Palrimentary procedure

make that Parliamentary

Far too many pork pies it seems. Oh well, it will keep Melton Mowbray busy!

Notes for any puzzled readers:
Melton Mowbray is a town in England famous as a source of excellent pork pies.
‘Pork pies’ is rhyming ls rhyming slang for lies (sometimes reduced to ‘porkies’).
Finally, Josh is becoming known, in some circles over here at least, as the best cartoonist the world has ever seen …

What’s “the principle of Parliamentary privelege?” The right to misinform Parliament when in a good cause? Or the right to misinform everyone not in Parliament?

PPP=Principle of Parliamentary Privilege=the Postponing of People Poo, or, basically, “Yer covered, Vicar, lie away!”

“Recently Anthony Inglese, general counsel and solicitor, HMRC, was appearing before the public accounts committee………..Having finally lost patience with Inglese, the committee’s chair, Labour MP Margaret Hodge, told him: We are taking an unusual step. It is a power we have. From here onwards were going to examine you on oath.”
“The Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Act 1871 “empowers the House of Commons and its committees to administer oaths to witnesses, and attaches to false evidence the penalties of perjury”.
“A power not lost on Hodge, who told Inglese: “I’m no lawyer, but having taken the oath you don’t want to give answers that are incorrect, as you might find yourself with the accusation of having committed perjury.”
“Hodge’s decision could lead other committee chairs to consider whether to force their witnesses to give evidence under oath.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/07/public-accounts-committee-swear-bible_n_1080708.html
“Witnesses who lie to MPs while giving evidence to parliamentary committees may face criminal charges, the government has indicated.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/12/15/lying-to-parliament-may-become-a-criminal-offence_n_1150426.html

I’m not an expert on parliamentary procedure but I think parliamentary privalige in the UK only applies to Members of either chamber When speaking within the Palace of Westminster. It doesn’t apply to mere mortals like me when I happen to be at the Palace.
Maybe Ed is thinking above his station here and doesn’t realise that his is also a fully paid up member of the proletariat.

If I remember correctly, parliamentary privilege belongs primarily to members (of either house) for remarks made in the course of their business in Westminster – so the truth can out and they can’t be sued for eg libel. This can be jolly good for their constituents, to correct injustice.
This is extended to witnesses to committees, for the same reason. So the truth will out.
BUT! if you decide as a witness to mislead the House, then they can promptly fine you (not done since the seventeenth century) or imprison you (on the spot – no judges involved). Imprisonment has been done in more recent times. These days one of the select committees (Privileges?) would decide what to do, and the whole house would vote yea or nay.
Fundamentally, if you deceive the House it can turn round and smite you instantly. No appeal.

Perhaps ‘Alimentary Procedure’ would apply better?!! Parliament (or Congress) provides the funding ‘nourishment’ to the global warming gluttons…. and we are expected to appreciate, even revere, the plethora of crap science and ‘impending doom’ flatulence they produce.
“It’s alimentary, my Dear Watson!”

Tony McGough says:
May 10, 2012 at 11:37 am
………..
Well said Mr.McGough. That pretty well tallies, as best as I remember, with what I was taught at school in London as a ten or eleven year old back in the nineteenforties. Things have changed a great deal in the meantime. These days the schools don’t seem to be able to teach children to read, let alone teach them nuggets of constitutional law.

