•

Parliament will debate petition: Make lying in the House of Commons a criminal offence - 23rd October 2023

Petition: Make lying in the House of Commons a criminal offence

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/576886

The Government should introduce legislation to make lying in the House of Commons a criminal offence. This would mean that all MPs, including Ministers, would face a serious penalty for knowingly making false statements in the House of Commons, as is the case in a court of law.

Petition: Make lying in the House of Commons a criminal offence

27 comments

AcesFullOfKings

•

They're not gonna do that. Would be nice, but they've responded to previous petitions with "politicians gonna politician, it's up to voters to be educated and not vote for liars". Which, yeah, but also, people keep voting for liars.

JoBo

•

Voters don't get to choose who is on the ballot paper. Billionaires do.

echodot

•

The people who are on the ballot paper are decided by the party via whatever mechanism they wish to use.

If you want to change vote for a party that has its members decide who's on the ballot.

JoBo

•

Yeah, that's not how it works. It's a comforting liberal illusion but, as with all things liberal, it entirely ignores how power works.

Labour members did it with Corbyn, after the Blairites fucked up by believing their own bullshit. They almost fucked up again in 2017 by mostly shutting up as soon as the election was called, believing the destruction of Corbyn was inevitable, and more convincing if they didn't have an obvious hand in it. That gave us a shock result, with a hung parliament despite the Tories starting 15-20 points ahead. So they and their billionaire mates made sure they buried him (and us) properly.

They learnt their lesson and no longer risk giving anyone a choice.

That is how it works. Sorry.

RobotToaster

•

They'd all be in prison if that was law.

Rocketpoweredgorilla

•

Don't get my hopes up like that.

echodot

•

Oh I wonder how this will come out. Gosh I'm biting my nails.

krowmada

•

can't believe it's not already

tgcp

•

Because, define lying.

Even if you have proof the person was made aware of something, how can you prove they remembered it at the time?

And what if they interpreted something incorrectly but believed they were telling the truth?

And who gets to decide when someone is lying?

mackwinston

•

The courts can already do this - perjury is already a criminal offence, and people have been charged and convicted of this. The court case when someone is accused of perjury will explore things like "And what if they interpreted something incorrectly but believed they were telling the truth". The courts will decide if the evidence shows if someone is lying, just as they do with perjury.

The courts already know the difference between saying something misleading because you were simply wrong (that's not lying, that's just being wrong), and saying something misleading with the intent to mislead (lying).

wewbull

•

The legal system already does. It's called purgury.

mannycalavera

•

Great idea. Won't happen though. The ministerial code already has something about this. The get out jail free card (literally) is that you have to prove intent of lying. Knowingly lied. That the key.

You saw how hard it was to get BoJo held to account. Imagine that shit show year round. Opposition will claim MP lied. MP will deny. "I didn't knowningly lie". "Yea you did". And so on and so forth.

The principle is sound. But I can't help thinking this is like a wrecking ammendment designed so that the sitting government (Tories in this case) say no because it will be deliberately unworkable and then for the opposition parties to go, "oh my days the Tories literally want to lie in parliament boo and hissssssss!!!".

Would love to see this done properly via independent parliament HR. The stress is on independent and with proper powers and fact checking.

Syldon

•

You miss a very pertinent point that they must correct the record at the earliest possible time. The ministerial code is also under the discretion of the PM of the day, so will only be put to a committee for discussion if he deems it necessary. This falls short when the PM himself is habitually breaking the code. Sunak as well as his ministers are again following suite by making up figures for the dispatch box, and failing to correct the record when it is pointed out.

mannycalavera

•

Yeah that's all good and everything. But when would they correct the record? Could they continue to delay by saying "well at the time I said what I said because I believed it to be the truth!".

That's basically what BoJo said for two years.

Syldon

•

And Johnson lost out at the first actual investigation. As for when, they are government in control of parliamentary time. They can come back when ever they feel it is needed. The only provision would be the set hours parliament sits.

