38 Degrees Logo38 Degrees Logo 38 Degrees Logo

Gagging law: it’s over, for now.

January 29th, 2014 by

Yesterday, the gagging law, more formally known as the Transparency of Lobbying Bill, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (now Act), cleared its final hurdle in Parliament. It’s now on its way to getting royal assent and becoming law.

This is a message sent from 38 Degrees Executive Director David Babbs to every single 38 Degrees member, immediately after the final two votes (on the range of activity counted towards a spending cap in any single constituency, and on whether staff costs count towards total spend) were lost in the House of Lords:

I wanted to let you know straight away. I’m afraid we lost the gagging law vote in the House of Lords this evening. That’s it – it’s going to become law.

It couldn’t have been closer. On the final vote, 245 Lords voted in favour and 245 against. Unfortunately the rules mean that in the case of a tie, the government gets its way.

Personally I feel pretty devastated about this. I’m worried about what it means for the future of 38 Degrees. More importantly, I’m worried about what it means for the future of democracy, and what it tells us about the state of British politics.

But I also feel proud of everything 38 Degrees members did together to fight this. I hope you do too.

There will be a lot of thinking and discussion to be done in the coming days. 38 Degrees members will need to pull together to think about how to fight this terrible law. And we’ll need to work out how we can keep standing up for all we believe in – despite the restrictions the government is trying to impose.

But right now, I feel sure of one thing. We won’t give up.

Sorry I’m not emailing with better news, and thank you for everything you’ve done,

David

PS: 38 Degrees members are discussing the outcome on Facebook. You can join in at https://www.facebook.com/peoplepowerchange

Here’s some of the comments so far:

Peter: I am Spartacus. Who’s with me?

Zoë: sad news, let’s keep fighting to change it

Kirsty: The government shouldn’t even be allowed to vote on something like this…. it should be a vote left to the general public. Of course the government want us mute so this is no surprise

Peter: I strongly believe there should now be a coordinated campaign of civil disobedience. During the election campaign, all those organisations that stood against this atrocious and illiberal legislation should simply ignore it and campaign as usual. Maybe with a campaign fund set up to help defend the smaller organisations.

Liz: Gradually democracy is being eroded. The arrogance of this government is beyond belief.

Today is a difficult day. After a wonderful, uplifting, broad-based, people-powered campaign lasting six months, characterized by one of the broadest coalitions of civil society ever to work together in the UK, today the Bill is law.

But once the dust has settled, hopefully there will be as much pride as there is anger and sadness. Together, 38 Degrees members and hundreds of organisations supported by hundreds of thousands of people, made a catastrophic law better. It’s still a bad law, but here are the fixes we won:

  1. We changed potentially ruinous joint spending rules for organisations working in coalition to exclude small-spending organisations (Amd. 39)
  2. We got some costs excluded from spending that counts towards the new spending caps:
    • translation into Welsh (Amd. 44)
    • disability access (Amd. 44)
    • safety and security measures (Amd. 43)
    • NI parades (Amd. 42)
    • Volunteer costs (Amd. 44)
  3. We raised the minimum spend threshold, after which you have to register with the Electoral Commission and take on a whole lot more red tape, to £20,000 from £10,000 in England, and to £10,000 from £5,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Amd. 46)
  4. We raised the overall spending limit in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by £20,000 each, bringing the new caps there to: (Amd. 47)
    • Scotland: £55,000 (from proposed £35,000)
    • Wales: £44,000 (from proposed £24,000)
    • NI: £31,000 (from proposed £11,000)
  5. Reduced the period for which the law is applicable before the 2015 General Election from 1 year to 7.5 months (Amd. 30-35)
  6. Won a review of all the rules that apply to organisations campaiging during elections, due to happen after the 2015 General Election (Amd. 118)
  7. Got rid of proposed spending caps in individual constituencies for the time period between Parliament dissolves and the General Election happens (Amd. 53)
  8. Got rid of some of the worst new proposed red tape and reporting requirements for organisations registering with the Electoral Commission – these would have been particularly hard for small organisations with limited budgets and staff to comply with (Amd. 50 & Amd. 5)

That’s truly something to be proud of.

