So it's perfectly OK for the state to spy on ordinary people but when it happens to an MP there's an uproar, Bloody hypocrites. They created the surveillance state so they should either have to put up with it like the rest of us or put in proper safeguards for all of us. One rule for them and one for everybody else once again.
Bit convenient isn't it with the Conway affair still being the talk of the public, nothing like a good deflection.:rolleyes:
And how exactly do you know this? Was the terror suspect speaking to himself or was he speaking to an MP? Did they only tape the terror suspect's side of the conversation?
As a British citizen I probably know more about my country than you do. Now, tell me, is it illegal to bug an MP or not? A simple yes or no would suffice.
To help you make you decision, I refer you to the following site:
Quote: The Sunday Times leads with an interesting scoop, involving two topics about which we have written about here on Spy Blog, namely the Wilson Doctrine executive administrative prohibition on tapping or bugging the communications of Members of Parliament
Furthermore, your government wants to extradite a British suspect without presenting ANY evidence whatsoever:
Quote: and the controversial attempt by the US government to extradite British Muslim IT technician Babar Ahmad to the USA, without presenting any prima facie evidence to a British Court.
Should a British subject be allowed to talk to his MP if he is the subject of an extradition request to a country that practises torture and has been condemned by human rights organisations, given no evidence to support the extradition request whatsoever? That country being the United States of America, your country.
Firstly, no law was broken. Only a protocol that forbids the security services from bugging MPs. Thats a government policy not law.
Secondly, they didn't bug the MP they bugged the suspect. Think about it. The police bug a suspect's phone line. The suspect calls his MP and gets and answer. The Police are now bugging the MP? What are they supposed to do? They've already (unintentionally) broken the protocol.
Thirdly, in this case, the ability to turn the bug off may not have been possible between knowing that the MP was visiting and the visit itself. Besides it's practically the same situation as the case above.
Fourthly, why do MP's get immunity from bugging? Gerry Adams was bugged - if a radical Muslim associated with AQ was to get elected, I'd expect he would be bugged too.
Bit convenient isn't it with the Conway affair still being the talk of the public, nothing like a good deflection.:rolleyes:
Yes - the Conway affair, the general cross-party MP's expenses affair, the Hain affair, the Alexander affair, the Harman affair, the Johnson affair & the dodgy donations affair... it's pushed all these off the front page.
IF the bugging had been approved, it would have had to have been approved at the highest level, ie the Prime Minister. Now that the bugging has been made public, Davis has published a letter claiming he informed the PM about the situation in December & Brown is claiming not to have received it...?
Seems a bit suspicious to me – after all, Brown does have a history of ‘loosing’ incriminating evidence. Just ask the people working in the Treasury who spent the last night of Brown's reign shredding anything that cast him in a bad light…
This government seems a bit too unlucky with things going ‘lost in the post’, don’t they? As someone else has said, as excuses go it’s equivalent to ‘the dog ate my homework’.
Firstly, no law was broken. Only a protocol that forbids the security services from bugging MPs. Thats a government policy not law.
Secondly, they didn't bug the MP they bugged the suspect. Think about it. The police bug a suspect's phone line. The suspect calls his MP and gets and answer. The Police are now bugging the MP? What are they supposed to do? They've already (unintentionally) broken the protocol.
Thirdly, in this case, the ability to turn the bug off may not have been possible between knowing that the MP was visiting and the visit itself. Besides it's practically the same situation as the case above.
Fourthly, why do MP's get immunity from bugging? Gerry Adams was bugged - if a radical Muslim associated with AQ was to get elected, I'd expect he would be bugged too.
Okay, government policy was broken. Still doesn't make it right.
Secondly, they bugged a face-to-face meeting. The bugging device was in a hollowed-out table used for the express purpose of bugging the meeting between a suspect and his MP.
Can I read all your emails and bug all of your conversations as well if you've got nothing to hide? I guarantee that I can find something to incriminate you.
By the way, the suspect has not been charged with any criminal offence. He is the subject of an extradition order by, surprise, surprise, the American government who have failed to supply ANY evidence of wrong-doing whatsoever.
