Keeping lobbying private?

[Tim Lund]

As the Treasurer of the Friends of Albion Millennium Green I take the opportunities to lobby local councillors to support it, as I will for other local good causes, and I'm entirely happy to provide opportunities for them to be seen helping their local community



Work Day on Albion Millennium Green 9th May 2015

In the context of the pain felt by a certain Charles Windsor about the subject matter of his lobbying being made public, I've been wondering if there's anything I've ever said to local Councillors concerning policy or things done in this capacity which I would want to be kept private. I can't think of anything ATM, but even if there was, I'm not sure I would have a leg to stand on if they let other people know what I might have said or written, whatever I thought.

OTOH, that distinguished former Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw,



might disagree

Court exceeded its power in ordering publication of Charles memos – Straw

[_HB]

Difficult one this.

I think as a general principle anyone lobbying on behalf of a group or organisation should not have any right to privacy. But correspondence between a constituent and an MP or Minister should be presumed to be private unless privacy is waived or there is an overwhelming public interest in publication. A lot less simple in practice.

[Tim Lund]

Who is Charles Windsor's MP?

I suppose if he had a problem with the drains outside the curtilage of Highgrove, he could get on to Geoffrey Clinton-Brown. No need for the wider public to worry about that sort of thing.

[Robin Orton]

'Lobbying' is rather a loaded term. What we seem to be talking about here is letters which any of us might write to some public or private organisation, or their representative, asking them to do something - in particular, to change (or stick to) their policy on some issue. Often we (or any organisation on whose behalf we are writing) will be happy to have their letter given publicity. But if we don't, I don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to keep it private, like the rest of our correspondence.

[_HB]

Who is Charles Windsor's MP?

I don't consider Charles to be a private individual. Therefore he falls under the first part of my answer.

[Robin Orton]

Who is Charles Windsor's MP?

I assume that this is a disrespectful reference to HRH The Prince of Wales. (Wasn't Charles I put on 'trial' under the name of 'Charles Stuart'? What a precedent.)

He has no MP. 'Although the law relating to elections does not specifically prohibit the Sovereign from voting in a general election or local election, it is considered unconstitutional for the Sovereign and his or her heir to do so.'

[Tim Lund]

'Lobbying' is rather a loaded term. What we seem to be talking about here is letters which any of us might write to some public or private organisation, or their representative, asking them to do something - in particular, to change (or stick to) their policy on some issue. Often we (or any organisation on whose behalf we are writing) will be happy to have their letter given publicity. But if we don't, I don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to keep it private, like the rest of our correspondence.

I'd have thought anything a citizen does, whether in an individual capacity, or on behalf of an association or corporate body, can be of legitimate public interest, and if so, should be published if such interest is expressed, subject to legal tests of its actual public interest. That the individual suddenly goes all bashful about it doesn't seem material to me.

Sorry about any disrespect.

Mr. Charles Windsor.

If you have respect to offer, pay it to Professor Edzard Ernst

Professor Edzard Ernst, who was the world's only professor of complementary medicine, says that he was forced out after he was critical of a report commissioned by the Prince of Wales

Prince Charles 'silenced' professor over row on complementary medicine

[michael]

If one of us was to write to a minister they probably wouldn't read it. The general advice is to ask your MP to raise an issue with a minister if you want your issue to get anywhere close to the desk of the people in power. That does not apply if you have HRH in front of your name, you have privileged access to ministers as part of your apprenticeship for sovereignty. You are part of the state and covered by Freedom of Information.

However, I don't really think it is appropriate to make this Freedom of Information retrospective, as HRH may have previously thought that personal and state meant the same thing. Given that may be the case, I think that publishing his possibly personal past correspondence is potentially an invasion of privacy. But we shouldn't be too upset by this, the royal family seem to have privacy protection that is not afforded to other people, otherwise I think questions would need to be asked about the entitlement of the current 4th in line to the throne. Surely the British people have a right to demand a DNA test on any constitutionally hereditary title.

[Robin Orton]

Professor Edzard Ernst, who was the world's only professor of complementary medicine, says that he was forced out after he was critical of a report commissioned by the Prince of Wales

Well, he would, wouldn't he? If you read the Telegraph report, you'll see that, even if you rely just on his side of the story, it's rather more complicated than that.

[Robin Orton]

I'd have thought anything a citizen does, whether in an individual capacity, or on behalf of an association or corporate body, can be of legitimate public interest [..]

Interesting idea. Here's my suggestion. Video cameras should be installed in every room of every house, active 24 hours a day, and the images monitored by GCHQ. Every so often there should be a brief audio announcement to remind us all that we are under the benign surveillance of the State . 'Big Brother is watching you', perhaps - or has that become a bit hackneyed?

Of course, before anything that emerged could be published, the Attorney-General would have to certify that it was in the public interest to do so. That should prevent any abuse and satisfy the moaning minnies of the human rights industry.

[Tim Lund]

Here's an alternative suggestion - that by default cameras should be running when important decisions are taken, to be freely monitored by the public.

Catch-up on court action: Supreme Court launches 'video on demand' service

Time you caught up too, Robin.

I'd hate to see your straw man arguments being tested by real judges.

Wilkes and Liberty too, I say!

[Eagle]

Correspondence that was always intended to remain private , should remain private.

What has The Manchester Guardian gained by this assault on privacy ( I suggest the editor be forced to display all e mails in public ). All it shows is Anthony Blair our penultimate Scottish PM admitted to faults and errors to The Prince.

[Tim Lund]

Correspondence that was always intended to remain private , should remain private.

There is any amount of correspondence "always intended to remain private" which our police and security services make enquiries into, with due judicial warrant. What is different about Mr. Charles Windsor?

The best comment I heard on this recently was from Ian Hislp on #hignfy - which is that opening up his lobbying was small fry compared to the case for opening up the private correspondence of corporate lobbyists.

[Eagle]

Tim

Because he is the Heir to the throne of a number of countries. A fairly unique position I would imagine.

From the ones I have seen I would imagine the man from Fettes would have been the one trying to stop them being made public , not His Royal Highness.