Lib Dem peer Lord Marks says the threat of prosecution under the new law on lying "could have a chilling effect on parliamentarians". Nurses, police officers and civil servants will live with that threat. Why shouldn't MPs and peers? Reply with your answer.

Justice minister Lord Lemos on why backbench MPs and peers are left out of the new law on lying: "Backbenchers do not take decisions on behalf of the state." They vote on every law. Does that excuse work for you? Tell me why.

I think like a lot of women - and a lot of men as well - I’ve found the last week pretty emotional. Famous and powerful men - who abused that fame and power - finally not getting away with it. And behaviour and culture that we were all supposed to just laugh along with - well now we can actually say - this is not ok. It was never ok. It felt like a watershed moment. But what is a watershed moment? It’s a moment that is critical turning point or decisive event that permanently changes things. So what IS actually going to change? Well - there is one thing I would suggest could change - and it would be controversial - not everyone would agree with it. Right now - if you’re a 16 year old girl having sex with another 16 year old - or the boy from the year above at school - that’s treated exactly the same as if you have sex with a 45 year old not in a position of trust. Should it be? Here's the thing - there’s a cliff edge on how you’re treated when you turn 16 - but not the other way round. In England and Wales, if you’re a child, and someone has sex with you - the law treats you completely differently if you’re under 13 or if you’re between 13 and 16. If you’re under 13 - it’s rape - consent is legally impossible. But if you’re 14 or 15 - it can be prosecuted as “sexual activity with a child” rather than rape which of course carries a lower sentence. This was a massive issue during the grooming gang scandal - and the Gvt is looking to change it. But right now - the law staggers the age of consent the wrong way. It tapers the cliff edge for people who have sex with children - people that you and I would call rapists, but the law doesn’t treat as such. But it DOESN’T taper the cliff edge when you turn 16. And maybe it should. How about a staggered law of consent the other way instead - so you can have sex with a 16 year old - but only if you’re under 18 yourself? Then the events of the last week really WOULD be a watershed.

Problem: Lying by our politicians is out of control. No one every steps down when caught out anymore. Liars keep getting re-elected because parties keep standing them. Politicians response: CRIMINALISE everyone BUT the politicians for lying.

A crime for a nurse to lie to us, not for MPs and peers. Justice minister Lord Lemos on the new law on lying: "it is not appropriate to extend the offence to Back-Bench parliamentarians." Is that fair? Reply and tell me.

A crime for a nurse to lie to us, not for MPs and peers. 20,000 people have now signed our petition to change that, in all 650 UK constituencies. Whoever they voted for, more than 95% of their answers agreed with us. Should MPs and peers face the same law? Reply and tell me.

Lord Sandhurst on keeping MPs and peers out of the new law on lying: "Parliament does and will police its Members." When MPs made false expenses claims, it took the courts. Who should police them? Reply with your answer.

Baroness Jones in the House of Lords: "How are we going to pass a law that does not include ourselves?" The new law on lying covers the PM, ministers, civil servants, the police and the NHS. Not MPs and peers. Should it cover them too? Yes or no?

Baroness Jones in the House of Lords: "How are we going to pass a law that does not include ourselves?" The new law on lying covers the PM, ministers, civil servants, the police and the NHS. Not MPs and peers. Should it cover them too? Yes or no?

Government minister Baroness Levitt says the new law on lying covers ministers "but not MPs and Peers". So the government can't lie to you, but the opposition can. Should one rule cover both sides? Tell me what you think.

Lord Sandhurst on keeping MPs and peers out of the new law on lying: "Parliament does and will police its Members." When MPs made false expenses claims, it took the courts. Who should police them? Reply with your answer.

Lord Lemos's excuse for keeping MPs and peers out of the new law on lying: parliamentary privilege. Nine days later, his own government's Deputy Chief Whip told the Lords that what they say in Parliament is already protected. So what's the real reason? Tell me below.

Lord Young of Acton told the House of Lords: "let's limit it to make sure that Members of both Houses, in whatever capacity, are properly excluded." Baroness Jones: "It is wrong to pass a Bill that doesn't include us." Who's right? Reply and I'll tell you how to help.

The minister told the Lords the new crime of misleading the public covers ministers, "but not MPs and peers." As Lord Knight said, the public are "far less forgiving of hypocrisy." Should they be included? Reply and I'll tell you how to help.

Please sign & share widely. The #HillsboroughBill# should have ZERO carve outs. That is what @andyburnham & @Keir_Starmer promised @NowHillsborough Nobody should be exempt from honesty & decency. The fact we have to make it law tells us everything.