«Ihr Völker der Welt, ihr Völker in Amerika, in England, in Frankreich, in Italien! Schaut auf diese Stadt und erkennt, daß ihr diese Stadt und dieses Volk nicht preisgeben dürft und nicht preisgeben könnt! Es gibt nur eine Möglichkeit für uns alle: gemeinsam so lange zusammenzustehen, bis dieser Kampf gewonnen...ist. »

"People of the world, you in America, in England, in France, in Italy! Look upon this city and realise that you must not and cannot sell out this city and this people! There is only one possibility for all of us: to stand together until this battle is won." - Ernst Reuter's Speech to the Reichstag on 9 September, 1948.

Perversion of an honourable Custom of the House of Commons

The ticker at the bottom of the page shows some (by no means all) of the organisations and individuals I have had cause to contact. The page regarding prevention of misinformation explains why I contacted these people. Sometime were required to carry out certain services, due to commercial relationships I had with them (e.g.: Dell Computers). I was surprised at their response. Of course, it is relevant to the matters in issue: I should not mention it otherwise. Some were approached because it was their métier (think tanks, human rights organisations, etc., etc.). In each case, inexplicably, they did not act as the situation demanded: they erected a wall of silence and indifference, they offered responses that were not cogent or their response was otherwise bewildering.

1. I started petitioning MPs nearly ten years ago. They have consistently refused to act; they say what some of them call a "strict rule" and others a "protocol", or similar words of the House of Commons forbid MPs to act on matters raised by the constituents of others. Whatever words they use, the meaning is the same: they consider this Convention to be so binding they dare not address such matters as I have reported to them, some of which are described on this website.
(i) Shadow Cabinet Secretaries and even members of relevant parliamentary committees have cited that rule as an insuperable obstacle to action.
(a) In other words: they consider it an insuperable bar to being a good and honourable person, to being an effective MP, to justice, to upholding the law and defending fundamental values, principles and human rights: including freedom of thought, and to defending vital structures of society (the judiciary, law enforcement, the NHS, democracy, etc.), with whose husbandry the nation has charged them.
(b) Can a person still be honourable, etc. while ignoring such matters? If not, refusal to act, justified on such grounds, is implicit confession that that Convention is a bar to decency and to the responsible practise of politics, without which we are all lost.
(c) And yet, they do nothing to change it.
(ii) When they were in opposition, Sir Keir Starmer and Ms Angela Rayner (as Leader and Deputy Leader of the opposition), Mr David Lammy (as Shadow Secretary of State for Justice), and others, essentially said that rule reduced them to impotent bystanders: it prevented them from acting on the matters I reported to them (including the facts related on this website).

2. It happens there is no such rule; there is a convention or custom but it is not a "strict rule".
(i) No sanction can be levied against an MP who acts in a case involving someone who is not his constituent. House of Commons Briefing Paper No02028 treats that Convention. It states (for effect, I have underlined part of the quotation): "The conventions dealing with these matters are not the subject of formal parliamentary rules, and Erskine May and the Standing orders are silent on the point,"

3. On page 5, the Paper cites examples of cases in which the question has been considered, including, on 04 March, 2004, when Mr Ivan Henderson of Harwich raised the matter on a point of order. The Speaker said:
"unless otherwise agreed between the Members concerned the interests of electors should be represented only by the constituency Member... it is best to leave it to the good sense of Members to work out any problems between them."
(i) Mark the words: "it is best to leave it to the good sense of Members…". Regarding matters such as I reported, there can be no reasonable doubt as to what good sense demands: MPs are obliged to act, even if I am not their constituent.
(a) Would an MP (what more leaders of opposition parties and shadow secretaries of state) ignore such serious injustices and misconduct, actually in progress, simply because the person who reported them is not their
The could (and have suggested this to MPs I approached) approach my MP and discuss the matter and their potential involvement with her. This would be consistent with the Speaker's advice: "unless otherwise agreed between the Members concerned...". But they ought not to be indifferent to such dangers or to leave them unattended.

4. That Custom must have developed to prevent unseemly and unproductive situations where MPs might start effectively to launch raids or invasions on or of the constituencies of others, in order to further their or their party's own narrow interests, with no real benefit to anyone else (including the constituents, whose own interests would ultimately be damaged by such conduct) and to the detriment of the system of governance.
(i) In such cases, it is right, decent and honourable to uphold the Custom.
(a) When the "good sense" invoked by the Speaker is applied, even very sparingly, in my case, it is immediately apparent that the Custom is, in these instances, irrelevant.

5. Gilbert and Sullivan tried to explain to us that misapplied tenets and rules can have unintended consequences. Perhaps they were too funny; the message appears to have escaped MPs.
(i) Is it plausible that MPs fail to understand that dogmatically to follow customs can be dangerous and certainly is folly?
(a) If they do, are they competent to carry out the vital functions required of them?

6. In exchanges with shadow secretaries of state, and opposition party leaders, I observed that they could not do their job if they held strictly to this Convention. How can a Shadow Secretary of State for Justice be effective, if he ignores matters such as serious misconduct by the judiciary, because it is brought to his attention by someone who is not his constituent?

7. Some of those MPs, for example: Sir Keir Starmer and Shadow Secretaries of State, have spoken in the House of Commons on behalf of people who were not their constituents, even as they cited that Custom as grounds to ignore the matters I reported to them.

