Sadiq Khan bugged
Members of Parliament are exempt from being bugged by intelligence services, thanks to revelations in a book published in the 80s that MI5 conspired to discredit Labour prime minister Harold Wilson in the 60s. But today’s Sunday Times alleged this law was broken, to spy on Sadiq Khan MP visting one of his constituents in jail – Babar Ahmed. Ahmed was accused of raising funds for terrorist operations and later extradited to the US to face charges.
Gordon Brown was drawn into a row today over fears that police secretly bugged one of his MP during meetings with a man suspected of links to terror groups.
An inquiry was ordered into claims that Sadiq Khan, now a government whip, was covertly recorded during two visits to the terror suspect in the prison where he is being held.
The Conservatives claimed to have warned Mr Brown six weeks ago that an MP had been subjected to surveillance in breach of a convention against bugging Members of Parliament, and accused him of doing nothing.
The government has now launched an enquiry to find out what’s going on. Except, the Tories say they warned of this in December and even sent a letter to Gordon Brown about it.
This is shocking because Sadiq Khan was effectively placed under suspicion by the intelligence services simply for being a Muslim. If Labour ministers knew something about this earlier, they should be reprimanded severely. An interview with Khan on this can be watched here.
Update: Ok, it seems more that Babar Ahmed was bugged and Sadiq Khan got caught in that. But that raises another point, which Kulvinder makes below:
Whats far far more worrying and something that has genuinely shocked me was the times reporting that during the meeting ‘legal matters’ were discussed. If the police knew that to be the case they’ve knowlingly breached privilege and don’t seem too bothered about it.
In many ways i hope they did bug him because he is a muslim; it would be a far simpler matter to deal with bigoted officers. The alternative is that the police now disregard any deference towards the democratically elected legislature and the judicial system.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs, Religion
Wow. Just…wow. Still, good to know what to expect if you are muslim and try and get involved in the ‘democratic process’ these days…
Disgraceful!
Firstly, the govt have denied knowledge of the letter from David Davis.
Secondly, and more importantly, as Keith Vaz said today, there is no suggestion of Sadiq Khan being pursued and bugged by the police, but it was the person he was going to visit that they were listening in on.
So, it seems as if the investigation was into the Babar Khan rather than Sadiq Khan. Those listening devices may have been there for some time, listening to all conversations Mr Ahmed had with any visitors. It seems as if Mr Khan was bugged as a result of this rather than the main cause.
So, the line:
“This is shocking because Sadiq Khan was effectively placed under suspicion by the intelligence services simply for being a Muslim.” is completely speculative and misleading.
as always, the facts remain to be revealed, hence the investigation.
*Babar Ahmed
How amusing. So, Sadiq Khan was not bugged, and certainly not because of his religion – it was Babar Ahmed who was bugged and every visitor he met in prison, so that Scotland Yard could do its job in gathering intelligence. Shocking indeed.
“Members of Parliament are exempt from being bugged by intelligence services,”
Duh, Ravi.
In case you missed it, Ravi, Sadiq Khan is an MP.
Sunny.
This sentence sems a bit odd
“This is shocking because Sadiq Khan was effectively placed under suspicion by the intelligence services simply for being a Muslim.”
Now you may be right, but isn’t it far more likely that the police were bugging all Ahmads meetings?
Bug ‘em all that’s what I say. Let’s see what the idle wastrels do with our money!
(I am of course appalled by the religious discrimination showed here. Is this a pre-curser to a new offence, Governing while Muslim, to be followed, no doubt, in short order by Doing the PM’s will while Jewish/Asian/Black?)
Given that we can reasonably assume that it was the terror suspect being bugged, it does raise the question of whether or not the police should have disabled the bugging equipment for the duration of the Honourable Member’s visit. It probably should have been, on the basis that a bad precedent would be set otherwise.
Bugging a suspect. But isn’t Babar Ahmed an innocent under British law? So should he have been bugged at all? It doesn’t even seem appropriate that he is described as a suspect. He is awaiting extradition, to the haven of justice (US), subject to European Court judgement.