The problem with Johnson was that it was never allowed to go beyond the verbal criticism phase. He was questioned many times in PMQs regarding his factual statements, and because he was in control of the next part of the process, it never went further than that. Moreso he had the support of the majority of MPs to back him up. Once those MPs realised that this was costing them more votes than they could possibly gain from Johnson, they marked his card. Party politics have always superseded due process when it comes to parliamentary behaviour. The control behind the adjudication needs talking away from the culprits committing the crime.

There has never been anything so egregious in parliament in the way the Tories currently behave though. They are showing little sign of wanting to change back. They are behaving like smug school kids who have used the legal system to get one over on their teachers. It will bite them later on. What they have done will be recorded as a pertinent event to learn from in history. Much like the autopsy that the US will inevitably go through after the Trump trials. That is provided he does not defeat the litigation.

mannycalavera

•

The control behind the adjudication needs talking away from the culprits committing the crime

Fully agree 💯

andresil

•

Yes, I expect much change in the house of commons as a result if this debate... /s

What the fuck is the point of these petitions anyways, never seen a single one amount to anything, and the moment they removed the ability to no confidence the PM via the petition it lost all potency.

If you're gonna have petitions make them proper, direct democracy style.

bugsmith

•

I don't think your /s is necessary. Especially on a UK community where sarcasm is expected by default :)

barontomatoes

•

It already is... in a way.

It is against the rules of both houses to knowingly mislead the house, and Parliament is free to punish its members up to and including imprisoning them (until dissolution, anyway).

Tweak

•

Well that's the point of this, if they make it a crime then they shouldn't be able to get away with doing it.

butterflyattack

•

This is one of those things that seems so obvious. I wonder if many people already believe it's an offense.

Of course, it'll never happen. How many of those fuckers are likely to vote to be criminally penalised for their dishonesty? Not a lot, I'm thinking. Lying is how they make their money and consolidate their power. Wankers. It should be a criminal offense - the fact that they are allowed to lie without penalty undermines democracy. How are they supposed to make an informed and democratic vote if they're doing so based on mendacious info?

Also, I could be wrong about this but I have the idea in my head that the house is legally a court. And under certain circumstances, lying to a court is already criminal. So maybe this is already illegal? I'm probably wrong there, the people behind this petition surely know more than me.

lemonflavoured

•

This is a daft idea, it would basically stop any politican from saying anything or making any policy announcements. The people promoting this will be annoyed when MPs treat this deabate as a joke, but it's a completely unrealistic proposal.

echodot

•

Yes it's completely unrealistic to tell the truth.

wewbull

•

The key word is "knowingly". Making a statement that is your best understanding of the situation but doesn't turn out to be true in the fullness of time is very different to lying.

lemonflavoured

•

But even in that situation they would be accused of lying, so it would have to be investigated. It would massively chill speech.

wahming

•

Given the alternative of having them make outright lies, i.e. regarding the benefits of Brexit? I'm OK with that

abrasiveteapot

•

would basically stop any politician from saying anything

So you're saying that it is impossible for a politician to speak without lying ?

I don't care who you normally vote for, would you mind sitting the next election out ? Preferably all the ones after that too.

lemonflavoured

•

No, but I'm saying that if you make it illegal "lie" then they will say very little in case they are accused of lying.

abrasiveteapot

•

I'm saying that if you make it illegal "lie" then they will say very little in case they are accused of lying.

Why the scare quotes around lie ? The word has a straight forward meaning which is already defined in House of Commons rules.i.e knowingly mislead.

It's not even "negligently mislead" where they say something they should have known was not true, but the much tougher test of proving they knew it wasn't true.

A ridiculously low bar, and yet you think even that is too high. Is this because you support politicians who have been shown regularly to knowingly mislead ?

The majority of parliament arrive carefully well prepared with facts. It's only a small number who deliberately lie, our former PM has been proved to be one of those.

Beanedwizard

•

But there would be nobody left?