Referring to the Mitcham hustings on Monday 9 March, when the candidates were asked about the proposed future denial of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) jurisdiction, and the implications/consequences for the great British public, apart from the Conservative candidate, Paul Holmes, introducing the party’s expected limited proposals for a British bill of rights, other answers were found wanting.

The fact is, currently Parliamentary privileges allow MPs to knowingly make false allegations/accusations, even of criminality, against innocents.

That has been done and the evidence is overwhelming. Also currently, it is only recommendations by the ECHR, yet to be implemented in the UK, that offer a glimmer of hope for the great British public. Yes, exactly, currently we cannot rely on our own MPs to protect the innocent among us.

Further, a selection of candidate/s at the Mitcham hustings, could only find it possible to be able to protect their status, or prospective status, by referring to judgements of extremists by the ECHR. By definition, hypocritical is a confirmatory status.

The point of the question was to find what the candidates would propose to do about MPs current arbitrary injustices as a result of their actions in Parliament. It is widely believed it is a legitimate right to offend others. However, it is a fundamental principle that, any offense by right, must have the capability of the defence of a reciprocal right. If the latter is denied, the former is negated and the protagonist vulnerable by default. However, if Parliament has the unparalleled right/privilege to ‘offend, falsely accuse and, the offended, falsely accused person has no reciprocal right to respond, which is fact/the reality, it could be established such a privilege is not one to be proud of, and Parliament itself is vulnerable. Therefore, the point of my question to the candidates was also an attempt to protect Parliament from itself. Of course, if MPs had more respect for Parliament and the people who put them in their privileged position, the question would not have been necessary. Currently no one is safe from the whim of a MP. Although some of the above may be received as unsavoury, it can be supported with substantial evidence, including court judgements.

How to resolve this: Parliament needs to introduce and implement measures amending/correcting its procedures. Such a simple resolution seems to be as difficult to apply as a simple apology!

Bob Whitfield 

Via email