The exact implications of the Act on campaigning organisations and local groups across the country (and on 38 Degrees!) won’t be known until the Electoral Commission produces its guidance on how it should be implemented and enforced. There are some marshalled case studies of projected implications for organisations here.

And here’s a wonderful video of 38 Degrees members across the country meeting MPs (some of whom then switched their votes!) throughout the course of the campaign. Watch it. I defy you not to feel pride and hope.

Posted in 38 Degrees Blog Posts, Gagging law

Tags:

  • John

    Sickening. Diaspora needed. Entrepreneurs are needed to design self-contained, self funded units to operate during the 7.5 months during which this sickening government thinks it is fire-proof, during which they will tell the most lies, during which they will be fully open to business lobbyists.

  • chris

    cant we ask the queen not to sign it? or is that a long shot?

  • anna collins

    so sorry it has taken such devastating news for me to make a financial committment to the best organisation and in politics in the UK today.
    The alienation of the majority of people borders on criminal at times and espousing democracy to the rest of the world when we have an elected dictatorship who only serve the interests of profit making organisations is beyond words
    the lack of integrity, transparency and accountability in modern political life is frightening. Us plebs have solutions to matters regarding sustainable develeopemnt and equitable distribution of resources however it appears that the Lords have adopted the same position as the goverment and not done the responsible thing and have faith in human nature. Instead pessimistic realists who believe everyone is greedy and just out for themselves continue to dominate political thinking

  • Susie Who

    245 both-ways-tie . . . . Surely, on the understanding that
    this vote was regarding the voice-of-the-people
    - then under such circumstances, it must be legally argued that following this
    tie, the final deciding vote must GO TO THE PEOPLE, at least in the form of a
    referendum. It is not for a ‘democratic’ government to
    decide. That is contradiction!

  • Anonymous

    Absolutely disgusting. This is not a just Gagging Bill-it is an Enabling Act.

  • Thomas

    Have you thought of becoming a political party and then standing in one constituency and carrying on as before?

  • Steve Milesworthy

    My partner has cancelled his LibDem membership (not before sending a second email to Nick Clegg) and increased his 38 Degrees monthly payment.

  • Michael McGreevy

    How do we find out which members, in both houses, voted in favour of this? There is still time to attempt to put the kbosh on those mp’s who did, in the run up to the general election by continuously making their names public.

  • Cosmic Hobo

    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ might provide the answers you’re looking for.

  • Stephen John Davis

    I have a reply:
    “Dear Mr Davis,

    Thank you very much for your email regarding the Transparency
    of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. I know
    we have corresponded about this Bill a number of times before.

    As you know from our past correspondence, there are a number
    of elements to this Bill, so in the first instance I wanted to clarify what the
    amendments tabled by Lord Harries in the House of Lords, and signed by Lord
    Cormack, precisely were, given that there were almost 100 amendments from the
    House of Lords when the Bill returned to the House of Commons last
    week.

    Firstly, there was Amendment 108 on staff costs, and also
    Amendment’s 26 & 27 on controlled expenditure. While the vast majority of
    the Lord’s amendments were accepted, I voted against these 3 amendments as I
    felt they failed to take into account the very principle of the Bill, namely,
    transparency.

    Lords Amendment 108 was seeking to exclude staff costs from
    the calculation of controlled expenditure for press conferences, public rallies
    and so forth, where staff were directly employed by a third party. One of the
    main focuses of this Bill is to create the open and transparent system that we
    all want to see when organisations are seeking to influence policy, and this
    amendment would have undermined that. Where a third party enters into political
    campaigning, its spending for those purposes should be fully transparent. The
    Government has been clear that with the increases in the registration threshold,
    smaller organisations will not be subject to any of these regulations and the
    need to calculate staff costs will not apply. Importantly, volunteer costs will
    continue to be excluded from the calculation of controlled
    expenditure.