Can people commit ‘offences’ retrospectively? Bear in mind the websites he ran existed in the 1990s. The websites were in support of the Taliban and Chechnya, at a time our own governments were working with the Taliban, and presumably against the destruction of the Chechnyan civilian population, jointly planning oil pipelines.
As for the bugging of an MP: Are we suggesting that just because they are bugging a person, that all his conversations then become buggable, whether with his lawyer or his MP?
It seems some here are prepared to suspend their sensibilities as and when it suits.
But today’s Sunday Times alleged this law was broken
It’s a convention, not a law. It’s one that I think should be maintained but as has been already pointed out above, it’s highly irresponsible of you to suggest that Sadiq Khan was being bugged simply because he was a Muslim.
Refresh, Ahmad’s websites were shut down in 2002.
Sunny – “This is shocking because Sadiq Khan was effectively placed under suspicion by the intelligence services simply for being a Muslim.”
That’s um, a lie.
And if he is not a suspect under British Law, then could it be possible the bugging operation was for a friendly foreign power?
Without running away with this one, it is entirely conceivable that there are other ‘arrangements’ in place which circumvent our own laws and constitutional commitments.
Why should our security services not work with the Americans?
Shuggy
‘it’s highly irresponsible of you to suggest that Sadiq Khan was being bugged simply because he was a Muslim.’
Well this is the problem – given that that other muslim MP in government was treated so shabbily at US immigration – can you be so sure?
* Voted very strongly for introducing a smoking ban. votes, speeches
* Voted very strongly for introducing ID cards. votes, speeches
* Voted strongly for Labour’s anti-terrorism laws. votes, speeches
* Voted very strongly against investigating the Iraq war. votes, speeches
What’s he complaining about?
I understand that. But the story (and this post) seem to imply that Sadiq Khan was bugged – and shockingly coz he is a muslim – but once you read the story, you realise that it was Babar Ahmed who was bugged, and all conversations from visitors were recorded, regardless one would think of the visitors gender, race or religion.
I think it is more interesting to know whether suspects of a crime – who are presumed innocent as Refresh reminds us – have the right of privacy. I would think they should.
Having said that, if a suspect is bugged, and an MP or someone with some sort of immunity gets intercepted in that process, then I think one should try to frame the story accordingly, not to sensationalise it.
“I think it is more interesting to know whether suspects of a crime – who are presumed innocent as Refresh reminds us – have the right of privacy. I would think they should”
Not if they’re on remand. Mail is opened, visitors are searched etc. It’s always been that way.
If they have to bug a man who is uncharged in this country – while he is incarcerated – they must be clutching at straws indeed. Waiting for him to say something they can construe as chargeable? Contravening their own laws? I thought the intelligence service was supposed to work on the basis of ‘intelligence’ and intelligence, not on attempts at retrospective incrimination/digging.
Refresh:
Why shouldn’t he be bugged? I am not saying he has done anything wrong, but people are usually bugged before they are found guilty. Your logic escapes me for once, unless I am misunderstanding you.
Shocking but not surprising.
I think this
‘who are presumed innocent as Refresh reminds us’
is not what I said.
The man is innocent under British law.
His extradition is sought by another country for offences committed retrospectively.
As for bugging suspects go ahead – but never bug privieged relationships.
Rumbold,
‘Your logic escapes me for once, ‘
This might be because Ravi has misunderstood what I said.
Refresh:
Thanks for clearing that up. What do you mean by privileged relationships though (apart from conversations with MPs)?
“The man is innocent under British law.”
Not since the terrorism act 2006, he’s not. He falls foul of the following:
Encouragement of terrorism
Dissemination of terrorist publications
Training for terrorism
Rumbold
I understand privileged relationships to be of the client-advocate type (lawyers, and client’s MP).
Bert
You couldn’t be more wrong – unless you believe in retrospective criminalisation.
