal and equitable interest in the trust property?

Robert Fox as trustee holds the legal title and interest in the trust property (once Richard has transferred it to him), however Sarah Green as beneficiary will hold the equitable interest.

5. Sally is 17 years of age. Identify the nature of her benficial interest from the choice below:

VESTED / CONTINGENT
IN POSSESSION / IN REMAINDER
ABSOLUTE / LIMITED

As Sally is not identified as a beneficiary in the declaration of trust, she has no interest under the trust. The manual probably means Sarah, who’s interest is:

VESTED as although she is a minor (under 18) and unable to give good receipt, she has an absolute entitlement to the trust property which would pass to her personal estate should she not attain adulthood.

IN POSSESSION as she is entitled to the trust property now, not after another beneficiary has enjoyed their share of it.

ABSOLUTE as Sarah is entitled to all the trust property (capital as well as income).

6. Does the settlor have any say in the running of the trust?

The settlor may only exercise control over the trust by clearly stating his terms and intentions relating to the property in the declaration of trust. Once the trust is correctly constituted and legal title to the property has passed to the trustee, the settlor no longer has any interest, legal or equitable, and as such (unless he has named himself as a trustee or beneficiary) no longer has any say in the running of the trust unless they have reserved control by an appropriate provision in the trust instrument.

7. The document refers to ‘income of the Trust Fund’. The word ‘income’ describes the receipt of money which is regular or recurring as opposed to a one-off payment. For example, a person’s salary is income. The profit made on the sale of a house is more in the nature of a one-off payment and is capital (unless that person is a builder and sells houses all the time).
From general knowledge can you explain what the income from £10,000 and company shares is likely to comprise?

The income on the property in Sarah’s trust is likely to comprise any standard interest paid by the bank on the £10,000 and usual dividends paid on the shares. Proceeds from the sale of shares are capital.

8. What benefits might Sarah receive as the beneficiary?

As beneficiary of the trust prior to attaining 18 years of age, Sarah may, if the trustee thinks fit, receive cash to pay for her education or items required for her general maintenance from the trust income. Once age is 18, Sarah is entitled to the entire Trust Fund and may request the trustee to transfer legal title to her at which point she will have the full (equitable and legal) interest of the property and do with it as she pleases as an outright owner.

‘Dae nine hoon’red and who gives a rat’s in the Palace of Westmeenster and Bob has submitted a receipt for a Crunchie’

The Telegraph’s scooptastic exclusive shot itself in the foot on day one by revealing all the juicy bits, the moat cleaning, plasma tv’s and duck houses in one fell swoop, leaving only the snacks and stationary ‘theft’ to shock and titillate on slow news days.  Ok, so George Osborne may or may not have done some flipping to avoid capital gains tax, but he’s not the first and won’t be the last, and the mass saturation has led to apathy and fatigue.

‘Politicians are corrupt money grabbing freeloaders, and it’s all Blair’s fault!’ Please, tell us something we don’t know.  Oh, it isn’t Tony’s fault by the way, former speaker Michael Martin was playing the system way back in the ’80′s when he was a humble backbencher.

Given the fiasco and furore, perhaps it would make sense for MP’s to have a fixed income to cover the costs associated with their position, based on affordability to the taxpayer, and no expenses.  The primary consideration of these individuals after all is meant to be the welfare of their constituents – first rule of politics; give the people what they want.  Except this has been modified in recent times to ‘give the people what they think they want’.  And who decides this? Why the politicians of course!

If we force MP’s to focus on their political duties only, creating career politicians, this will be even more prevalent than now.  A politician who’s sole aim is to remain in his position thus avoiding the dole queue has potential to lie, cheat and swindle to maintain his seat.  The system may become more accountable, but only if those involved are honest, and we all know very few people are capable of that once they gain even a modicum of power.

The argument against MP’s having jobs is that they distract from their constituency duties.  This may be true of the lawyers – how can you prep a case and remain fully available? – but there are some cases where having a job in your constituency can actually created greater contact with the people, increase accountability and also re-build the bond which has been lost.

Of course, it goes without saying second jobs should be just that, secondary to Parliamentary commitments, and should be in the community served, not on the board of an influential company seeking to lobby.  But what is the main function of this debate?  To distract attention from *drum roll* THE EXPENSES SCANDAL!!!

