Independent Live podcasts: Is democracy under threat?
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Is our democracy under threat? And what can be done to revive the flagging interest in politics? These were the questions fiercely debated when readers of The Independent gathered at Manchester's Victorian Gothic Town Hall.
Listen to two instalments from the debate here, or download them free to listen to on the go.
Podcast One
Right-click here and click "Save target/link as..." to download file
Podcast Two
Right-click here and click "Save target/link as..." to download file
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
The General Election is merely an opportunity to change the dictatorship from red to blue; it stopped being about socialism v establishment a long time ago.
Until people learn to vote for an MP using character and ability rather than party affiliation we will continue to exist in quasi-slavery and watch our country go to the dogs.
Check out the what the Act says;
The following text from the Act may cover the situation;
1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
(2) The sections are-
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he-
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation-
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if-
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) "Representation" means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of-
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
The explanatory notes accompanying the Act include the following text;
Section 2: Fraud by false representation
10. Section 2 makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1)(a) makes clear that the representation must be made dishonestly. This test applies also to sections 3 and 4. The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh [1982] Q.B.1053. That judgment sets a two-stage test. The first question is whether a defendant's behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.
The many and various attempts by MPs to change, obscure, conceal and ignore attempts to 'flush out ' these practices must be held as evidence that those concerned were aware that there actions were dishonest and that their behaviour would be regarded by dishonest by reasonable and honest people.
I note that this case fulfills at least two of the common public interest factors contained in Section 5.9 of the current Prosecution Manual namely:-
5.9
a a conviction is likely to result in a significant sentence;
e the defendant was in a position of trust;
o there are grounds for believing that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated, for example, by a history of recurring conduct;
In view of this fact, to whom are the people of the UK supposed to turn? How are they to effectively use the existing political system to transform it? That *is* the question of the hour, isn't it?
It is significant that of the group the Independent has chosen to cobble together in Manchester, there is not a single voice that can be viewed as representing the concerns of commoners. Not one.
Is that an accident?