‘Not since the terrorism act 2006′ and to use your own words, ‘Ahmad’s websites were shut down in 2002′.
The man is not awaiting trial in the UK.
Given that many newspapers try sensationalise every damn story to bring out any shocking value – like this story – I have no idea whether there is any truth that Babar Ahmed’s websites, forums and PCs contained classified US military information, communication with the Taleban and Chechen rebels, and promoting religious warfare against the West. Can he explain all that?
All in all, I hope he is not extradited to the US – on the grounds that it is a country that tortures people. Britain should put him on trial based on the evidence that it has, and if he is found guilty I hope he is put to jail for a long time.
‘Encouragement of terrorism
Dissemination of terrorist publications
Training for terrorism’
And I thought it was becauase he ran websites in support of the Taliban and Chechnya. It seems his crime (retrospectively) was he hosted in the US.
The affadavit for the extradition on Ahmad is here if anyone wants to read it.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ct/Documents/AHMAD%20extradition%20affidavit.pdf
Well this is the problem – given that that other muslim MP in government was treated so shabbily at US immigration – can you be so sure?
I’m not that sure because I lack information. But so does Sunny and since it seems likely he was bugged because of who he was talking to rather than his religion, it seems rather unwise to allege otherwise without any proper evidence. This shouldn’t be taken as a defence of the bugging; my view is that the Wilson convention should be respected.
Refresh – yep, with madmen like Ahmad I have no problems with retrospectively criminalising what he was up to.
Though maybe he could be charged under the foreign enlistment act 1870.
sensible points Ravi, and good questions.
why was Sadiq Khan visiting his constituent in jail = does he visit all his constituents who are in jail, or only the Muslim ones, I would ask. If not, is that religious discrimination? One could argue that, or one could argue this bloke is more high profile than someone pushed in for drugs or something.
Chairwoman – good one! public money – public servants if anyone should be bugged it ought to be them, instead of being exempt..
Ravi
‘All in all, I hope he is not extradited to the US – on the grounds that it is a country that tortures people. Britain should put him on trial based on the evidence that it has, and if he is found guilty I hope he is put to jail for a long time.’
Absolutely.
I understand he is not a suspect here.
Sonia,
‘why was Sadiq Khan visiting his constituent in jail = does he visit all his constituents who are in jail, or only the Muslim ones, I would ask. If not, is that religious discrimination?’
I am not sure you understand the work of an MP. If his constituent is remanded (innocent until proven otherwise for starters), and the constituent cannot get to see the MP at his offices, its obvious that the MP may visit him.
Are you suggesting no MPs have had to make visits to prisons?
i agree with chairwoman. and this seems like manufactured outrage to me if it was babar ahmed that was being bugged, which appears an eminently reasonable thing to do.
and i must apologise for initially supposing that this thread involved sadiq khan being buggered. he seemed like a nice enough chap when i met him, albeit a bit of an anonymous new labour cipher.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Firstly, I think yet again the media has sensationalised the story for obvious reasons. In all probability the police were more interested in what Babar Ahmed was saying.
Secondly, I think times have changed considerably since the Wilson doctrine was conceived. Surveillance is very much part of day-to-day life. I would welcome surveillance of ministers provided there are very strong safeguards. We don’t want to get to a situation like in a totalitarian state where all ministers are routinely bugged and the surveillance material used to incriminate them.
As government whip, one of Sadiq Khan’s functions was to convince backbenchers to support more surveilance measures introduced by the government. Now it’s time to eat his own dogfood.
Bert
‘Though maybe he could be charged under the foreign enlistment act 1870.’
That would be interesting. Should take out dogs of war.
‘yep, with madmen like Ahmad I have no problems with retrospectively criminalising what he was up to.’
Doesn’t quite protect our values though, does it? Can we not then go the whole hog, and criminalise everybody that went to war in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.
Refresh – The Soviets had left Afghanistan long before Ahmad had even heard of the place.
Bert,
But you do see the problem with enacting laws criminalising retrospectively, don’t you?
