³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

My thoughts exactly, if the correct safeguards are in place to protect us all from misuse I do not see why MP's should be considered a special case.
We live in a different world than when the original ban was put in place and as such MP's should be bugged, if there is sufficient evidence/ reason to carry it out.

Shouldn't the question be, why should ANYONE have their phone tapped?

i think it is rigth to bug mp when they are interviewing terrorist which the know ,after all who do we trust when it was doctors who caused terrorism at glasgow airport ,anything to protect the true british people should be aloud.uk oap

Politicians do not appear to feel comfortable with close scrutiny. What with dodgy donations, dodgy think tanks, dodgy campaign funding, dodgy working practices, dodgy dossiers, dodgy wars, dodgy EU treaties, dodgy manifestos and general political dodginess, who can blame them?

I am in complete agreement Nick. Recent events have shown that they are as fallible as the rest of us.
In this particular case is there not a security issue as well, as the constituent was awaiting extradition on terrorist charges?

MPs are our democratically elected representatives. It is their job to oversee the police, not the other way around.

"Do as I say not as I do" and "If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear..... unless you're an MP then we'll change the law so you can hide whatever you want".

Are the cornerstone mantras of this Government.

It's a good thing no one really believes there is such a thing as an "honest politician", or they'd get a lot more trouble about such things than they do.

So an MP is bugged talking to a terrorist who is in prison awaiting deportation and is then surprised to find someone listening in?
Perhaps an IQ test for MPs would be a good idea, or do they think they should be above suspicion?

Nick
I'm surprised you don't state the clear case for preserving MPs' exemption from having conversations recorded by the security services.
MPs and their constituents will often need to have conversations of a sensitive nature, be it about being extradited to the US, benefit claims, whistle-blowing on government maladministration or any number of other things.
In order to fulfill their representative role it is essential that MPs have the full trust of their constituents, and both sides must be safe in the knowledge that their conversations remain confidential. Sure, if the MP hears something which they feel absolutely should be passed on to the authorities - for instance, news of an impending crime - then they can make the decision whether or not to pass this on. But that would be an extreme case and never done lightly.
As a journalist you would be aghast at any attempt by the state to force you to reveal your sources, or any measure which undermined your ability to preserve confidentiality. Your effectiveness as reporters would disappear in an instant. It is analagous for MPs: threaten their privacy and you take away the last remnants of trust people have in politicians.

the ego of these so called representatives of the people astound me.
the security of the country comes first.
MPs need to realise the public is sickening of their arrogant ways.

Isn't the answer to this fairly straightforward? As I understand it, the Wilson Doctrine was introduced because of fears that the security services were plotting against the government of the day, and were bugging MPs in order to gather information useful for that purpose.

It is surely unacceptable in a democracy for the police to be engaging in political activity of that sort. Our very freedom is at stake. So the ban should stay.

This comes down to a decision of who you trust least to act in our interests - MPs or the police/security services. Unfortunately neither have been covering themselves in glory in recent years.

But by ignoring specific instructions over the bugging of MPs, the police appear to have once more demonstrated a disturbing lack of respect, not to say contempt, for the very rule of law that they exist to uphold.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?"

Nor every MP has in the past been totally loyal to this country... I sugggest that a googling of "Tom Driberg" and the "Mitrokhin Archive" be done by everyone who thinks that MPs should be excempt from bugging ...

Lawyers are under a duty to cease to act for someone who is seriously breaking the law - MPs are not.

There should be a confidential relationship but with an exception for anti-terrorism work to certain members of national security organisations.

This needs to be backed up by a law of full compensation by any authority permitted to uncover suspected terrorist activity who releases any recorded information into the public domain (other than for a terrorism-related trial).

I sometimes wonder who MP's think they are. They are not above the law and the sooner they realise that the better for the country.
They are fast becoming bigger bullies than ever before, not to mention the millions of our hard earned cash they waste. We need an independant body to Police them.

I can think of one reason Nick. Watergate.

Imagine the reaction were an oposition MP spied on in this way. Imagine what the information gained could be used for. Imagine the temptation of any government to do so.

Surely that is reason enough for the doctrine to stand?

Why should MPs be treated differently than anybody else? If a law was broken in doing so then that's wrong, obviously. I'm fed up of MPs thinking that they are better or above the rest of us!

Interesting how this all came out on the same day as Wendy Alexander's referral to the police on campaign contributions isn't it?

Also, wasn't the bug targeted at a terror suspect rather than the MP? If so, what's the big deal - you run the risk of being bugged if you meet with terror suspects don't you?

Sadiq Khan seems to have precious little regard for the privacy of the rest of us. Time and time again he's faithfully trooped through the government lobby when voting to strip us of long-held rights in the so-called battle against 'terror'. Now his own 'rights' may have been violated he's squeaking in anger.

Like so many MPs, Khan thinks he should be exempt from the rules he blithely sets for the rest of us. Perhaps this case will cause him to open his eyes and see where his actions can lead.

