‘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.

Am I alone in having no idea who Michael Mansfield or Gareth Peirce actually are?

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.

‘you could bug michael mansfield or gareth peirce’

That is going to be the issue methinks.

b’shalom

bananabrain

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.

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

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

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…

Im a little confused, if you’re not in favour of MPs have secondary incomes than we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

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 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.

You may as well suggest that MPs shouldn’t have any other income lest there be a ‘conflict of interest’

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.

It matters, because if Sadiq is working as a lawyer, then he should lose his privilege as an MP.

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.

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.