To be honest that concept in itself (regardless of Babar Ahmed) takes us further down the totalitarian road than even Cover Drive’s suggestion of bugging ministers.
Not really. Ahmad is a treasonous little turd, and letting him off because no one had got around to updating the laws to include internet activity is what’s known as ‘getting off on a technicality’. He’s one of the reasons the laws have now been updated, but I’m not going to thank him for it.
why Refresh why should you assume that’s what i was suggesting? MPs can make whatever visits they please i’m sure, i was just wondering if that’s something they normally go about doing, I don’t imagine it is, somehow, given how busy they are, but clearly this guy is high profile. Generally MPs only do things that get them attention no? But i thought i’d throw it out there, after all some people might feel that if Sadiq Khan is only visiting his constituents in jail who are Muslim, why they might get upset mightn’t they? They might think, ooh this is religious discrimination. And we wouldnt want that would we?
yeah if he’s been touting surveillance measures then it serves him bloody right.
Bert, you’ll be in deep trouble if it ever becomes a criminal offence to hold fundamentally illogical, unenforceable views.
I’m an anarchist, but even I understand that you can’t prosecute someone for something if it wasn’t illegal at the time they did it. Period.
Can you even imagine the can of worms that would be opened if something like that became legally possible?
We might as well just kill ourselves now, because if anything can potentially be retrospectively made into a criminal act, what would be the point in doing anything at all?
What would be the point in the establishment making any laws, even? We might as well do away with the whole legal framework, under that scenario, because it wouldn’t be worth the paper it’s written on.
It’s a really ill-thought-out idea.
Sonia,
‘why Refresh why should you assume that’s what i was suggesting?’
Because that is what your post seemed to say.
Putting it out there hardly furthers the debate. Other than to imply he only visits constituents because they are muslim.
Or have I misunderstood that too?
Bert @ 43 – you either believe in the process of law, or you don’t.
I actually don’t myself – but you seem to, except where it suits you not to bother. If it wasn’t illegal at the time he did it, then it wasn’t illegal – “technicality” or not.
Many nazis were dealt with under laws enforced retrospectively. I don’t consider that made us a totalitarian state, and I don’t consider nicking Ahmad in the same fashion would either.
Ha! Pretty good point. But then again, the guy is closed to be extradited to the US, a country that tortures prisoners, and thus I believe that this being a high-profile case, there is a case for the MP to visit the allegedly treasonous little turd, even if he isn’t in the habit of visiting other prisoners.
Another point – which I think chairwomen was alluding – is the checks and balances. People who are in power should be more scrutinised than those who aren’t, in my view. The reason why there is a convention not to bug MPs is that it could be used by the government to spy on its opposition.
In this case, Sadiq Khan is not the opposition nor was he the target. If he is dealing with an alleged terrorist, then he surely should expect to be surveiled in some way or another. Furthermore, bugging equipment I guess is not something you can just go, set it in and out anytime you like.
These ’sensationalist’ ’shocking!’ news only serve to alienate muslims even more.
Ravi
‘In this case, Sadiq Khan is not the opposition nor was he the target. If he is dealing with an alleged terrorist, then he surely should expect to be surveiled in some way or another. Furthermore, bugging equipment I guess is not something you can just go, set it in and out anytime you like.’
There should be a Power On/Off button, somewhere.
‘The reason why there is a convention not to bug MPs is that it could be used by the government to spy on its opposition.’
So the question raised was who gave the authority to bug? It seems it wasn’t the Prime Minister, he and Jack Straw doesn’t seem to know anything about it.
The checks and balances would have rested within that chain of authority. Hence my earlier point, could it have been done at the request of a foreign power and is there a separate chain of authority which cuts out the Prime Minister?
surely if it’s illegal to bug an MP, then law enforcement are shooting themselves in the foot, because they’ll be jeopardising any prosecution of ahmad, right?
this is all rather silly.
b’shalom
bananabrain
I’m glad to hear that bugging people is against the law
A lot of people bug me
I think it is very likely that the bug was installed to monitor Babar’s conversations, and it was just there to pick up everything. I would think it is highly unusual for an MP to visit an alleged terrorist, and thus he was caught as part of the investigation. I am surprised if Khan was so naive as to think that he would not be monitored given his close encounter with the suspect.