    Turning to Lords Amendments 26 and 27, these were requiring
    that only the costs of election materials and unsolicited telephone calls to
    households should count towards the limits on constituency expenditure. The
    Government feels that it is essential that members of the public know when a
    third party is campaigning in their constituency, and how much money they are
    spending on doing so, and I agree.

    Campaigning involves much more than leaflets and telephone
    calls – it can also include rallies and bussing supporters into a particular
    area, to name but a few, and these are significant elements of campaigning. By
    excluding these type of activities from the constituency limits, I felt these
    particular amendments were again undermining the transparency that this Bill is
    seeking to achieve, which is why I voted against them.

    As I have said throughout our correspondence on this Bill,
    the Government has no intention of preventing laudable and worthwhile charities
    from promoting their issues and concerns. Instead, this Bill is seeking to
    deliver an open and transparent system where money and undue influence does not
    affect the development of policy. The most important point for me to again
    stress is that these new proposals are only for third party organisations which
    campaign for the electoral success of a particular political party or candidate.
    Limiting campaign spending during an election will help the UK avoid the
    situation we have seen in other countries, where unregulated spending by special
    interest groups has a grossly unfair influence on the outcome of an
    election.

    As you will appreciate, I have received a number of emails
    about this Bill, and I recognise the concern. I can assure you that throughout
    this Bill’s passage through Parliament, these concerns have been brought to the
    attention of Ministers, and I am pleased that they have worked closely with a
    large number of charitable organisations to reassure smaller charities about the
    changes this Bill will have, and the Government has also made a number of
    amendments to address their concerns.

    Transparency and the work of charitable organisations are
    both indispensible parts of democracy in this country, and I am hopeful that
    this Bill will secure them both.

    Thank you again for your email.

    Yours sincerely,

    Andrew Griffiths

  • Michael McGreevy

    Well it looks like my MP, the right dishonourable Jeffrey Donaldson, MP for Lagan Valley, never bothered his backside to vote either way.

  • Anonymous

    I have a simple question: how can a vote that did not get a majority be counted as a victory for the government?

    More evidence (as if it were needed) that we live under a pseudo-democratic system of government.

  • Anonymous

    Never in a million years could I ever think of thinking of supporting the Labour party even if my life depended on it.

  • Richard Harding

    Perhaps 38 degrees should take a leaf from the libertarians on the internet, who changed the model from centralised file servers to distributed nodes. I.e. a supervisory body that organises, and each campaign, becomes a separate small organisation, funded on that basis. Also, it should provide pgp links for those that want them. Also host it on TOR, then the bastards will have trouble taking down information, and it will increase the usage of an encrypted network already disliked by the type of pepeople Who want gagging laws.

  • Alex

    I like the idea of asking the Queen not to pass the law – I doubt we would be successful but it would be a wonderful display of distaste for our current regime’s actions.

  • M1k1e

    It’s about time that 38degs understood that we do not live in a democracy. Britain is a Monarchy, it is HM’s government not the people’s. That’s why this bill is now going to the Queen for her permission. Perhaps as has already been said on this board, protests should be taken to the Queen. Perhaps instead of waving placards outside Downing Street or Parliament, they should move to Buckingham Palace. We are the Queen’s people.

  • bjsalba

    I checked. My MP Charles Kennedy did not vote on this at all. I expect he is out on job interviews because he isn’t old enough to retire yet and he fears that he will be not be elected next time around (if his job lasts past September 18th, that is).

    I certainly would never ever vote for him or his party ever again.

  • Jacquie

    Our rights are slowly and stealthily being removed – we are not a democracy when a vote like this results in silencing organisations during election time! Imagine if this was in France – the citizens would be holding demonstrations in the streets!

