Letter to MP re LRR Bill and 9/11 Truth

[Andrew Johnson]

Re: Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill & Related Matters

Dear Ms Blackman,

I felt I must again write to you regarding the recently proposed legislation - the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. I am, like many others, greatly concerned by the implications of this Bill. Whilst it is “marketed” as a bill that will reduce red tape and make things more efficient, the real danger seems to be that, in principle, many existing laws will be able to be changed or even repealed without any real opposition or debate. This is an extraordinary development and one which threatens the basis on which what is left of our Parliamentary Democracy is built.

If Parliament was genuinely interested in increasing its efficiency, it could probably do more by (1) somewhat reducing the lengths of breaks and holidays or (2) removing unnecessary pomp and circumstance from archaic ceremonies which are used (3) introducing fractional voting, as proposed by Edward De Bono some years ago.

In its current form, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is a threat to our democratic processes and therefore must be either completely thrown out, or amended significantly – otherwise, it can be seen to have too much resemblance to the Enabling Act – passed in Germany in 1933. Is this really the direction you (or any supporter of democratic freedoms) wishes to move in?

I strongly urge you to vote against this legislation when the time comes to do so. The fact that the debating time allocated for this law is short should also be of considerable concern. There is also considerable opposition to it, with new campaigns springing up such as that at http://www.saveparliament.org.uk.

For those of us who have studied in detail the wider pattern of events in our world, the timing of this bill does seem to fit in well with other matters. For example, there is now growing awareness that the official version of events of 9/11 is false in almost all the important details. Our Scholar’s for 9/11 Truth Group (www.st911.org) is now at least 150 strong, with Professors Morgan Reynolds, Jim Fetzer, Steve Jones, and David Ray Griffin leading the field. All are giving talks or writing articles debunking the official story (as I myself have done in a smaller capacity). Awareness of the issue is growing, as was demonstrated to me when I took part in the “Stop the War Protest” in London on Sat. 18th March. I just got into Trafalgar Square in time to hear (and record on video) former SAS Officer Ben Griffin’s short speech about his refusal to return to Iraq, due to the methods being used by the allied forces being inconsistent with the introduction of democracy (quite a subtle irony when considered in the context of the opening paragraphs of this letter). He had a message for Mr Blair – “It’s not God that will judge you – it’s us.” As we are no longer in the 13th century and do not use religiously oriented statements to justify wars any more, I have to agree with Ben Griffin. (Strangely, this was not reported by the BBC. However, I was able to share the recording of his speech with my friends and family, so I no longer have to rely on the multi-billion pound organisation to cover the news stories that it should be covering.)

Many of the people I spoke to on the March had some awareness of the 9/11 Truth Movement but they weren’t aware of our UK Forum – now they are.

I am now pursuing legal action against the BBC, whom I can prove are in breach of their charter because they have (essentially) ignored and refused to cover the formation of our Scholar’s group, or the issues of evidence we focus on. I will be pursuing this legal action with as much energy as I am able to within the time and resource constraints that I have. The BBC will be giving us a fair platform, on prime-time TV within a 12-month period. I refuse to be marginalized by a faceless, monolithic news organisation and I am encouraging others of our group to voice their protests and point out the evidence and facts that are clear and unequivocal.

Only 2 days ago, Hollywood Actor Charlie Sheen has spoken out against the 9/11 Cover Up and, though the US media have dragged up some of his past history to try and “rubbish” his statements (and the 9/11 Truth movement in general), this doesn’t seem to have worked very well and the result will be that more people are exposed to the issue – and some of them may begin to study it more closely.

The BBC have been true to form by ignoring this story completely. They, and others like them, will be able to continue to ignore these issues for a while yet, but our UK forum has over 300 members, the Scholars’ Group Petition has over 5500 signatures and a separate petition (nothing to do with ST911) to have George Bush impeached for breaking US Constitutional Law has over 600,000 signatures. So, I think the writing is on the wall - don’t you?

Yours Sincerely,



Andrew Johnson

www.st911.org
www.nineeleven.co.uk
www.reopen911.org

[Enclosed - ST911 OP/ED]
[Enclosed - Sheen Story]

[Andrew Johnson]

I received the response shown below. Posted here for the record, rather than any other reason....!

[Andrew Johnson]

I got this back a couple of weeks ago - only just got round to scanning it....

========
Dear Mr Johnson

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter 1 have receivad (rom the Cabinet
Office. This is in response to a recent enquiry I made on benalf of several
constituents and I hope you will find it helpful. Please note I have obscured
constituent personal details for reasons of privacy.