I agree totally. The recent nonsense over expenses and donations shows that not all are the 'honourable' people they claim to be and in my view they have forfeited any right to be treated differently.

I do not trust any of them.

I agree that Phone Tapping of whoever it maybe is essential in this day and age where People including MP,s have access to Suspected Terrorists whether they have allegedly committed Crimes in this Country of elswhere.

The Government should not shirk from this responsibility in any way shape or form.

Perhaps there is a debate to be had. Quite possibly dropping the ban is 'worthy of deep reflection and more consideration'.

That surely does *not* mean that it was OK for the Security Service to unilaterally decide no longer to abide by the Wilson Convention.

So right - when MPs prove themselves trustworthy and "honourable" (this title should be dropped), then the bar can be reinstated. However, in view of recent and ongoing incidents I would have thought that they would seek as much transparency of their situations as possible. I support your comments about equality with voters - any employee would be instantly dismissed for abusing expenses (not suspended, demoted, moved around etc).

I note the 'outrage in Westminster' - has anybody asked the little people what they think?

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick, are the MP's upset that a voter was bugged whilst talking to one of them?

Nick

I think you are calling this one wrong -- the public will fully support their communication with their MPs as being private.

Bugging MPs in other situations would be a completely different matter.

It is fortunately the public weren't so stupid (at least enough MP's didn't beleive the public would be so stupid) as to support full opt-out from freedom of information act for MPs - it was clear they were trying to use the protection of communication (which the public would support) to cover up their expenses and similar.

I'm less concerned about the surveillance of MPs than I am about a man with no criminal charges against him being held in prison at the request of a foreign government. This seems to me like another case of MPs (and 'the Westminster village') focussing on issues that affect them rather than on the more important political questions that affect us all.

Quite right Nick and well said. We need someone to stand up to MPs and point out the bleedin' obvious.

People's conversations get eavesdropped all the time, by electronic means or not, that is life. Get over it Mr Khan.

Nick,
Just how much longer are MP's going to be allowed to put themselves above the laws they themselves pass and expect us, the general public, to obey? The UK is not yet a dictatorship (many think otherwise) and if we are to call ourselves a democracy all people, expecially those elected to represent us, should be subject to the laws of the day. We are being bullied into accepting identity cards, the Inland revenue would skin us alive if we tried to give the excuses given by MP's and our phones can be tapped if the security services so wish. The basic premis in most instances (there will inevitably be genuine exceptions which can be covered by legislation)should surely be that as UK citizens, the general public and elected representatives should be subject to the same laws and rules.
This is clearly not the case and it is now so bizare that I fear the whole process of government and subsequent accountability is rapidly spinning out of control. e.g The European accounts have still not been signed off by Auditors because of the obvious corruption and mis-use of funds and the way New Labour just brazenly snubs its nose at its own laws makes me feel quite sick. I think most of us just feel helpless and despair is setting in at a frightening rate.

Dear Nick,

With all due respect, no one should have their telephone or electronic communications bugged without proper consent from the courts.

The goverment of the UK needs to take the civil liberties of her subjects much more seriously than at present. I was in Florida at the Epcot centre recently and went to visit the 'English village.' It was very quaint, was overcast and raining at the time and they had the 'beatles' playing music from the bandstand.

One noticable absense, which I am in good mind to write to them about, is the lack of a CCTV on each corner or the street.

For too long this government and the one before it for that matter, has been only too happy to ride roughshod over the civil liberties of it's people, and it is time that all of us stood up and paid attention to what is going on.

So it must be a large resounding 'NO' to bugging of private conversations without due process MP or not.

The wire tapping was targeting a terrorism suspect Babar Ahmad, wanted in the USA. The MP, Sadiq Khan, happened to be speaking within range of the bug rather than the bug being planted deliberately to target the MP.

Making a fuss about whether Sadiq Khan was inadvertently bugged is missing the point. If Gordon Brown or David Cameron were to visit the prison and talk to that man, they would likely have been recorded also.

The point is that the inmate, Babar Ahmad, needs to be charged and tried in the UK, or to be released. I have no idea whether he is guilty of a crime or if he is completely innocent.

This is why we have judges and juries.

Assuming he's not being held on a vindictive whim, Ahmad deserves to have charges put to him in court and have the ability to prepare his defense, and rapidly. He was arrested in 2003, it's now 2008 and no trial or extradition has taken place.

The slowness of the legal system must not be used to create an oubliette in which to drop suspects who are held but then never charged, otherwise the legal process is farcical.

Is this just an all party political manoeuvre to push the current MPs' expenses fiasco into the wasteland of 'last week's headlines' ?

Vic

Sheffield

What's so wrong with the MP being tapped ? He was visiting a terrorist in a prison after all - this is very serious and the security services would need to know if he is playing with our lives. If I was visiting a terrorist in prison I would be very suprised if I wasn't tapped - too much is at stake. If the MP was up to nothing then he would have nothing to worry aboout.