  • Gregor Mcconkey

    …. fuck all the rich English cunts. It is surely time for a revolution of French proportions as of Bonaparte’s time. I would gladly take part in the public fucking beheadings. We as Scottish plebs are being kept in our place by these so called leaders. People who are so rich that the power it brings lets them decide to let the likes of us, maybe not all of us but a great deal of us, live in poverty. I am unemployed at the moment, I cannot find work. I am actively looking for work every day. When I sign on I have to prove I have taken 21 steps to find employment each week. If I don’t, my benefits are cut .If I was not somewhat t computer literate. I would be a wee bitty fucked. I live with my dad, who is 81 and needs a hand now and then. Because I live with this pensioner whilst I look for work, he has to pay for me because he is my relation. I get lobseekers allowance, 74. British pounds per week. Absolutely no assistance with rent because my father is family, these fucking rich cunts say he can support me somehow. If these leeching scum gave up even some of the privileges that they so believe is theirs and share some of the wealth they so think they are entitled to it might be different, but no. It may be because they are so obviously living in medieval times we should be revolting, I am. We need to be able to take back some of these bastards power. I am Scottish. I am proud of that. I will vote for my country’s independence this September. We want a better Scotland and to be able to say, fuck you Westminster, We are free. After five hundred odd years of English rule, fuck you England.

  • Gregor Mcconkey

    peace

  • Matthew Fisher

    Like anyone thinks labour would be any different, the same labour who believe we are not worthy and capable of a referendum on Eu.. They are one and the same! Time for change, this right left divide, is doing just that dividing us

  • Gregor Mcconkey

    maybe even beheading the bastards

  • Gregor Mcconkey

    the division is coming

  • Sila Collins-Walden

    My MP Danny Alexander, I voted for this man and guess what he went with the government!!! What a surprise!

  • Sila Collins-Walden

    Who can I vote for at the next election? not Labour not Libdem and certainly not Tory. Time for a new party of the people for the people.

  • Sila Collins

    Danny went absent…still it’s the same as being on government side.

  • Thomas

    Here people either do nothing or riot and smash and steal everything. In France they strike and block the roads ect.

  • Dominic Pinto

    I have sent a mail urging Ed Mililpede and Labour to commit to repeal etc. What is also very clear to me is that the debate, discussion and need has been very shallow – from the unspeakable Martin to (even) 38 Degrees it hasn’t helped.

    There is a big threat and problem that has already corrupted politics – and more importantly our representative democracies and essential rights and responsibilities. I’ll quote from someone else:

    ‘The problem is the rise of extreme inequality, and the new class of ubermensch, mega-bankers and oligarchs on both sides of the Atlantic, with huge political ambitions.

    In the USA, the shadowy Koch brothers have funnelled hundreds of millions of dollars into explicitly political campaigns designed to intervene in the electoral process – usually in favour of ultra-conservative causes and oil interests.

    Unusually, for UK governments – normally so adept at shutting stable doors after horses have bolted – the Lobbying Bill was a result of thinking ahead and nipping Koch UK and their equivalents in the bud, ………

    …………. It would have helped if a better definition could have been drawn – it still could be – that would make it clearer what is legitimate campaigning and what is political campaigning around elections, where there need to be spending limits.

    But if we want to prevent the ultra-wealthy buying elections in future, there do need to be spending limits when campaigning is actually electoral.’

    So I called on Ed to commit to repeal the Act within the first 100 days of the new Parliament and to include in the Party’s 2015 general election manifesto a clear promise and commitment to:

    - Repeal Part 2 of the Lobbying Act

    - Bring in new legislation within 2 years that establishes clear
    protections of representative democracy and freedom of speech throughout
    the United Kingdom

    - Hold a full review and open consultation in partnership with charities
    and other affected groups to develop the new legislation.

  • Sid Orwell

    In your last email you have a link asking Miliband if he would scrap the gagging law if he won the next election. Surely there is another way? I don’t want to have to vote for labour or conservative just to getting the gagging law passed . I do have morals you know!

  • Skeet

    I am not wasting my time to. Contact a lab mp or even a con my own mp don’t answer any of my quiries

  • peter ambler

    everytime I get the same answers from my mp/ ill go with my party /brain washed hoping for a top post ill bet
    same with derby city council they are frightened of their leader bully boy tactics

  • Ian

    all of us campaign hard for like minded people, to join 38 just imagine the power we would have, we could in fact with fair wind influence the next election, in our own area’s, its just a thought?

  • Jennie

    Just voting for the opposition is not the answer, the whole system has to chage. Not voting at all would make them sit up and take notice.

