Here's the annotation you're reporting. Please enter a brief reason why you think it should be deleted in the form beneath. Thanks for your help!
Posted on 2 Apr 2008 4:50 pm
The HD Comittee per se has been existence for 70 years; good.
But those of us who are campaigners for the right to wear the PJM are concerned only with the present and recent incumbents for whom we have reasons to doubt the fairness, flexibility, or legality of their decisions; we continue our campaign.
The PM stated that it was not possible to say on how many occasions members of the Committee have received an honour or medal as a result of a policy recommendation by the Commitee. Surely if he required his Senior Civil Servants to produce the information they would have to oblige? Or is he too, subject to their use of the Freedom of Information Act exemptions to avoid answering awkward questions? Mind you, we know how difficult it is to get an answer, even a questionable one.
Perhaps when he is replaced he could Goal Keep for Scotland; now there's a thought - Meg Munn and Gordon facing one another on a football pitch in a match between "the old enemies"! They appear to have qualified in the manner of goal keepers in the way they professionally deflect awkward questions in the House!
Why should this annotation be deleted?
Check our House Rules and tell us why the annotation breaks them.
Making it easy to keep an eye on the UK’s parliaments. Discover who represents you, how they’ve voted and what they’ve said in debates – simply and clearly.
Get insights on TheyWorkForYou and other mySociety sites, in our popular newsletter
Your donations keep this site and others like it running
mySociety is a registered charity in England and Wales (1076346) and a limited company (03277032). We provide commercial services through our wholly owned subsidiary SocietyWorks Ltd (05798215).