Next on the list of un-bloggable news: F1.  It all kicked off in the leads up to Silverstone, FOTA vs. the FIA, Mosley vs. Briatore.  And just when you thought it was over, the Mosley / Ferrari sideshow rolled into town.  As things stand nobody knows if Max will indeed step down after his term as FIA President finishes, or will stand again, or if the rumours that he will, in a Putin-esque move install a carefully chosen successor in the form of Jean Todt.  The usually diplomatic Bernie Ecclestone (whodat? the F1 commercial rights holder, i.e. the head honcho) has this weekend waded into the quagmire with a potentially controversial Times  interview (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article6633340.ece for more info).

My favorite opinion (aside from Hitler possibly being a good leader – he did solve the Wiemar Republic problem after all, just a shame about the rest) is below;

“We did a terrible thing when we supported the idea of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He was the only one who could control that country. It was the same [with the Taleban[sic]]. We move into countries and we have no idea of the culture. The Americans probably thought Bosnia was a town in Miami. There are people starving in Africa and we sit back and do nothing but we get involved in things we should leave alone.”

Let’s contextualise for a moment – Bernie means Iraq was a mistake because we’ve made the country more unstable, not that Saddam was an ‘alright kinda guy’. He may have governed by fear, but the country was working.

And the Max for PM comments are all old hat, Mosley had considered a political career as a Tory in the past, but didn’t get a seat.  Bernie, despite being a Blairite, has Thatcherite leanings (or perhaps the two are a natural marriage), and isn’t against democracy, but against its corruption and like many is angry with the current situation.  Unfortunately he isn’t the most eloquent and does not mince his words, hence the outcry against him for flippant comments taken out of context.  What would be interesting? The full interview transcript.

Say what you like about him, grumpy old man, capitalist, fascist sympathiser, the man is incredibly intelligent.  How so?  By inciting opinion against himself with the carefully selected tit-bits in Ed Gorman’s piece, Bernie has distracted media glare from the 2010 controversy.

Oh, and in other news, Iran had an election.  A man won.  A lot of people don’t like the declared winner.  And a popular movement led by the students has sprung up to depose him.  Potentially a huge comment piece.  But there’s a but, and it’s a big BUT, a J-Lo sized B-U-T!

WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION!!!

As such I refuse to pass comment either way, other than to say that the response is perhaps out of proportion and I don’t like some of the things being said, but without knowing the bigger picture, who am I to throw around words such as illegitimate, undemocratic and dictator?

And finally…

A man died.  He used to make music.  But had not produced any new material in over a decade.  He had a talent and a troubled childhood, followed by a difficult adulthood.  But he was NOT perfect, he was NOT the light and the day.  He was a man.  Who touched a lot of people.  But a man nonetheless.  And he is dead and has been for over a week.  ”Man Still Dead” is not news.  ”Man Rises From Grave in Red Suit and does a Dance” is news.  But as that’s not going to happen, let’s leave it alone and let the family grieve and move on.

The Angles were always here, and they were white.  So were the Saxons, and they were white too.  [can we do that? nobody really knows where they came from, right?  somebody check they're not German or black please.]

The vikings were tone-deaf drunken yobs, and [insert Great British hero here subs please] was white.

The Normans were cheese eating surrender monkeys, and Alfred was white.

The kings of England are great and British and white.  Look at what evil illegal immigrants have done to our great nation with their religious fundamentalism, lack of culture and strange food!  Britainfor the British!

And the Reasonable Person says:

Sitting on the top deck of the Clapham omnibus I must say that Nick Griffin is most clearly completely off his deluded fascist rocker!

And for those who want more BNP history, visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKuGrkBPf-s I especially like the Shakespeare verse, given one of his greatest heroes (Othello) is BLACK!!!

I was desperately hoping this madness was all a hoax, but in the spirit of the Landover Baptists, this is a crazy truth of modern prejudice.  And as any fool do know the best way to influence adults is to target their kids, that’s where the Hitler youth sprang from.

Freedom of expression is a basic human right, but it’s qualified by the reasonable criteria of not inciting violence or hatred or causing others harm.  Somebody needs to stop this before the minds of an entire generation are poisoned beyond recognition.

http://youth.bnp.org.uk/

And incidentally, it’s England for the English, Britain is an artificial concept .

It is entirely unacceptable that these events / this information have come to light and Parliament is in desperate need of reform to ensure the taxpayer is no longer abused / never finds out what we’re up to in the same way again.