  • Jim McCluskey

    Dear 38 degrees,

    If citizens’ resistance to the amended Gagging Bill is to be
    effective we need a clear exposition of objections to it. This is not easy to
    find. Could it be supplied by 38 Degrees? I have the impression that those who
    are deeply involved and active in resisting the Bill tend to overestimate the
    knowledge of the general public. In order to maximise the number of people engaged
    a concise presentation of the arguments against would be most useful.

    Jim McCluskey
    (Author of ‘The Nuclear Threat’)

  • jegme

    Please keep going. What you do is so important to me. The politicians appear to be deaf to general opinion; being far too engrossed in their own ambitions/designs/social engineering. I honestly feel that organisations like 38 Degrees have become the representative voice of reason for many people. Politics is currently failing the people.

  • free will

    yes exactly….i e mail;ed my MP and he said “what are you talking about we only overturned 3 of the ammendments out of 100″……i didnt even know there was 100….so i couldnt argue…: (

  • free will

    i did and he emailed back sounding concerned about what i said, within 10 mins….couldnt believe it!!!

  • Anonymous

    Any piece of legislation which is passed solely on a casting vote is clearly illegitimate and unsustainable. It should be scrapped. It is time for all freedom-loving people everywhere in the UK to pressurise their MPs to get this iniquitous piece of bad law scrapped at the earliest opportunity. It is partisan and obviously part of the shabby efforts of a regime which rewards cronyism and not democracy in any form.

  • David Jones

    I agree with Jennie, Also Sid Orwell If this means voting for a particular party to get the law passed is the answer then sorry I Am out. I shall not vote, but even that will not make a blind bit of difference we have seen what the MP`s get away with why should they care about us. Unless we ALL stand together.

  • Joseph Davis

    Loosing by a mere vote has left a bitter taste to what has been an incredibly positive campaign. After emailing 70 lords I’m kicking myself I didn’t email more.. However there is always more one can do and this campaign has brought people together in a way I have never seen nor experienced before. This is only the begging.. Lets make sure we see the end of this law come the next election and campaign together for what we believe and know to be so important!!

  • Annie B

    The Green Party have made a statement condemning the gagging law:
    http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2014/01/29/gagging-law-not-fit-for-our-democracy-says-andrew-cooper/

  • Nigel Smith

    The majority of the public know nothing of this gagging law and when told about it cannot relate to it and therefore do not believe that it exists. The general public would react more energetically over this than over the ” Pole Tax ‘ if they were fully and clearly informed.
    The message needs to be put out there clearly in order that the general public can relate to the truth of what has happened and act according to their democratic conscience.
    Money will have to be spent on a big media push to explain the whole situation to the general public.

  • Kenny

    Surely this law must be unconstitutional? Can it not be challenged in court? There needs to be some very creative thinking in terms of how to circumvent this further attack on our freedoms, and as much push-back as possible against the whole suite of laws introduced in the past 15 or so years which erode civil liberties and democracy. 38 Degrees would do well to put together a report classifying and detailing all such laws both achieved and attempted, from those touted as being for the purposes of anti-terrorism, unnecessary police powers, politically correct laws making it illegal to openly speak your mind – however distasteful it may be to others – to the gross attack on democracy represented in this bill. It would make a compelling case for an extremely worrying, inexorable trend to totalitarianism. More and more I am finding friends and family in the UK who feel intimidated and who are afraid to openly speak their mind in case of future repercussions due to the speed of this trend. Perhaps totalitarianism is already here in all but name? I would have to ask the question: ‘ who stands to gain from all this’ ?