That certainly seems more plausible than what you are suggesting – that MI5 or even MI6 is controlled by a foreign power (the US).
Security forces record interview with possible terrorist suspect shocker!
Hold the front page
I do apologise, not MI5/MI6, but Scotland Yard who placed the bugs.
Debating whether MPs should be ‘bugged’ is pointless; obviously they should be treated in exactly the same manner as anyone else.
Regardless of the fact that Sadiq Khan’s voting record on civil liberties is looks fairly dire the fact the police broke with convention is a very serious matter and should be investigated.
There is no point in celebrating the fact the police can seemingly act on their on whim.
Whats far far more worrying and something that has genuinely shocked me was the times reporting that during the meeting ‘legal matters’ were discussed. If the police knew that to be the case they’ve knowlingly breached privilege and don’t seem too bothered about it.
In many ways i hope they did bug him because he is a muslim; it would be a far simpler matter to deal with bigoted officers. The alternative is that the police now disregard any deference towards the democratically elected legislature and the judicial system.
What happened was a gross violation, and in any other country would result in people being fired. But since senior officers now feel confident in keeping their jobs despite high profile deaths occuring because of organisational failings i suppose its too much to ask for them to try and follow the law in everything else.
It wasn’t about control, it was about the mechanics of how the agencies work with each other. One of the news reports questioned whether the request to bug came from across the atlantic. And do the mechanics of the arrangement allow Sir Ian Blair to proceed without sign-off from at least the Home Office. There are a lot of questions which cannot be easily dismissed.
And with regards prison visits, I would be astonished to think the services would bug Babar Ahmed, but not know when his MP would be visiting.
Most MPs would be as ‘naive’; when (rightly or wrongly) there is an explicit convention on bugging you don’t expect the police to arbitrarily decide to ignore it.
You may disagree with the convention – i certainly would have no problem with MPs being treated in a similar manner to us – but it is not the job of the police to interpret these matters of their own accord.
Kulvinder,
glad to see someone appreciates the seriousness of the incident.
nb I’m more than a little dismayed at the reactions of the public on other sites. I stand for the rights of everyone regardless of who they are.
I would have the same degree of outrage if this was a Christian BNP MP rather than a Muslim Labour one.
It’d be nice to have an mp as approachable as sadiq khan. jeremy corbyn would be great to… maybe i need to move…
I don’t have the same reationship with mine, in fact i hope id never have to ever be unfortunate enough to rely on his insight or abilities should i ever fall into a problem. I dont nessesarily want a high ranker, just someone with insight and some mojo.
It is very shady how the times, bbc and telegraph … even policy exchange are covering this. Why are they promoting this story in the way that they are (distraction value or suspicion value?). The telegraph tv clip went as far as pronouncing ahmad as akmed. weird. Policy exchange are all over sadiq khan.
there really is a lot of poison out there.
We don’t want to get to a situation like in a totalitarian state where all ministers are routinely bugged and the surveillance material used to incriminate them.
And one of the ways we avoid getting into that state is the wilson convention.
Parliament is the ‘off switch’ for the security services. Very likely a majority of MPs are up to something or other they wouldn’t want all over the morning papers – letting MI5 bug MPs is handing them power over their own off switch: if they decided to become the Stasi, it would take extreme measures to stop them.
Witness as everyone goes into “Cover-Your-Ass” mode while they try and obfuscate the points that Refresh raises in #58.
Tony Benn has just called the ‘wilson doctrine’ an illusion. will probably take a while for this piece of powerful sounding technobabble to evapourate.
I understand that in order for you to be genuinely shocked, you need to disregard questions such as why would an MP be discussing legal matters with the terrorist suspect in the first place? Is he a lawyer? Yes, he is. But there seems to be a conflict of interest, not to mention a conflict between branches of power, no?