Now, either we assume he is innocent until proven guilty or we assume he is guilty because the United States of Paranoia says he is. Which justice system do you wish to uphold?
Okay, government policy was broken. Still doesn't make it right.
Secondly, they bugged a face-to-face meeting. The bugging device was in a hollowed-out table used for the express purpose of bugging the meeting between a suspect and his MP.
Can I read all your emails and bug all of your conversations as well if you've got nothing to hide? I guarantee that I can find something to incriminate you.
By the way, the suspect has not been charged with any criminal offence. He is the subject of an extradition order by, surprise, surprise, the American government who have failed to supply ANY evidence of wrong-doing whatsoever.
Now, either we assume he is innocent until proven guilty or we assume he is guilty because the United States of Paranoia says he is. Which justice system do you wish to uphold?
Do you have a source for this - my understanding is that all his communications were bugged not just this one.
So it's perfectly OK for the state to spy on ordinary people but when it happens to an MP there's an uproar, Bloody hypocrites. They created the surveillance state so they should either have to put up with it like the rest of us or put in proper safeguards for all of us. One rule for them and one for everybody else once again.
Why should CCTV cameras be allowed to record my every movement. I've never, to date, carried out a criminal act nor have any inclination to do so in future. But, I've got no choice, unless I'm prepared to stay in my house 24/7, I have to suffer the indignity of being watched like I can't be trusted.
MPs are probably the least trustworthy people in this country so if I have to put up and shut up then so should they.
I'd like to know in what capacity was this MP visiting this guy in prison? Was it as a friend or was it genuine constituency business?
Do you have a source for this - my understanding is that all his communications were bugged not just this one.
Is there any evidence that the bugging took place full stop, surely the police, MI5, MI6, etc, (or whoever's supposed to have conducting the bugging) can deny everything can't they?
If the incident did take place, the biggest concern I'd have, would be, who leaked this out to start with, surely they're a security threat?
Why should CCTV cameras be allowed to record my every movement. I've never, to date, carried out a criminal act nor have any inclination to do so in future. But, I've got no choice, unless I'm prepared to stay in my house 24/7, I have to suffer the indignity of being watched like I can't be trusted.
MPs are probably the least trustworthy people in this country so if I have to put up and shut up then so should they.
I'd like to know in what capacity was this MP visiting this guy in prison? Was it as a friend or was it genuine constituency business?
I agree with you, it was the hypocrisy I was commenting on. As a government whip he would have no doubt pushed MP's to vote for labours police state laws, he shouldn't complain when he falls victim to them.
Quote: SCOTLAND YARD’S antiterrorist squad secretly bugged a high-profile Labour Muslim MP during private meetings with one of his constituents.
Sadiq Khan, now a government whip, was recorded by an electronic listening device hidden in a table during visits to the constituent in prison.
The bugging of MPs is a breach of a government edict that has barred law agencies from eavesdropping on politicians since the bugging scandal of Harold Wilson’s government. There was no suspicion of criminal conduct by Khan to justify the operation.
A document seen by The Sunday Times shows there was internal concern about the propriety of bugging an MP, who was also a lawyer, but the operation nevertheless went ahead.
The disclosure will put further pressure on Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, who will be asked to explain why his officers apparently breached government rules – and if he authorised it.
Quote: SCOTLAND YARD’S antiterrorist squad secretly bugged a high-profile Labour Muslim MP during private meetings with one of his constituents.
Sadiq Khan, now a government whip, was recorded by an electronic listening device hidden in a table during visits to the constituent in prison.
The bugging of MPs is a breach of a government edict that has barred law agencies from eavesdropping on politicians since the bugging scandal of Harold Wilson’s government. There was no suspicion of criminal conduct by Khan to justify the operation.
A document seen by The Sunday Times shows there was internal concern about the propriety of bugging an MP, who was also a lawyer, but the operation nevertheless went ahead.
The disclosure will put further pressure on Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, who will be asked to explain why his officers apparently breached government rules – and if he authorised it.
Again - was it only the MP who was bugged during the time or was it all visitors? certainly it would appear that they knew and continued to bug the MP after his first visit. We'll find out more soon.