  • Lucas Willen

    I think it could be. And worse still could a future government not extend this law to further restrict criticism of the government. It might fr instance be more difficult to produce material on the mpact of the government’s welfare policy (for example the issus of foood banks or the bedroom tax) It would of course be in the Cameron government’s interests to cover things like tis up using the gagging law as a means of doing so. However, this is not in the interests of a healthy democracy or of the British people. A Government needs to be judged and held accoubtable for its actions. The next step I think is to petitiobn the Queen requesting that she refuse to give Royal Assent to the Bill as it now stands. If that fails then the same methods of Civil Disobedience used in the past such as those used during the Anti Poll ax campaign of the early 1990s. Further we need to campaign for constitutional methods to prevent or at least make it harder for a government to bring in unconstitutional laws in the future. We might learn much from the Swiss system

  • David Mitch

    I am Disappointed the vote was so close that we lost, but the amendments make it a bitter sweet loss!
    I.e.
    Reduced the period for which the law is applicable before the 2015 General Election from 1 year to 7.5 months (Amd. 30-35)

  • tiki

    Does the #gagginglaw apply to the media? if not surely campaign groups could just set themselves up as newspapers.And if not why not? ‘The Sun’ and other newspapers definitely campaign for political parties.

  • SleeperCell

    My local tory MP sent me two parliamentary responses attempting to palm me off.
    The time of peaceful protest is drawing to a close, the people have been pushed far enough by successive oppressive governments, surely now is the dawn for real direct action.

  • anne

    The media is exempt. Clearly there’s scope here for campaigners to get creative!

  • http://www.democracymatters.org.uk/why-the-lobbying-act-increases-inequality-of-influence-and-what-to-do-about-it/ Why the Lobbying Act increases inequality of influence (and what to do about it)

    [...] The  Civil Society Commission,  38 Degrees, over 130 charities and campaigning groups, and 190,000 members of the public did a fantastic job of lobbying members of parliament and organising meetings across the country: watch this video to see some of the passionate challenges to politicians. The campaign was narrowly defeated in the House of Lords, but there were several gains, such as raising the threshold for non-party organisations to register with the Electoral Commission to £20,000 for England (from  £10,000 under PPERA, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000), reducing the regulatory period from 1 year to 7.5 months for the 2015 General Election, getting a review of non-party campaigning rules after the election, and a cut in some of the red tape (read more at 38 Degrees). [...]

  • joe McCaff

    All these ‘poor’ future Company Director’s who have to do that dismal task of having to mire their slimy arses through British Politics just to make the contacts, blackmail, bribery opportunities that are needed so that after they’ve left Government they have the right mechanism’s in place to get whatever their new(but old Bosses in reality, their obedience bought way back in those heady day’s when their big money earning Lobbying promises were made) some of which has that added bonus that makes it easier to blackmail these same MP’s who them to keep quiet about it after it too,, must be tough being an aristocrat’s kid and sliming your ‘own’(lol) way through just like Lord Dad, etc did and as long as they don’t have to(or ever want to) pay their intern’s they’ll keep their self-serving mechanism in place, just like their greedy me and mine ancestor’s who started it all and always campaign vigorously when-ever the Un-Paid Internship Mechanism is threatened(that pretty much on it’s own keeps the rich in charge of Government) well they can’t just let any old ‘oik’ into West-Minister eh, ah fuk it, bring back those wonderful Orphan Workhouses just like Lord Grand-Papa had,, damned orphan’s never had it so good, just ask any Tory .!!??

  • the bigger picture

    The media are in the governments pocket

  • Nick F

    I stopped reading your post after a few lines – your venom is boring and obviously too filled with passion to be objective. Therefore useless.

  • Mike Conquer

    I had a long letter from my Tory MP giving all the positive points of the legislation – I’m treating it with the same scepticism as all his other communications. He is a career politician (his words) and as such is looking for advancement.

  • Steve J

    IMO the Green Party never have or ever will have the political clout for this statement of condemning the gagging law to take affect or impress on the general public the severity of the gagging law,

  • selbs

    Has the government forgotten the Fobbing Pheasants revolt in 1391. This was all about freedom to live without starving and the need to be able to survive without argument. The result was the landowners/lords/government were more respectful in the long run and changes for the peasants were allowed. This government clearly is taking us back to these times and in the end the peasants will revolt again. Lets do just that and set off from Fobbing under the same banner. Lets march on London. One has to ask the question why are the government so keen to gag the people, whats in it for them.