Just look at the first two knee-jerk comments! And Sunny obviously didn’t read up on it properly.
The notion that Sidiq got bugged “cos he was a Muslim” is patently ridiculous.
Babar Ahmed is one of Britains most well known terror suspects
About 75% people according to the BBC poll think that MPs should not be exampt from bugging. I am (a little) surprised that you aren’t all shouting the same thing.
Would you all rather the security services didn’t monitor terrorist suspects???
or perhaps it’s racist to monitor terrorists if they happen to be Muslim…
No like you marvin, we only want MPs to be bugged if they’re muslim.
Bug the lot of them (MPs) !!! They want us to live in a surveillance culture – they should have to live it too!
Another great opportunity for the Muslims groups to play the victim card. They are all rushing out with statements including Hizb ut-Tahrir:
I have no idea; ask him.
I’m unsure why it would matter one way or the other, an MP is under no obligation to avoid communication with people suspected of particular types of crimes. Infact id hope their personal morality would compel them to get involved despite any controversy. Mandela is also a terrorist after all.
Not really members of the House of Lords still work as lawyers (Lord Lester etc)
Because its besides the point.
Marvin,
Knee-jerk?
Hardly, given an enquiry has been launched in record-time, I would argue the reaction encapsulated perfectly the position this has put us all in.
When was the last time a government ordered an enquiry with this little prompting?
As for the 75% in the poll saying MPs should not be exempt, is hardly the issue. As I understand it no one can be bugged in this fair and free land without the express permission of the Home Secretary. And in the case of MPs, not at all unless agreed to by the Prime Minister of the day. And if he was to do that, then he would have to justify it to the House of Commons.
Anything wrong so far?
As for the list of alleged connections and activities you quote, they relate specifically to the person awaiting the decision of the European court vis-a-vis extradition to the US.
So he has not been found guilty of anything here in the UK, and has rights to fair representation. If his defence against extradition itself is undermined by the bugging of a privileged conversation (I think Bananabrain refers to it upthread), then our beloved buggers may well have assisted him in his defence.
So perhaps you could enlighten our 75% self-selected participants, and be thankful they are not running the country (yet).
It matters, because if Sadiq is working as a lawyer, then he should lose his privilege as an MP. I don’t think it is illegal to bug a conversation between a lawyer and his client – however, such evidence is not admissible in court.
If the suspect is accused of terrorism, then it seems sensible that all his contacts and movements be monitored.
Apparently, the Wilson convention does not apply to Plod, only to Spooks.
And on retrospective laws, the UK (mainly thanks to the lack of a written consitution) is one of the few countries that can enact retrospective legislation – although it is very much frowned upon.
When the Double Jeopardy laws were changed in 2003 they were applied to William Dunlop, who had been aquitted of the 1989 murder of Julie Hogg in 1991 and who had subsequently boasted of his guilt. He got life. I believe it is also hoped eventually to apply in the Stephen Lawrence case.
Refresh is right that this has seen a very quick response by the government (perhaps indicating that for once they are pretty sure they are not in the frame)but it is not clear to me that the police have breached any legislation.
No doubt clarification will come. Personally, I’d be astonished if the police were not monitoring the communications of a remanded terrorist suspect.
Yeah, but why? ‘working as a lawyer’ is obviously open to a degree of interpretation (not everyone is a litigator). As i said the Lords have been doing it for donkeys years despite being members of the upper chamber.
You may as well suggest that MPs shouldn’t have any other income lest there be a ‘conflict of interest’, after all Michael Heseltine owned Haymarket despite being an MP, Boris Johnson edited the Spectator etc. I don’t mind forcing MPs to declare their interests, but neither do i want put a mill stone around their neck.
That is besides the point. If someone is doing something other than his job as an MP, such as working in a magazine, as a businessman, or as a legal advisor to a suspected terrorist, then why should they have special privileges than any other businessman or lawyer?