Surely the point of the scandal is not the merits of the law. It's the fact that the police felt able to break it with impunity. I know that our current rulers seem to believe that the rule of law is a quaint anachronism replaced by the rule of tabloids but it's still shocking to have it brought home like this. If the police were listening in on conversations between this prisoner and his MP they were presumably doing the same for conversations with his lawyer. I may be old fashioned but I find the whole thing very disturbing.

This shows how MPs are out of touch with reality. If there are grounds for suspicion then phones should be tapped. MPs should rember they are merely representatives of the people not a priviliged group.

Your linking of the Conway and Khan stories does (rightly or wrongly) lend itself to a good measure of schadenfreude at our politicians expense.

Whilst the alleged bugging of an MP does warrant an explanation, it's non the less pleasing to see the "outrage" of MP's when their trust is violated, coming so soon after one of their own so thoroughly violated our trust.

Also, just what did happen to that David Davis letter to the PM ? Did he mistakenly use Royal Mail or is there some darker answer ?

This has been going on for years hasn;t it. After all, weren't MI5 bugging no less than our own PM, Harold Wilson throughout the 60s and 70s because they thought he was Rusian agent?

The reason for the ban on bugging MPs is simple. If MPs are routinely bugged there is nothing to stop the incumbent government from bugging the opposition and using that information for their own political gain. Imagine the the advantage given to the ruling party if they have access to the opposition's plans. How about the amount of damage that could be caused by leaking private phone calls from MPs to their loved ones. Governments are well known for their use of dirty tricks, imagine just how much dirtier they would be with unfettered access.

MPs are more likley to be security risks than the average man in the street due to the nature of the jobs and the information to whichy they have access.

The damage they can potentially cause is also very high.

As such there should be no reason why ANY MP cannot be bugged subject to some form of appropriate authorisation.

please - no bugging of MP's - it's bad enough having to listen to their banal, self-important and all too frequent public utterances.

Nick,

I couldn't agree more, why should MP's be excempt from being bugged, especially if it is a case of national security. MP's should be held accountable in every way and if bugging is needed, to ensure this, then so be it. Nobody is above the law, whether you are an MP or not.

Lets all be grown up and honest, for obviuos reasons there are certain potential conversations that should be targeted and some that don't need to be targeted. I think MI5 or who ever have the nonce to realise the difference here.

I think the MP's are being too precious. It was the prisoner who was being bugged. Whenever an MP meets or speaks to someone suspect of terrorism/drug running, or whatever, they should be aware that there is a possibility of them being recorded.

We have had MP's who have been terrorists and who were sympathetic to some terrorist objectives. There are occassions when they should be bugged

Our increasingly diverse society will be even more open to terrorism in the future. We don't want the situation where terrorist masterminds seek election from 'their' community so as to be guaranteed freedom from scrutiny.

MP's should be a bit more realistic.

Come on now, give MPs a break. After all, they work so hard, making sure at every turn, that they have better pay rises, better pensions, better tax free perks, very generous allowances,lots of "jollys", free travel, free postage,etc than the rest of us! They never break the law and must be above suspicion as they are all so pure, so dedicated to serving us.
Oops! sorry, I have just woken up. What a terrible dream. Now, what was I saying..........

I think, with respect, that Ian has missed Nick's point. "Due process" or not, the interesting question Nick addresses is whether MPs should be treated differently from the rest of us. That point is of general interest with regard - here - to questions of national security or - see the Conway affair - with regard to financial probity.

For my own part, I'm quite keen on my, and Ian's, civil liberties too. And they include not seeing either of us being blown up on the streets of London. Whether or not Ian spotted cameras at Epcot doesn't tell us anything about civil liberties. (There were probably more men with guns there than there are at Legoland, too.)

If part of the price for Ian and me maintaining life and limb is that MPs have to be treated like the rest of us, then bring it on!

MPs should have different rules because there is so much more at stake. If the government started bugging the opposition MPs that would be potentially very damaging for our democracy. There's a slippery slope towards bugging for political advantage.

Hear hear!

If the police had illegally bugged the suspects Lawyer Jack Straw would not care. It is because the Police have bugged an MP, A fellow member of the Political elite that Straw is up in arms

This is yet another instance of MPs taking the view that the laws that they make for the rest of society do not apply to them, An attitude that manifests itself time and again from recent expense/funding scandals to the fact that MPs chose to exempt the house of commons from the smoking ban.

MPs voted for laws that permit snooping on ordinary citizens virtually at whim, Yet when it happens to them they are up in arms

As far as I am concerned most MPs should be under compulsory surveillance whenever they are doing their jobs, after all they work for us and surely we have a right to know exactly what they are doing and how they conduct themselves.

It is an interesting sign of the times that An exemption for MPs from bugging will be regarded by many people as motivated by a desire to conceal wrongdoing rather than a principle of civil liberty

I can't believe that so many people are willing to let the police snoop on whoever they fancy without any oversight. Who polices the police then? You have to remember that Wilson brought forward the rules when he had good reason to believe that the security services were plotting to undermine his government. Perhaps these security services are at it once again. After all they might rather like having a number of MPs in their pocket with the threat of certain information finding its way into the public domain should they not toe the line.