However, The Sunday Times has learnt that at least six of the tables have had their panels hollowed out to hide bugging equipment. They are known as “talking tables”. Inside each panel is a microphone, a battery, an antenna and a transmitter.
Such is the secrecy surrounding these tables that even the prison officers are said to be unaware of them. They are operated and maintained by specialist detectives permanently based at the prison.
Highly likely that he was recorded before the detective at the prison had a chance to think about what was going on. Also highly likely that all his visitors were taped.
Lets put things into perspective, you have an Islamic Terrorist, talking to a Muslim who not only has access to the houses of Parliament, but a history of anti-institutionalism.
Only in this country would you have people up in arms over if the conversation was bugged. MP or not, the police were doing their duty, and attempting to do their job of protecting the British public, despite all the obstacles always thrown in their way by the very people they are trying to protect.
I am surprise that any visitor coming to visit an allegedly terror suspect is not bugged, I would have thought that was mandatory
I did not know there was a law against it. Why is it okay for the average joe and not for politicians, I mean its not like our politiicans are trust worthy. (cough)
The majority of the public seem to agree, a terrorist talking to a muslim with inside access to Westminster, should be legitimately bugged by the police ...
The article also informs us that the officer who authorised the bugging is now being dragged before a disciplinary - only in england! It makes me mad!
Lets put things into perspective, you have an Islamic Terrorist, talking to a Muslim who not only has access to the houses of Parliament, but a history of anti-institutionalism.
The suspect has not been charged with any offence. He is being detained because of an extradition request by the US government.
How come you've labelled the suspect an 'islamic Terrorist' already?
The suspect has not been charged with any offence. He is being detained because of an extradition request by the US government.
How come you've labelled the suspect an 'islamic Terrorist' already?
People don't get extradition requests made against them for no reason. Although not been proven guilty, as he's avoided not being put before a court, it would be extremely naive to treat them as innocent in law enforcement eyes... peoples lives could rely on the intelligence that could be gathered from their loose talk.
People don't get extradition requests made against them for no reason. Although not been proven guilty, as he's avoided not being put before a court, it would be extremely naive to treat them as innocent in law enforcement eyes... peoples lives could rely on the intelligence that could be gathered from their loose talk.
Well the Americans have not presented ANY evidence whatsoever! Sounds like an extradition request for no reason whatsoever to me.
Isn't it the responsibility of OUR government to protect BRITISH citizens from countries that practise torture?
Sure, if there is sufficient evidence for extradition then send him over.
What if the US government wanted you over because they traced the IP address of your computer as accessing a dodgy Web site? Would you expect your government to act in your interests or not? Or should we just send you over?
You need to be very careful of passing judgment on people. The British security services and police have not charged this suspect with anything whatsoever. The US government has not presented ANY evidence whatsoever. Doesn't this suspect at least deserve a fair hearing or should we automatically assume he is a terrorist because he is a dark-skinned man with a beard?
As i've said before, we either uphold the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' in all cases or we become a nation similar to those that we despise. You cannot pick and choose when your standards of justice apply and when they do not.
Well the Americans have not presented ANY evidence whatsoever! Sounds like an extradition request for no reason whatsoever to me.
The guy with whom the MP visited is allegedly responsible for or connected with a website REGISTERED IN THE US that is suspected of having links to, or to be providing or raising funds to support terrorism...that is the only proof they (US) need for an extradition.
The guy with whom the MP visited is allegedly responsible for or connected with a website REGISTERED IN THE US that is suspected of having links to, or to be providing or raising funds to support terrorism...that is the only proof they (US) need for an extradition.
Enough evidence for me.
Situation one:
Wrongly accused, wrongly bugged, apology that you heard my idle chit chat. Hurt my feelings that I was bugged.
Situation two:
Accused, bugged, overheard, saved some lives by intercepting some vital information.
Wrongly accused, wrongly bugged, apology that you heard my idle chit chat. Hurt my feelings that I was bugged.
Situation two:
Accused, bugged, overheard, saved some lives by intercepting some vital information.
I'll go for situation two every time.
