When satire becomes news...

The following is a screenshot of discussions flying around Facebook and Twitter about a video that was posted on the Onion three years ago that has resurfaced and people now think is real.

To see more of the discussion click here.

A brilliant illustration of when amusing political satire and stupid people on teh Interweb collides.

Commons refuses to disclose information.... again

As many will recall, in the wake of the "Expenses Scandal" many MPs chose to step down from Parliament at the May's General Election. Many will also recall that the issue fo expenses came about largely due to the Freedom of information campaigning by Heather Brooke and the fact that the House of Commons fought tooth and nail to avoid disclosing the information, and then, when it was eventually leaked, the roof came falling in.

One of the things that had many people up in arms was not however the more outlandish claims that some members made, but also the fact that as they were stepping down they would all receive a nice little Golden Goodbye in the form of a resettlement grant, which is calculated based length of service and detailed in a table in the Green Book.

However, the grant is not something former MPs get automagically. They still have to make an official application for the grant using one of the many forms that Parliament has. So who made applications for the grant from public money and how much did they receive? Who knows?

Well the House of Commons does but they've decided you're not allowed to know because it would be a breach of the Data Protection Act, at least that's was their argument when responding to an FoI on the matter.

We have concluded that this information is exempt from the disclosure. We can confirm that this information is held by the House of Commons.

However, your request for this information is refused. This information is exempt by virtue of section 40 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the exemption for personal information), as disclosure of this information to the public generally, in the House’s view, would not be consistent with data protection principles in the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

In particular, it cannot be disclosed without contravening the first principle as none of the relevant conditions for the processing of personal data are satisfied. This is an absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply.

Now there may be some that agree with this, after all, the people receiving the money are not MPs and are actually "former" MPs (alternatively Joe Public). However, given so many stood down after expenses scandals, and given that came about after the House and its members consistently tried to block the information being released, isn't the claim that the "public interest test does not apply" at least partly, if not wholly, bollocks?

There are currently three former MPs awaiting trial on allegations of false accounting after the whole expenses saga, doesn't the public have a right to know whether they have been given more taxpayers money since leaving? What's more don't we have a right to know in general which MPs have received public funds as a goodbye present?

Update: A former researcher has been in touch to note that I;m being unfair and that the resettlement grant money is used by former MPs to make redundancy payments to their staff, and is not pocketed entirely by them. Whilst I understand this, I still think that knowing how much was actually paid to each former MP shouldn't be withheld. How they spend it is their private business, but how much they receive, if any, isn't.

What a logo....

Wonder how much it cost and whether the people that did it also wear white pointy hats whilst burning crosses in the evening?
Logo at Speed Staffing LLC via imgur.com

If only.....

From Hansard,

Jonathan Edwards: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he made of the merits of making the content of the Your Freedom website available in languages other than English.

The Deputy Prime Minister: The goal of Your Freedom is to allow as many people as possible to contribute their ideas and comments in a cost-effective way. An assessment was made of translating the content into other languages but all options considered were felt to be disproportionately expensive.

Oh how I wish Clegg had just said "We didn't do it in Welsh for the same reason that the majority of your own website isn't in Welsh."

Would never happen though.

Chchch.....change!

Daily Mail (Associated Press) - 20th July 2010



Evening Standard (Associated Press) - 19th March 2007



Conclusions:

1. They've been talking about it for years but not actually done it.
2. They did it, spent it, and within 3 years a further £400 million materialised from the ether.
3. The figure is completely made up by the press/civil service/aliens.
4. There has not been a change of Government but instead a change of reptilian humanoids after a particularly vicious power struggle on the mothership hiding behind the moon.

You decide (or add further ones)

Did you know.....

The free snuff provided to Members and House officers in a box located in the Principal Doorkeepers chair costs a massive £6 per tin and they've bought 4 tins over the past 8 years out of the Serjeant at Arms' petty cash.

Consumers of said snuff are not known but I guess if you see any MPs sneezing a lot you can assume they've been shoveling something up their nose - might not be snuff though.

Source: FoI response on 'what do they know'

Gordon Cameron's Big Social Investment Society Bank

So David Cameron is relaunching the Big Society™ today, which may yet become the 21st Century equivalent of Tony Blair's Third Way™ - that being a bland, pointless and utterly vaccuous phrase. The Big Society™ has certainly started off well in mimicing the world brougt to us by Tony Blair.

For a start, it's been announced and re-announced three times now, and, even better, one of the core announcements today on using unclaimed assets in dormant bank accounts for community porject has been announced not once, not twice but at least three times before by the last Government, and guess what, the Tories were against it when it was first announced in 2005, well... sort of.

So, back in 2005, Gordon Brown, as the then Chancellor, said he was going to use money in dormant bank accounts and give it to community projects. The Tories attacked it, quite rightly, on the issue of whether it was even legal to seize the funds from people's dormant bank accounts.

This was, in fact, a Labour party 2005 manifesto commitment which stated “We will work with the financial service industry to reunite assets or channel them into the community." Oh yes, the Tories didn't seem to think there was a legal issue at that election either as they promised to "use the unclaimed assets of banks and other financial institutions to replenish the pension funds of people who lose out when a scheme fails."

Gordon Brown returned to the subject in 2006, again as Chancellor, in his budget pledging to damn well take the money. A few months later we had a consultation paper from the Commission on Unclaimed Assets (headed by Grodon's mate Ronnie Cohen) which proposed a “Social Investment Bank”, then Brown announced in his Pre-Budget Report that a consultation paper would be released on the idea.

Another year later, Gordon Brown announced in his Budget... wait for it... the release of a consultation paper on the idea. Finally, by November 2008, we had Royal Assent of the Legalised Theft from Bank Accounts Bill The Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill.

And now, we reach today, 2010, and we have, yes that's right, the proposals for a "Big Society Bank" which is, in no way whatsoever the same thing as a “Social Investment Bank”, which will use money from dormant bank accounts to fund community projects.

As New Labour repackaged the Youth Training Scheme and called it the New Deal, so the Tories have repackaged something the last Government did and given it a new name.

Plus ça change. New Politics. Lalalalalalala. Can you pass me a sick bucket and a razor please?

Another day, another legal high story *yawn*

I see the issue of "legal highs" has reared its head.... again and at the same time every chemical fanboi out there slaps their head in their hands and asks "when are they going to realise that sometimes people just like to get high?"

As some may recall, last August the Government quickly rushed through the banning of certain legal highs, including Benzylpiperazine (BZP) along with other piperazines products, at the time of which I blogged that "no matter what they ban, herbal high producers will just find something else that produces similar effects that hasn't yet been banned"... and so it has come to pass.

The Herbal high Company is already selling a BZP alternative called pink champagne (not to be confused with actual speed of the same name), and numerous other legal products are coming to market all the time. At some point Government is going to get to grips with reality on this.. that being you can't ban everything.

Subtlety

MP spends £39K of *your* money in one day

Written Questions to the Executive are no doubt important, but they also cost money, thus I have but one question in relation to this Early Day Motion tabled by DUP MP, Gregory Campbell and currently supported by his DUP colleagues,

That this House notes the continuing cost to the public purse of hon. Members tabling substantial numbers of written questions; understands the principle behind limiting the number of named day questions which can be submitted on one day; and questions the wisdom of an hon. Member recently tabling wellover[sic] 200 questions on one day, at an estimated cost of £149 per answer and incurring a cost to the public purse in excess of £39,000.

Who is the "hon. Member" in question and can we get him/her to pay some of it back?