I / We  will / will not be repaying the money I claimed / borrowed / am entitled to for my furniture / holiday home / duck island and am deeply sorry for any offence caused / think you’re all just jelous.

I  / We will be canvassing constituency support over the bank holiday and may step down if they wish  [ha ha...]

I / We promise events such as these will never happen again [we shall reform freedom of information rules and make Article 8 Human Rights Act 1998 an unqualified right].

I / We remind the electorate that nobody broke any laws and the court of public opinion is not legally binding.

Contributions from all parties.  Delete as applicable.

n. – Originally applied to those opposed to the withdrawal of state support for the church (specifically the Anglican church in nineteenth century England) .   Establishment – the ecclesiastical system established by law, hence ‘establishmentarianism’.  Disestablishment – to withdraw state patronage.

Now the root of this word (antidisestablishmentarianism) is used only as a faux witticism by cheeky school children and pub landlords trying to be clever come quiz time, as one of the longest words in the English language.

I propose a re-taking of the word, appropriate to modern times, as a descriptor for an emerging political class.  established political categories are communists, socialists, liberals, moderates, conservatives (with a small ‘c’), fascists and anarchists.  Each has its pros cons, but increasingly fail to adequately describe the electorate, or indeed the political parties falling within their boundaries.

Take Tony Blair’s New Labour for example.   Labour had, up until that point, been an historically socialist party, but with Blair’s re-branding in the nineties, shifted slightly to the right of centre, hanging on the cusp of conservatism.  This forced many to reconsider their political allegiances, and while there are those who still vote Tory for no better reason than deferentiality, many others have begun looking at party values and policies, comparing them with their own.

This new classification free (or ‘representative’) politics was all going swimmingly until some reciepts found their way into the public domain…

Now, we have a problem.  The party which represents you best, the MP you put your faith in to do the right thing, has in fact been royally screwing you over while criticising fat cattery in the city and the lack of morality we’ve all developed (perhaps as a result of disestablishment).  Turns out Westminster’s moral compass is more than a little faulty.

So, we have an establishment which is corrupt and many are now calling to be dissolved (led of course by the tabloid brigade).  MP’s are all corrupt apparently, so let’s overhaul the system.  This sort of disestablishmentperhaps goes too  far, there’s nothing wrong with our system of government per sae, it’s more the attitudes of modern times, the ‘I wants’ and the ‘I’m entitleds’, the next evolutionary step from the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’.

I’ve found myself floating in a political wilderness since the beginning of this century and the outbreak of war in Iraq and Afghanistan (what is the correct title for that conflict by the way?).  I have always identified with Labour policies, and was a card carrying party member for a time, but the government (establishment) has let me down in many ways, not just with a war I cannot condone, but with odd EU policies and the gradual privatisation of many public services (NHS) to name a few.  But I still identify most closely with their values.  I don’t want a reversion (disestablishment) to ‘old’ Labour, it simple doesn’t work in the modern world (we’re all capitalists now).  I am therefore against those who are against the establishment (anti-disestablishment), but that does not mean I am wholeheartedly in support of the establishment, yet I’m not apathetic, more disillusioned.

I therefore class myself an antidisestablishmentarianist as, although I believe Gordon Brown is not fit for duty, the Labour party have failed their core support and our current political system is too open to corruption, I cannot condone the attitudes of those who would away with the entirety on a whim, so creating a vacuum.

When the election comes, which it will next year (I am taking the role of mystic mog), as no matter how angry we are with our MP’s behaving badly, forced administration change mid recession, especially to a party which has no clue what it’s policies are week to week (obviously I mean the Torries, the Lib Dems are good, but nobody sees them as ‘real’ opposition, so they won’t get a majority)would be a disaster.  We need continuity in times of crisis and to begin a recovery.  Fair enough, things could get a lot worse, but let’s inject some reality into the hysteria of recent apocalyptic plague ridden doom-mongering – the most likely outcome of an ‘early’ election will be a hung Parliament, one with a minority government, or a forced coalition, and those things rarely if ever turn out well.

So to all fellow antidisestablishmentarianists, both Labour, Conservative and the floating voters on the verge of apathy, do not fall into the trap of  simplicity, calling for politics to be guilotined, instead step up, find someone who represents you best, and support our political system, because that is not the broken establishment.