MPs want to keep secret the names of MPs if they are arrested, according to a new report – Mirror Online
Under UK criminal law, nobody has any right to have their name withheld from the public if they are arrested – and members of Parliament are subject to that law, the same as everybody else.
The change suggested by the Procedure Committee would grant MPs privileges beyond their station. If they are arrested, then the public should know.
In fact, there is a strong argument that the public should be informed specifically because it is an MP who has been arrested.
The change being proposed here is a form of corruption, it seems to This Writer.
The argument about harm to reputation falls because, again, the suggested change would give MPs a privilege that is not afforded to anybody else. What about the harm to my reputation if the police mistakenly arrest me?
But, of course, the MPs who most recently fell foul of the current practice were Tories, and the Conservative Government will be very keen to preserve the reputation of its MPs from harm.
In the current climate of VIP paedophile inquiries (to quote just one notable example), it’s a stance that is impossible to justify.
MPs plan to use human rights laws to keep secret the names of any MPs who are arrested, they revealed today.
They want to hide from the public the identities of any of their colleagues held by police to protect MPs’ reputations.
Currently, police chiefs must write to the Commons Speaker telling them if a Member has been held.
The Speaker must then alert the House of Commons in official documents – meaning the name will become public.
But the little-known Procedure Committee – a body of MPs which regulates how Westminster works – wants to scrap the practice.
It comes after two Tory MPs in the last Parliament were arrested on suspicion of sex offences.
One was charged and later cleared by a jury, while another was not charged. Both were named following their arrests.
An inquiry which started in January today recommended shielding the information from the public.
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Sheer corruption at the highest level, this should not be allowed they are public representatives and nothing more.
Well I certainly would want to know if my MP had been arrested. How much trust would one have in an MP if found guilty of a crime, to act on our behalf. No one should have these privileges. They are not above the law.
What possible reason for such a change could there be I wonder? ! ! ! ! Looks as though there is quite a lot of concern over something we might not know about.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head here Rupert, never thought of that but a lot of substance in what you say.
Am I wrong in saying that you do have the right to anonymity when arrested, but not when charged?
Yes you are.
Theresa May wrote to police forces in 2013 saying she didn’t want people to be named when they were arrested, but there was resistance to that on the grounds that it amounted to “secret justice”.
Of course, we know that the Tories are very keen on “secret justice”, for their own reasons and purposes.
And are they not getting rid of the Human rights act too, so how can they use that?
If they are just getting arrested because they are a suspect and under investigation then I can understand them not wanting people to know. If it turns out they are innocent, getting arrested affects someone’s reputation especially famous and renowned individuals. From reading this, it gives me the impression that even if they are guilty it will not get made public. If you are found guilty and charged with a crime then regardless of your social status or position of power you should be exposed to the public. Unless of course exposing such identity threatens the lives of innocents (which is rare) then expose them. If the “government” can take the human rights act from us, then they can’t use the human rights act to protect themselves, after all the tories don’t behave human.
So does this mean they still want to dispose of the human rights act or have they realised that they need to abuse it to stay out of trouble? Perhaps they are going to redefine what it is to be human and to devise something like Aktion T4 where an assessment was made to determine if a person was human enough to reproduce or live. So if we are to be assessed before we can use the human rights act who will make the assessment ? ATOS ? Perhaps we should all become members of the Conservative party as this may well be considered proof of humanity. Again I am reminded of the Nazi party. Where do we enrol our kids into the conservative youth?
This is the recomendation of the parliamentary procedural committee which comprises six Conservative, four Labour and two SNP members; it is not party political.
It is a good idea if it applıed to everybody regardless as arrest does not mean guılt but once in the media…….
Identification should be only once a person is charged.
But the proposal isn’t to apply it to everybody – only MPs.
The corruption is obvious.
Those who have power over others(as was demonstrated most ably by the number of Labour MP’s who ignored their constituents wishes and voted to bomb Syria) should answer to those who gave them that power, MP’s should be under tighter and more open scrutiny BECAUSE they represent people who voted for them and hold office and power. It is corrupt to excuse some individuals to exposure for crimes they have been charged with unless it applies to all. Exploiting “Secret Justice” should not apply to people who have privilege or status, they should be held to a higher, not lower, standard. I would have thought that understood as reasonable and “fair”.
Tories wouldn’t know what reasonable and fair was if it smacked them round their lying gobs.