The buggings happened 2-3 years ago. If the security services had incriminating evidence against the Labour MP or the terror suspect you would have thought that 2-3 years would be enough time to charge them.
The suspect has been held without charge since 2004. Surely four years is enough to gather evidence to charge him in the UK or for the US government to provide some evidence to support the extradition request?
We need to ensure that our justice system is upheld to very high standards. You cannot just hold people because you _think_ they are bad.
Firstly, no law was broken. Only a protocol that forbids the security services from bugging MPs. Thats a government policy not law.
Secondly, they didn't bug the MP they bugged the suspect. Think about it. The police bug a suspect's phone line. The suspect calls his MP and gets and answer. The Police are now bugging the MP? What are they supposed to do? They've already (unintentionally) broken the protocol.
Thirdly, in this case, the ability to turn the bug off may not have been possible between knowing that the MP was visiting and the visit itself. Besides it's practically the same situation as the case above.
Fourthly, why do MP's get immunity from bugging? Gerry Adams was bugged - if a radical Muslim associated with AQ was to get elected, I'd expect he would be bugged too.
That's exactly what I said earlier.... There is a difference between bugging a terror suspect being held and deliberately bugging an MP and it beyond comprehesion that so many cannot understand it.
Comments
Bit convenient isn't it with the Conway affair still being the talk of the public, nothing like a good deflection.:rolleyes:
Firstly, no law was broken. Only a protocol that forbids the security services from bugging MPs. Thats a government policy not law.
Secondly, they didn't bug the MP they bugged the suspect. Think about it. The police bug a suspect's phone line. The suspect calls his MP and gets and answer. The Police are now bugging the MP? What are they supposed to do? They've already (unintentionally) broken the protocol.
Thirdly, in this case, the ability to turn the bug off may not have been possible between knowing that the MP was visiting and the visit itself. Besides it's practically the same situation as the case above.
Fourthly, why do MP's get immunity from bugging? Gerry Adams was bugged - if a radical Muslim associated with AQ was to get elected, I'd expect he would be bugged too.
Yes - the Conway affair, the general cross-party MP's expenses affair, the Hain affair, the Alexander affair, the Harman affair, the Johnson affair & the dodgy donations affair... it's pushed all these off the front page.
IF the bugging had been approved, it would have had to have been approved at the highest level, ie the Prime Minister. Now that the bugging has been made public, Davis has published a letter claiming he informed the PM about the situation in December & Brown is claiming not to have received it...?
Seems a bit suspicious to me – after all, Brown does have a history of ‘loosing’ incriminating evidence. Just ask the people working in the Treasury who spent the last night of Brown's reign shredding anything that cast him in a bad light…
This government seems a bit too unlucky with things going ‘lost in the post’, don’t they? As someone else has said, as excuses go it’s equivalent to ‘the dog ate my homework’.
Okay, government policy was broken. Still doesn't make it right.
Secondly, they bugged a face-to-face meeting. The bugging device was in a hollowed-out table used for the express purpose of bugging the meeting between a suspect and his MP.
Can I read all your emails and bug all of your conversations as well if you've got nothing to hide? I guarantee that I can find something to incriminate you.
By the way, the suspect has not been charged with any criminal offence. He is the subject of an extradition order by, surprise, surprise, the American government who have failed to supply ANY evidence of wrong-doing whatsoever.
Now, either we assume he is innocent until proven guilty or we assume he is guilty because the United States of Paranoia says he is. Which justice system do you wish to uphold?
Do you have a source for this - my understanding is that all his communications were bugged not just this one.
Why should CCTV cameras be allowed to record my every movement. I've never, to date, carried out a criminal act nor have any inclination to do so in future. But, I've got no choice, unless I'm prepared to stay in my house 24/7, I have to suffer the indignity of being watched like I can't be trusted.
MPs are probably the least trustworthy people in this country so if I have to put up and shut up then so should they.
I'd like to know in what capacity was this MP visiting this guy in prison? Was it as a friend or was it genuine constituency business?
If the incident did take place, the biggest concern I'd have, would be, who leaked this out to start with, surely they're a security threat?
