UK Parliamentary Footage Law

If you've got four hands, I'd see a doctor.

Why should any particular group of people decide that they are beyond the reach of comedy?
Pure and simple that is an affront to the concept of freedom of expression.

Shame on the weak and thin-skinned politicians that use such arcane laws to hide behind.

I stand by my comments. It’s an affront to Parliament not it’s members, to allow its debates to be selectively edited for ‘humorous intent’. Anything outside is fair game, but within the High Court of Parliament no.

So everything in comedy is up for grabs.... except Parliament?! You really think the institution is so weak it requires a level of protection not seen by any other across the entire kingdom?

I mean, if we can poke fun at the queen and royal pomp and ceremony but not - rightly - lampoon what goes on at PMQs, there is something very wrong going on.

I’m inclined to agree with DVC. I don’t think it would be good for democracy if Parliamentarians felt shackled because the producers of Mock the Week might take something they say out of context and make them look like idiots.

Although This Week borders on being comedy show I don’t think you could mistake it for a comedy show if you were new to it at the same time I think you’d know one of Charlie Brooker’s brilliant shows were a comedy show.

We offer Parliamentarians the absolute right of speaking in Parliament on any subject without fear of libel. This is a quid pro quo offering them protection which in my view protects Democracy rather than hinders it. It’s these protections which prevent the lunatics taking over the asylum too. Parliamentary coverage in any sort needs professional impartial curation not allowing potential misuse is best.

Parliamentary Privilege is about empowering MPs to raise subjects, on our behalf, without fear of libel - this is a law that works to everyone's benefit and is quite correct.

It is a law that gives freedom of expression to members and is a world away from the law we are discussing which serves to deny a particular and quite specific part of freedom of expression to the rest of us.

If MPs say something in Parliament that makes them look a bit of a tit - they should be seen as such.

There should always be a presumption in favour of freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and freedom to poke fun at power - wherever that power sits.

Denying this right is frankly un-British.

Given that choice of wording, perhaps also worth noting that footage from the Supreme Court (and indeed any other Court Room when broadcast is permitted) is subject to exactly the same rules.

I think you'll find it's very British, unfortunately.

Courts are a different matter in my view. MPs and Lords should be subject to public scrutiny in whatever form it comes in.

The only real opportunities for the subjects of such scrutiny to take offence would likely be covered by libel laws if they wanted to pursue it.

But, as far as I'm aware, there's nothing in the current setup that ensures "professional impartial curation" -- there's just a blanket ban on satire.

Besides, surely citizens have the right to challenge those in power -- who had been elected to represent them -- in any way they see fit, even if they do it in an iconoclastic manner. After all, "the people" are above politicians, not the other way around.

Once elected I disagree. They have the right to legislate, providing the legislative process conforms to Erskine May, for or against anything, So they are indeed superior and regardless of party allegiance long may it continue. Only once every five years do 'the people' override this.