  • selbs

    i expect you will also be one of those who complains when something you believe in and you cant campaign happens. Then lets hope everyone around you is as empathetic.If you dont subscribe to a cause then dont complain when it affects you. Passion is what has got this campaign to the success it has already achieved.

  • selbs

    i agree totally lets partition the Queen, surely its in the interests of her country for it to remain one of the most democratice societies around and yet on the return to Victorian times and before, remember the Peasants revolt 1391.

  • selbs

    Totally agree with you – the majority of the public do not know anything about the gagging law. I have asked people around me and they dont know. The Tory press might have something to do with this, unfair reporting and yes our prime minister has not gagged the media, wonder why? Is it so they can keep reporting the tories in a good light as if the press were genuinely open and fair then the public would be aware of all the issues that this government is sliding in through stealth.

  • Leighton Carter

    I am amazed on how little coverage this got in the mainstream press, even the left-wing broadsheets nudged it over as a side-note concern. Not sure what that is about as the gagging law is probably the most naked and insidious of the Condems continual efforts to dismantle democracy. I think we need a more imaginative and provocative approach next (thinking hat is on).

  • Adriano Caria

    A tad over the top I think, but I get your point. You can’t blaime people for being born into the life they live or wanting the best for their children and helping the them with what they have got. What I don’t undertstand is their inability, or unwillingness, to see that there is nothing wrong with having money, but theres a lot wrong in being poor, when theres a means to distribute the wealth farily. Its the greed that pisses me off.

  • Heather Burns

    its about time the people of this country stood against the goverment , look at the turkey and keiv they all stick together

  • Frank A

    Is there not a possibility to have people co-operating to not be an organisation that is affected by the gagging law. If such an organisation of citizens stood firstly for human rights (a cause for which the UK were amongst those that drafted the rights) and never for politics. As the UK is now in the forefront of efforts to trash human rights it seems time for the people to utilise the power of the web to insist that human rights are instead placed as the primary issue for humanity. 38 degrees do this but seem to consider them selves to be an affected organisation… is there not another possible format of organisation?

  • Frank A

    Is there not a possibility to have people co-operating to not be an organisation that is affected by the gagging law. If such an organisation of citizens stood firstly for human rights (a cause for which the UK were amongst those that drafted the rights) and never for politics. As the UK is now in the forefront of efforts to trash human rights it seems time for the people to utilise the power of the web to insist that human rights are instead placed as the primary issue for humanity. 38 degrees do this but seem to consider them selves to be an affected organisation… is there not another possible format of organisation in that case?

