A rather good petition.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/mpremo/

Your petition reads:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Remove
unsuitable MP's

That MP's who are engaged in legal cases and/or other brushes
with the law, and although not convicted of an offense in law
at the end of that - have by their actions still damaged the
high standing of the office of MP -

I would use libel as an example here, as an MP can plead guilty
and having settled the case carry on as an acting MP, where as
most professionals would have to(or be forced to) resign if
placed in such a dubious position.

**Now anyone out there know of any dubious MP's who have skirted the law who may need to sign this?
Tags:Petitions
MP
Libel

**And a reply from a certain MP, who is not going to be signing:

I'm proud of the work I have done in exposing the charges made by companies who offer a service to those claiming compensation for endowment mis-selling. These charges amount to between 10% and 50% of the compensation paid. Thus some victims lose half the compensation that that they are entitled to as a result of mis-selling. Which? says the most that should be charged is 15%. I was advised that I had a 90% of winning the case but if I lost the costs would be vast. Many profitable companies can stand to risk a loss of a £1 million pounds. I had very limited insurance for actions of this kind so I had no choice but to settle the case or risk a heavy loss.

**Whoops guess you were advised wrongly on that one then!

It was pleasure to receive many messages from people who understood what was happening in this case and who could read between the lines. Previously I have correspondence from victims from all parts of the country.They are grateful for the campaign which drew attention to the above 15% charges made by some companies and the low ones made by others on which I advised them. They were also grateful for information on the free advice available from WHICH? and the FSA website. Using them meant that claimants would then receive 100% of the compensation paid.

**Still nothing on the fact that your facts were well wrong, and thus you were sued. As for charges if people read the print, well its all laid out in black & white, again you miss the point in that what you stated was in error.

Being sued by rich companies is a risk that is part of the job of an MP. Not to expose this situation would have been be a dereliction of duty in not informing constituents and others that they are likely to lose money for a service that is freely available elsewhere. My involvement in this matter enhanced my standing as an MP - especially amongst my colleagues. I have correspondence with all MPs on this issue and there has been a discussion in parliament. The likely outcome may increased insurance protection so that we can continue to campaign with fear, favour or risk of personal financial loss. There are very good reasons why MPs have privilege. You appear to have completely missed the point. This is one of many campaigns I have run. Some have been successful, others not. But every one of them was conducted in the best interests of my constituents.

**Well I feel that I have not missed the point, you did in fact give false information and as a result lose said libel case - a matter of public record. Oh and I am well aware of your other campaigns.

Most MPs, and almost all new MPs , have read my book Commons Knowledge. - How to be a Backbencher. It sets out an idealistic concept of the work of a backbench MP. I have never knowingly done any thing that would detract from the high standards I have set out. While we can all do more, I have deep satisfaction from the work that my staff and I have done for constituents since 1987. I hope to offer myself for election for many future years.

**Ok get the book plug in, bloody hell its like Richard & Judy but without the telephone rip off. Maybe I should set up an 0845/09 number and get Mr Flynn to call in!

Paul Flynn

.