I agree with you, it was the hypocrisy I was commenting on. As a government whip he would have no doubt pushed MP's to vote for labours police state laws, he shouldn't complain when he falls victim to them.
Try this source:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3295393.ece
Quote: SCOTLAND YARD’S antiterrorist squad secretly bugged a high-profile Labour Muslim MP during private meetings with one of his constituents.
Sadiq Khan, now a government whip, was recorded by an electronic listening device hidden in a table during visits to the constituent in prison.
The bugging of MPs is a breach of a government edict that has barred law agencies from eavesdropping on politicians since the bugging scandal of Harold Wilson’s government. There was no suspicion of criminal conduct by Khan to justify the operation.
A document seen by The Sunday Times shows there was internal concern about the propriety of bugging an MP, who was also a lawyer, but the operation nevertheless went ahead.
The disclosure will put further pressure on Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, who will be asked to explain why his officers apparently breached government rules – and if he authorised it.
Again - was it only the MP who was bugged during the time or was it all visitors? certainly it would appear that they knew and continued to bug the MP after his first visit. We'll find out more soon.
From your link
Highly likely that he was recorded before the detective at the prison had a chance to think about what was going on. Also highly likely that all his visitors were taped.
Only in this country would you have people up in arms over if the conversation was bugged. MP or not, the police were doing their duty, and attempting to do their job of protecting the British public, despite all the obstacles always thrown in their way by the very people they are trying to protect.
I am surprise that any visitor coming to visit an allegedly terror suspect is not bugged, I would have thought that was mandatory
I did not know there was a law against it. Why is it okay for the average joe and not for politicians, I mean its not like our politiicans are trust worthy. (cough)
Should MPs be exempt from police 'bugging'?
Yes: 18.37%
No: 76.71%
Not sure: 4.92%
The majority of the public seem to agree, a terrorist talking to a muslim with inside access to Westminster, should be legitimately bugged by the police ...
The article also informs us that the officer who authorised the bugging is now being dragged before a disciplinary - only in england! It makes me mad!
The suspect has not been charged with any offence. He is being detained because of an extradition request by the US government.
How come you've labelled the suspect an 'islamic Terrorist' already?
People don't get extradition requests made against them for no reason. Although not been proven guilty, as he's avoided not being put before a court, it would be extremely naive to treat them as innocent in law enforcement eyes... peoples lives could rely on the intelligence that could be gathered from their loose talk.
Well the Americans have not presented ANY evidence whatsoever! Sounds like an extradition request for no reason whatsoever to me.
Isn't it the responsibility of OUR government to protect BRITISH citizens from countries that practise torture?
Sure, if there is sufficient evidence for extradition then send him over.
What if the US government wanted you over because they traced the IP address of your computer as accessing a dodgy Web site? Would you expect your government to act in your interests or not? Or should we just send you over?
You need to be very careful of passing judgment on people. The British security services and police have not charged this suspect with anything whatsoever. The US government has not presented ANY evidence whatsoever. Doesn't this suspect at least deserve a fair hearing or should we automatically assume he is a terrorist because he is a dark-skinned man with a beard?
As i've said before, we either uphold the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' in all cases or we become a nation similar to those that we despise. You cannot pick and choose when your standards of justice apply and when they do not.
Enough evidence for me.
Situation one:
Wrongly accused, wrongly bugged, apology that you heard my idle chit chat. Hurt my feelings that I was bugged.
Situation two:
Accused, bugged, overheard, saved some lives by intercepting some vital information.
I'll go for situation two every time.
You'll get no argument from me on that score;)
The buggings happened 2-3 years ago. If the security services had incriminating evidence against the Labour MP or the terror suspect you would have thought that 2-3 years would be enough time to charge them.
The suspect has been held without charge since 2004. Surely four years is enough to gather evidence to charge him in the UK or for the US government to provide some evidence to support the extradition request?
We need to ensure that our justice system is upheld to very high standards. You cannot just hold people because you _think_ they are bad.
Which is what? Possibly saving lives?
That's exactly what I said earlier.... There is a difference between bugging a terror suspect being held and deliberately bugging an MP and it beyond comprehesion that so many cannot understand it.