If however, there are further issues you would like to raise with me as a result of this reply I would be happy to hear from you again.

Yours sincerely.
Liz Blackman MP
=============
Thank you for your letters of 17 and 27 March enclosing correspondence from your constituents


' concerning the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill aims to make a real impact on reducing burdensome regulation. This Bill is the third attempt by governments since 1994 to have an Act that can improve the way we regulate the public sector, businesses, charities and the voluntary sector. Although the World Bank in September 2005 ranked the UK second in the EU (behind Denmark) and ninth in the world for the best business conditions, we must get this Bill right if we are to further strengthen the UK's position.

Debate about the Bill during its passage through Parliament so far has served to confirm the general consensus that the 2001 Act is not up to the job of delivering the reductions in red tape that businesses, public servants and voluntary workers tell us they need. That's because the 2001 Act is too narrowly defined and too complicated to use. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill aims to deal with th?>se shortcomings.

However in its current form, the order-making power in the Bill has caused some concern. Wilder claims have ranged from government being able to use the power to abolish trial by jury to repealing the Magna Carta. These and other far-fetched statements about amending by order our constitutional arrangements could never happen as a result of the safeguards already in the Bill. Similar wild accusations were made about the 2001 Act and have proved to be groundless.

However, I want to make it clear beyond doubt that the Bill could not be used to make such constitutional changes. I have also listened to more measured concerns, as I said I would do at Second Reading and in Committee, about using the power for changes to legislation that would deliver no better regulation benefit. Today I have tabled amendments that will ensure that this Bill can deliver the Government's better regulation agenda and nothing else. These amendments clearly focus the power in Part 1 of the Bill on better regulation objectives.

As you can see from the copy of the amendments and the summary explanation of their effect which I have enclosed, the changes to the order making power in Part I focus the power so that Ministers can only use orders for the purpose of furthering the better regulation agenda. This will be achieved through a power to remove or reduce burdens, and a power to bring regulatory activity in line with the Better Regulation Commission's five principles of good regulation: that regulation should be proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted.


The definition of burdens proposed differs from that in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. The 2001 Act described how legislation could be reformed - by removing legislative restrictions. The power in the proposed amendments focuses on why legislation should be reformed -- for the purpose of removing administrative burdens or barriers to productivity etc. This will remove the need for onerous legal analysis when preparing orders which has proved such a constraint on the effective use of the 2001 Act.

Concentrating the order-making power in this way will allow us to make real changes to the way we regulate. This includes the simplification measures that every department is currently putting together as well as our comprehensive programme to reduce overall administrative burdens for businesses, voluntary organisations and our public services.

Other better regulation initiatives which this order-making power will allow us to deliver include:

• the consolidation of legislation to make it easier to understand and work with,
• ensuring that inspection is risk-based to reduce the burden on those who comply with regulation and concentrate inspection on those who do not,
• simplifying and making more transparent the ways in which people and businesses need to apply for consent from authorities, and
• the exemption in certain key instances of Small and Medium Enterprises, charities and others from burdensome regulation to allow them to concentrate their effort where it is most needed.

This Bill is all about driving forward the Government's ambitious programme of better regulation and addressing the recognised weaknesses of the 2001
Regulatory Reform Act. Safeguards already in the Bill ensure that the order- making cannot be used to remove necessary protections, rights or freedoms. The amendments to focus the power on better regulation reinforce these safeguards and ensure that the order making power can only be used to achieve our better regulation objectives.

The safeguards in the Bill will be policed by the Regulatory Reform Committee and its equivalent in the House of Lords, but I am strengthening the role of Parliament further with other amendments I have tabled. There will be a statutory veto to be exercised by the relevant Committee in either House. This means that the Committees will have a statutory power to block an order.


A further related change is that the period which Parliament has to determine which scrutiny procedure should apply to any order is extended from 21 to 30 days. These two amendments follow commitments I made to this effect at Committee stage.

The combination of an order-making power concentrated on better regulation objectives, the Bill's existing safeguards as well as the statutory Parliamentary veto on the face of the Bill, will allow us all to focus on the substantial challenge that we face: how Government and Parliament can best tackle the burden of regulation placed on our businessess public services and voluntary organisations.

Finally, I am proposing that orders implementing Law Commission recommendations will now be subject to the same restrictions on imposing criminal penalties and authorising forcible entry, search, seizure or compelling the giving of evidence as are applied to other orders.

This is the third attempt at legislation intended to lighten the regulatory load. It is vital to the continued competitiveness of our country and the effectiveness of our public services and voluntary sector that we deliver on the better regulation agenda - of which this Bill is an important part.

Jim Murphy