Canadian Parliament
Freedom of speech permits Members to speak freely in the Chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they might make.[156] This freedom is essential for the effective working of the House. Under it, Members are able to make statements or allegations about outside bodies or persons, which they may hesitate to make without the protection of privilege. Though this is often criticized, the freedom to make allegations which the Member genuinely believes at the time to be true, or at least worthy of investigation, is fundamental. The House of Commons could not work effectively unless its Members were able to speak and criticize without having to account to any outside body. There would be no freedom of speech if everything had to be proven true before it were uttered. In ruling on a question of privilege in 1984, Speaker Bosley affirmed that “the privilege of a Member of Parliament when speaking in the House or in a committee is absolute, and that it would be very difficult to find that any statement made under the cloak of parliamentary privilege constituted a violation of that privilege”.[157]
This right is also extended to individuals who appear before the House or its committees in order to encourage truthful and complete disclosure, without fear of reprisal or other adverse actions as a result of their testimony. In 2005, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the testimony of parliamentary witnesses fell within the scope of parliamentary privilege because it is necessary for the functioning of Parliament for three reasons: “to encourage witnesses to speak openly before the Parliamentary committee, to allow the committee to exercise its investigative function and, in a more secondary way, to avoid contradictory findings of fact”.[158]
In 2007, the Federal Court again upheld that a witness’s testimony before a House committee is protected by parliamentary privilege:
[A]lthough witnesses before a parliamentary committee are not Members of Parliament, they are not strangers to the House either. Rather they are guests who are afforded parliamentary privilege because, as with members, the privilege is necessary to ensure that they are able to speak openly, free from the fear that their words will be used against them in subsequent proceedings ….
http://www.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/Document.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&sbdid=ABBC077A-6DD8-4FBE-A29A-3F73554E63AA&sbpid=8D1FB681-EBE9-49E7-A752-37CF494854CB
Example
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/dubin-inquiry

Bob [May 10, 2012 at 11:54 am] says:
“Catastrophiliac,catastrophiles and catastrophobes.”

I really like catastrophobes. I’ll be using that. Thank you.

Speaking of Gore, Suzuki etal,
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/09/when-inconvenient-wind-blows-strobel
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/07/dinosaurs-blown-away-by-own-farts-say-researchers

In the Hypocracy that the UK has become, this is , of course, fully acceptable!

This is a copy of what I posted at Climate Audit earlier about Parliamentary Privilege. US readers probably have a different, but related system. I’d be interested to hear about the differences, if any. It is not often that I get to be an expert at WUWT, but this is something I know inside out. Here we go:
It is quite common for Ministers’ speeches and answers to questions about legislation to be used in the courts to help to clarify what the intention of the legislation is. But that has nothing to do with PP.
Under the doctrine of PP, anything said by a Member of Parliament during parliamentary proceedings is absolutely immune from any external civil or criminal action. The Parliament is expected to discipline its own members. With regard to witness testimony before Committees, as was explained above, sometimes the testimony is covered by PP and sometimes it isn’t.
However, even if testimony (or something an MP admits to) is covered by PP, that doesn’t preclude outside authorities from making inquiries if they believe a crime has been committed, or people suing if they believe that they have been wronged civilly. They just can’t use, or refer to in any way, what was said under PP when presenting their case in a court or tribunal. An MP can’t admit to murder in Parliament under privilege and be immune from prosecution because of it. But the admission has no legal standing if the MP is subsequently charged.
PP is not a get out of jail free card.
I hope that clarifies things.
—————————————————
What this comment doesn’t cover is that Parliament has significant powers to deal with anyone who lies to it (imprisonment or fines). The trouble is, if they did that, it would raise the question of why MPs who lie to the Parliament do not get the same treatment.

For those who are interested: A sitting Senator or Representative cannot be sued for anything he/she says while in chambers. This protection is gone when they step out of chamber.

Contempt of Parliament
264. Contempts comprise any conduct (including words) which improperly interferes, or is intended or likely improperly to interfere, with the performance by either House of its functions, or the performance by a member or officer of the House of his duties as a member or officer.[300] The scope of contempt is broad, because the actions which may obstruct a House or one of its committees in the performance of their functions are diverse in character. Each House has the exclusive right to judge whether conduct amounts to improper interference and hence contempt. The categories of conduct constituting contempt are not closed. The following is a list of some types of contempt:
[includes…]
— deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)
— deliberately publishing a false or misleading report of the proceedings of a House or a committee
Penalties: the present position
271. Historically the power to adjudge a contempt is linked to the power to commit to prison.[313] In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries committal to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, or to prison, was a regular punishment. The House of Commons has power to imprison until the end of the current parliamentary session, however long or short that may be. The House of Lords has power to imprison indefinitely.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4310.htm