On the other hand, if Sadiq Khan is not working as a lawyer/legal advisor but as an MP, then I have the right to know how my tax money is being spent.
Im a little confused, if you’re not in favour of MPs have secondary incomes than we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I think the point is that his parliamentary privileges should apply only to his parlaimentary role, not provide him with an extra layer of privilege in other roles he plays, however legitimate.
He didn’t have an extra layer of ‘protection’. If he was acting as a lawyer he still had professional privilege.
Just imagine if this was a white Tory MP, acting as a legal counsul for suspected neo-nazi terrorist supporter facing extradition to Germany.
I wonder if picklers would be so outraged at the poor MP’s ‘privacy’ when trying to get the man released he believes is innocent of crimes.
#61
Actually, I am not against MPs doing other jobs, as long as they don’t have any executive privileges in performing those jobs – otherwise it would constitute an abuse of power, no?
Now, I don’t think MPs are supposed to provide legal advice or discuss legal matters to its constituents, so I think Sadiq Khan should probably come clear and say in what capacity did he visit Babar Ahmed.
But I do agree you that we disagree on this one.
To me, the only aspect of this story that mortifies me is that the UK is considering extraditing a suspect to a country that tortures its prisoners. I find this repulsive.
I really don’t have much sympathy for MP’s. Or Lawyers. Both is pressing it.
The ‘Wilson doctrine’ is purely in MP’s self-interests. Let us not delude ourselves here. They shouldn’t be bugged willy-nilly – but perhaps those trying to release suspected terrorists unconditionally should merit some attention. If they are involved in terrorist activities it would be nice to catch them in the act, no?
And I cant say I have any sympathy with Babar. It’s very hard to get framed for hosting jihadi websites and infidel beheading videos for years on end. What goes around…
Quite bizarrely, the question “Should MPs be exempt from police ‘bugging’” has changed in appearance dramatically.
It now reports 1.49% say no, and “not sure” as 20.23%.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7227546.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_news_VOTEBUGGING_03feb08
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/131/voteswi0.jpg
Ok – Mr Severly confused.
I think BBC poll, psychologically, somehow had been positioned the wrong way round. 77% seem to be saying it’s wrong to bug MPs. Can this possibly be true???
I feel like, whats his name, Melvin, in 1984. Love = Hate
‘I feel like, whats his name, Melvin, in 1984. Love = Hate’
You don’t mean Marvin, my favourite of all the bipolars?
I do sympathise though, when you reported the first time, it showed c.30,000 had pushed the button. Could that have been true? Now it shows c.9000.
What’s going on?
It seems that the Met had it in for Sadiq Khan for his civil liberties work.
Muslim = Civil Liberties – cannot compute.
Could it also mean that Shami Chakrabarti may also be bugged?
The Wilson doctrine was established to counter surveillance by the security services of political activists. It seems we have been transported back to the 60s.
don’t panic marvin!!!
it just keeps changing still…
why bother bugging shami chakrabarti when you could bug michael mansfield or gareth peirce? you’d get far better quality intelligence from their clients.
b’shalom
bananabrain
BB
‘you could bug michael mansfield or gareth peirce’
That is going to be the issue methinks.
Just as an aside this article possibly sheds light on the reluctance to use ‘phone tap’ evidence in court (for fear of revealing methods).
Regardless if that is what they’re worried about; you’ll certainly never look at your mobile the same way again even if it sits switched off and is seemingly innocuous.
Just like to say that Shami Chakrabarti is probably my heroine. Which seems to place me on the opposite side of the fence from Bananabrain, which is a shame, ’cause he and I seemed to see eye to eye in the past.
Am I alone in having no idea who Michael Mansfield or Gareth Peirce actually are?
Douglas
‘Am I alone in having no idea who Michael Mansfield or Gareth Peirce actually are?’
Both are high profile lawyers who seem to do a good job in human rights cases.
Michael Mansfield is also currently in the public eye for representing Al Fayed in the Princess Diana inquest.