  • peaceofi

    When and only when you fully realise the power you have in understanding the significance of what you’re about to read will you and I be free from our elected slave masters. the following information should inspire you to awaken. let me share this very important piece of information, ENJOY!!!
    APOSTOLIC LETTER
    ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO [on his own impulse]
    OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
    FRANCIS
    ON THE JURISDICTION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OF VATICAN CITY STATE
    IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
    In our times, the common good is increasingly threatened by transnational organized crime, the
    improper use of the markets and of the economy, as well as by terrorism.
    It is therefore necessary for the international community to adopt adequate legal instruments to
    prevent and counter criminal activities, by promoting international judicial cooperation on
    criminal matters.
    In ratifying numerous international conventions in these areas, and acting also on behalf of
    Vatican City State, the Holy See has constantly maintained that such agreements are effective
    means to prevent criminal activities that threaten human dignity, the common good and peace.
    With a view to renewing the Apostolic See’s commitment to cooperate to these ends, by means
    of this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, I establish that:
    1. The competent Judicial Authorities of Vatican City State shall also exercise penal jurisdiction
    over:
    a) crimes committed against the security, the fundamental interests or the patrimony of the Holy
    See;
    b) crimes referred to:
    - in Vatican City State Law No. VIII, of 11 July 2013, containing Supplementary Norms on Criminal
    Law Matters;
    - in Vatican City State Law No. IX, of 11 July 2013, containing Amendments to the Criminal Code
    and the Criminal Procedure Code;
    when such crimes are committed by the persons referred to in paragraph 3 below, in the
    exercise of their functions;
    c) any other crime whose prosecution is required by an international agreement ratified by the
    Holy See, if the perpetrator is physically present in the territory of Vatican City State and has not
    been extradited.
    2. The crimes referred to in paragraph 1 are to be judged pursuant to the criminal law in force in
    Vatican City State at the time of their commission, without prejudice to the general principles of
    the legal system on the temporal application of criminal laws.
    3. For the purposes of Vatican criminal law, the following persons are deemed “public officials”:
    [former “private officials” exempt from law are now within the laws dictates and are held liable,
    aka “public servants”]
    a) members, officials and personnel of the various organs of the Roman Curia and of the
    Institutions connected to it. [world-wide corporations and all individuals in trust are corporations
    pursuant to their birth certificate]
    b) papal legates and diplomatic personnel of the Holy See. [The Pope governs the
    Church/people/trust, all the people in the Birth Trust, through the Roman Curia, the governing
    body of the Vatican]
    c) those persons who serve as representatives, managers or directors, as well as persons who
    even de facto manage or exercise control over the entities [public servants] directly dependent
    on the Holy See [trust beneficiaries] and listed in the registry [through birth certificates] of
    canonical juridical persons [legal fiction represented by your birth certificate ALL CAPS NAME]
    kept by the Governorate of Vatican City State;
    d) any other person holding an administrative or judicial mandate in the Holy See, permanent or
    temporary, paid or unpaid, irrespective of that person’s seniority. [all public servants]
    4. The jurisdiction referred to in paragraph 1 comprises also the administrative liability of
    juridical persons arising from crimes, as regulated by Vatican City State laws. [public servants are
    now liable for crimes against humanity]
    5. When the same matters are prosecuted in other States, the provisions in force in Vatican City
    State on concurrent jurisdiction shall apply.
    6. The content of article 23 of Law No. CXIX of 21 November 1987, which approves the Judicial
    Order of Vatican City State remains in force.
    This I decide and establish, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.
    I establish that this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio [on his own impulse] will be
    promulgated by its publication in L’Osservatore Romano, entering into force on 1 September
    2013.
    Given in Rome, at the Apostolic Palace, on 11 July 2013, the first of my Pontificate.
    [Synopsis: Church = People = Trust
    The Vatican created a world trust using the birth certificate to capture the value of each
    individual’s future productive energy. Each state, province and country in the fiat monetary
    system, contributes their people’s value to this world trust identified by the SS, SIN or EIN
    numbers (for example) maintained in the Vatican registry. Corporations worldwide (individuals
    became corporate fictions through their birth certificate) are connected to the Vatican through
    law (Vatican to Crown to BAR to laws to judge to people) and through money (Vatican birth
    accounts value to IMF to Treasury (Federal Reserve) to banks to people (loans) to judges
    (administration) and sheriffs (confiscation).
    Judges administer the birth trust account in court matters favoring the court and the banks,
    acting as the presumed “beneficiary” since they have not properly advised the “true beneficiary”
    of their own trust. Judges, attorneys, bankers, lawmakers, law enforcement and all public
    officials (servants) are now held personally liable for their confiscation of true beneficiary’s
    homes, cars, money and assets; false imprisonment, deception, harassment, and conversion of
    the true beneficiary’s trust funds.]

  • peaceofi

    here’s an idea, perhaps we need to look at setting up something like this. http://www.newera.org.za/the-future-of-money-and-business-part-1/

  • http://world4justice.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/call-parliament-to-account-before-election/ Call Parliament to Account before Election! | World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum.

    [...] PS: 38 Degrees members spent six months fighting against the Gagging Law, which will limit our ability to campaign around the election. The office team is currently working with lawyers to find out exactly what the impact of the law will be and how it will restrict our campaigning. We still don’t know the full story, and while we know we won’t be able to do everything we might want to together, 38 Degrees members did secure some important improvements to the law. Once 38 Degrees members have set our priorities for the election, we’ll be able to find out what we can and can’t do. To find out more about the Gagging Law click here: gagging-law-its-over-for-now [...]

  • B.J. Keane

    Stop the cosey little clubs; leave the e.u. or stop the vast beaurocracy and waste.