M.P. upset at 'bugging' claim

steeljack · 03-02-2008, 04:06

according to the BBC news website an MP was suposedly 'bugged' by the security services whilst visiting a personal friend who is suspected of having Taliban links ...see story BBC NEWS | UK | Probe into police 'bugging' of MP

seems to me if every 'civilian' is liable to phone tapping and such if suspected of criminal wrongdoing , why should MP's be exempt ? history shows that some of the biggest traitors to the British Crown/Govt. have been 'Honorable Members of the House of Commons' including Tom Driberg on the far left to Oswald Mosley on the fascist right ,(neither of whom faced criminal prosecution) so why should this MP or any other be exempt from surveilence ? . You can be sure Gerry Adam's, Bernadette Devlin and the rev Ian Paisley's phones and activities were monitered during the 'troubles' in the 70's so whats this guy upset about ? and why the outrage from other MP's. ?, ....

cashman · 03-02-2008, 11:55

the outrage from MPs is cos they expect people like you to be bugged john,but ya can't bug these dicks cos they are superior to you.

ps its not more than 25 yrs ago certain militant shop stewards were bugged,believe it.

Bonnyboy · 03-02-2008, 12:03

If the Security Services of this country suspected that the content of Mr Khan’s prison meetings were in some way terror related then it was their duty to bug the meetings. I wouldn’t expect anything less. The fact that the bloke is an MP has no bearing on it in my opinion.

SPUGGIE J · 03-02-2008, 12:27

In these days of hightenedfear over possible attacks then yes the security services should do what isnessesery to prevent it happening. When they dont people in both private and public life kick off demanding action to prevent it. In this day and age having your cake and eating it in a situation like what we have is hypocritical. If the bugging of an MP could save the life of innocent bystanders of all ages then so be it!!!

MargaretR · 03-02-2008, 12:45

I think Jack Straw is kicking up a fuss about bugging because I read somewhere that HE was bugged in his student campaigning days and was most annoyed when he later found out.

cashman · 03-02-2008, 12:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUGGIE J

In these days of hightenedfear over possible attacks then yes the security services should do what isnessesery to prevent it happening. When they dont people in both private and public life kick off demanding action to prevent it. In this day and age having your cake and eating it in a situation like what we have is hypocritical. If the bugging of an MP could save the life of innocent bystanders of all ages then so be it!!!

agree spug,though what i DO NOT like is the fact that its the "thin end of the wedge"which happened during "Thatchers" reign, when ordinary shop stewards phones were bugged. the problem is the " Buggars" are invisible n answerable to no-one.

jaysay · 03-02-2008, 13:29

The fact of the matter is tht every time you and me send an email or use a mobile phone we're being watched, and there is not a thing w can do about it

cmonstanley · 03-02-2008, 13:33

it doesnt bother me ive nothing to hide.if it saves lives why complain has he got something to hide??remember the london bombings no one is safe from these fanatics

garinda · 03-02-2008, 14:01

If there is the slightest threat to national security I don't see why M.P.'s should be different from anyone else, in regards to their conversation being recorded.

garinda · 03-02-2008, 14:17

Perhaps M.P.'s could employ their spouses and children to listen in to their conversations.

Bonnyboy · 03-02-2008, 20:10

This bugging seems to have hit a raw nerve with MP’s of all parties and for the life of me I cannot see why.

They are bleating on about the rules of the “Wilson Convention” having been broken. It’s not a law, just some directorate or other. Most likely no more than a gentlemen’s agreement when it comes down to it. It has to be said that the World has changed since this Convention was draughted.

What the hell makes an MP feel that the law/surveillance regulations should be applied differently to them ? I’m asking because I don’t know, do the MP’s have a point. Where does the Diplomatic Immunity law start and end , does it just apply to foreign officials, does anyone know ?

Wynonie Harris · 03-02-2008, 21:39

This whole controversy illustrates the huge gap that exists between ordinary people and the political classes in this country. Why shouldn't MPs be subject to bugging like us lesser mortals, especially if it's an issue of national security? Maybe the Accyweb politicos of all shades (Greg Pope, Graham Jones, Gayle, Cyfr) could enlighten us?

Greg Pope · 04-02-2008, 14:57

I have a lot of sympathy with what has already been said on here about this and it is a fair question to ask why MPs should be treated any differently than anyone else. The Wilson Doctrine does not say that MPs cannot be bugged, it simply says that to do so would need the agreement of the Prime Minister. The security services are accountable to the Government and through that to Parliament, which is why the situation is slightly different for MPs. However, if an MP is thought to be a security threat to the country then I think they should be treated like any other threat. I should point out that in this instance nobody is suggesting that Sadiq Khan MP is a threat, and the bugging appeared to be aimed at his constituent (in prison awaiting deportation to face terror charges in the USA) rather than him. I don't think anyone has bugged me recently!

shakermaker · 04-02-2008, 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Pope

I don't think anyone has bugged me recently!

Apart from Acrylic-bob

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...ight=greg+pope

Wynonie Harris · 04-02-2008, 15:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Pope

I should point out that in this instance nobody is suggesting that Sadiq Khan MP is a threat, and the bugging appeared to be aimed at his constituent (in prison awaiting deportation to face terror charges in the USA) rather than him.

If the security services have suspicions about this individual, then surely it is their duty to monitor him, whoever he might be talking to. It amazes me (and I think, most ordinary people) that both the government and the opposition have objections to this.