British politicians allowed to censor details of their claims for expenses
The farcical British Labour Party reaction to revelations about illegitimate use of expense accounts by their members of parliament:
"Members will this week be shown copies of thousands of receipts and other documents due to be published under the Freedom of Information Act. They will be invited to redact the documents, blacking out information they do not want to disclose.
The Commons is spending thousands of pounds paying security-cleared specialist contractors to remove any sensitive information like bank details from receipts.
But even after the contractors have vetted the documents, MPs will review their claims and make further changes of their own. Harriet Harman, the Leader of the Commons, says the redaction process is harmless and necessary to preserve the privacy of MPs.
But the editing process has raised fears that MPs will use the opportunity to keep some information secret and even to delay the whole publication, which is supposed to take place this summer.
Source
6 comments:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Allowing MPs to redact information from reports ostensibly being produced to indict those MPs is the height of irony.
It also sets a precedent that assures corruption and malfeasance for generations to come!
Good Job, Britain!
Censorship is a right to those in power.
Unfortunately in the USA, censorship is actively practiced by supposed free media. CNN and ABC/NBC/CBS routinely give Obama spokespersons a pass in interviews and fail to ask follow up questions. Questions like "If Mexico has no right to own a weapon for self defense, why has this not contributed to a safer Mexican society?"
In the US, censorship is based on an un-curious and lazy journalistic media
Spending of public funds is not a "private" matter. If they do not want public inspection of their expenses, then they can spend their own money!
Spending of public funds is not a "private" matter. If they do not want public inspection of their expenses, then they can spend their own money!
What happens in the £1000-a-night hooker's bedroom stays in the Parlament's "to be shredded" bin!
Considering I'm referring to Brit politicians this comment is not gender specific!
Hum... this is somewhat worrying but at the same time I can see a legitimate use for it.
Parliment is sovereign and, so long as it acts constitutionally or otherwise as permitted by law, is judge of its own processes. What happens within parliament is not to be questioned elsewhere.
I agree completely that use of public money implies public scrutiny but I can also see security implications. If, for example, a high-profile Minister regularly entertains at a particular restaurant/hotel etc on regular dates then you could understand why that information might be sensitive and highly valued by those who may wish to do harm.
Post a Comment