8. In the bottom paragraph, on page 6, the Briefing Paper quotes Edmund Marshall: "When a particular MP is engaged in a campaign on an issue of general importance, an individual citizen living in another constituency may wish to write a letter of support to that MP; but it is always courteous to contact the local MP at the same time, soliciting his own support for the same cause."
(i) The MPs I approached knew I had previously contacted the local MP.
(ii) According to that Paragraph, MPs may act in a matter concerning the constituents of another MP.
(a) Until the General Elections of 2024 were announced, the MPs to whom I wrote all qualified as MPs "engaged in a campaign on an issue of general importance". They were relevant shadow secretaries, representatives of their party on pertinent matters, members of relevant parliamentary committees, etc., etc. (b) After the General Election (2024) was announced, considering democracy itself to be imperilled (see Nos.7 and 8 of the main page of this website), I was obliged to write to each member of the House of Commons.

9. I informed the MPs to whom I wrote that they could, as a matter of courtesy, inform the local MP that I had approached them and that they wished to act on the matter.
(i) I asked them, if the local MP objected to them acting on the matters I had reported to them, directly to inform me of the fact and of the local MP's reasons for objecting. None of them did.

10. I asked shadow secretaries of state if it was reasonable to believe that the local MPs (who, like the Shadow Secretaries of State, were all members of the Labour Party) would complain or take offence if, as Shadow Secretaries of the same party, they took up my case: to uphold the law, to defend the constitution and to protect vital national interests and the public.
(i) I observed that, should the local MP complain, such a complaint would be unreasonable and must not deter them from carrying out their duty and acting on those reports.
(a) I asked them, if they would consider such an objection to be reasonable and sufficient grounds not to act, to explain why it would be reasonable. They did not.

11. I asked the MPs whether and why they would consider a complaint that they were acting where the local MP had refused to act sufficient deterrence to upholding the law, defending the constitution, holding the Government to account and defending the public interest. None of them answered that question.

12. I asked the MPs to describe the likely negative consequence(s) of them acting on the matters I reported to them and to explain why they outweigh the benefits of holding the judiciary to account, upholding the law, defending the constitution and defending vital structures and the public interest. None of them did so.
(i) I noted that mine might be only one of many cases; it sometimes happens that misconduct is rife but not readily visible to some.

13. I observed that many of these issues affect the entire country. For example: misconduct by the judiciary in the High Court, other national courts and the European Court of Human Rights, by the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and other organisations.
(i) These organisations attend to cases from the entire country. If they are engaged in misconduct, it affects everyone, including their own constituents.
I explained that, the convention of Parliament being a convention and not a rule, it could not be grounds for inaction.

14. I observed that the MPs would be indifferent to gross injustices, breaches of the law and the constitution, even where a person’s life is ruined, the entire population of the country is endangered and the structures underpinning justice, our common success and a civilised existence are damaged and perhaps eventually destroyed, because they do not wish to breach a convention that is not binding and, thereby, to risk the opprobrium of an MP who refuses to perform her duties and is offended that the law had been upheld, society defended and vital structures, the national interest and values preserved, in spite of her.
(i) The MPs did not find these arguments interesting. Certainly, they were not persuaded to act.

15. I asked the MPs who pleaded this Custom, if they did not accept my assurances that no such rule exists, to name the document in which the Rule is stated and to cite the part of the document declaring that Rule and the penalties for breaching it or action(s) to be taken if it is breached.
(i) None of them produced or cited such a document. Nevertheless, they refused to act.

16. I asked MPs to explain why, given these facts, the Convention earnestly could be considered grounds for them not to act on the matters I reported to them. They were unable to do so. Still, they remained immovable.

17. I approached My local MP (a member of the Labour Party) and Sir Keir Starmer, regarding that Convention. I asked them to waive the Convention in these and related matters.
(i) Sir Keir ignored that request.
(ii) My MP said, even if she gave such assurances, they would be ignored (see No.9 (iii) of the page that describes the assistance offered to me by my MP).
(a) She did not waive the Custom and then warn me it would have no effect; she refused to waive it and offered the excuse that MPs would ignore such a waiver were it offered.
(b) I informed my MP that her conduct left me bereft of parliamentary representation when I required it. I asked her, again, to furnish me with a letter waiving that Custom, in my case. She ignored me.
(c) I informed her and Sir Keir that, should they continue to ignore that question, I would consider it implicit consent. Still they ignored me.
(iii) Until they inform me otherwise, it is and shall remain my understanding that Sir Keir and my MP waived that Custom, in my case. Anyone who disagrees may produce a statement from Sir Keir or the MP, to the effect that they expect the Custom to be honoured in these and related matters. (a) When I publish this website, I shall immediately write to my MP and to Sir Keir, asking them to visit it and to offer any response they deem necessary. Any response will be displayed prominently on this website.
(iv) I informed MPs to whom I wrote that my MP and Sir Keir had agreed to waive that Custom. I encouraged them to confirm the fact with them and to ensure they communicated their responses to me. I told them they could warn Sir Keir and the MP, in advance, that, in the interests of transparency, they would forward their responses to me, whatever they might be.
(a) None of the MPs appears to have taken that advice.

18. Where the matters in issue are of such moment, when people behave unreasonably, when, incomprehensibly, they refuse to accept propositions that plainly are rational and when, for no apparent reason, they reject civil and reasonable invitations to engage in congress, the probability waxes that they might be aware inaction is indefensible but, for some reason, they are resolved not to act as they ought to.