Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Should MP's be bugged?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Full Story

So should MP's be exempt from being bugged by the security services under the Wilson doctrine ?

After all members of the devolved Parliaments and EU members can be bugged, so why should Westminster MP's be the only ones who cant be bugged?

My opinion is that MP's should be fair game like the rest of us. I very much doubt the security services are interested in MP's and their constituents talking about noisy neighbours or street lighting. The bugging of anyone should only be done in serious cases, where a serious crime has been or is likely to be committed. Any type of bugging should always be signed off by a senior police officer.

MP's might just have to accept they aren't immune, nor should they be.

Thoughts ?

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I had read the thread title as "should MPs be buggered"... :(
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It should be signed off by a senior judge, not just the say so of a police officer.

    No they shouldnt be totally exempt - but prisoners talking to their solicitors should be and there are allegations they were caught up in this too.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    No they shouldnt be totally exempt - but prisoners talking to their solicitors should be and there are allegations they were caught up in this too.

    Why should prisoners and their solicitors be exempt, but not MPs and their constituents?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    Why should prisoners and their solicitors be exempt, but not MPs and their constituents?

    Because prisoners and solicitors have proven themselves to be more trustworthy. :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    Why should prisoners and their solicitors be exempt, but not MPs and their constituents?

    Because you should have the right to private counsel, it helps you get a fair trial which to my mind is one of those things which is rather important.

    Though I suppose if you could prove there was a criminal conspiracy between them and they were just using the talks as a cover then with a senior judges approval I wouldnt completely object. But I'd want high hurdles for the police to jump through.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    Why should prisoners and their solicitors be exempt, but not MPs and their constituents?

    Because the right to confidential counsel is vital to the right to a fair trial.

    I think it is disgusting and Ian Blair should be made to pay for this- financially and with his freedom.

    Bankrupt the hypocrite and then imprison him for 20 years:)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    Because the right to confidential counsel is vital to the right to a fair trial.

    I think it is disgusting and Ian Blair should be made to pay for this- financially and with his freedom.

    Bankrupt the hypocrite and then imprison him for 20 years:)
    I sometimes get the feeling that if Ian Blair was caught throwing babies into a crocodile pit, not only he would avoid prosecution but would keep his job as if nothing had happened :(
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MPs and people, yes why not? Prisoners and solicitors, no never.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calvin wrote: »

    MP's might just have to accept they aren't immune, nor should they be.

    Thoughts ?

    I think the interesting bit of this story isn't whether they should be immune - but that they've always believed and been told they were. It may turn out that it isn't just this government that has been playing by different rules but that the Wilson Doctrine itself was a con from the start.

    If it wasn't I wonder who changed the law but continued to let MPs think they couldn't be bugged?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    I think the interesting bit of this story isn't whether they should be immune - but that they've always believed and been told they were. It may turn out that it isn't just this government that has been playing by different rules but that the Wilson Doctrine itself was a con from the start.

    If it wasn't I wonder who changed the law but continued to let MPs think they couldn't be bugged?

    No change is law would be neccessary (and would be impossible without MPs voting on it). Its a convention and theoretically MPs have always had the same rights under the law as the rest of us.

    that said my understaning of the story is that this was a bugging of a prison cell (which doesn't need any political approval) and that Ministers weren't told.

    That said I see no reason why an MP should be immune because he was an MP. I'd bloody well hope that if an MP was involved in serious crime or treason that his phone would be bugged...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Either noone should be exempt, or everyone should. Having two sets of rules suggests that one type of person is different to another. An MP is just as likely to be corrupt as the next guy as far as I can tell.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, the authorities should be allowed to bug MPs. The man on the street has to put up with constantly being watched when they're doing their daily business, so I see no reason why politicians should be exempt from that. Neither should they be getting police protection, but that's a different issue.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The question that still isn't resolved for me is why you should be allowed to bug an MP and at the same time tell them that they will never be bugged?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    The question that still isn't resolved for me is why you should be allowed to bug an MP and at the same time tell them that they will never be bugged?
    I don't see it like that. MPs are hardly a group for practising what they preach, so I don't have much sympathy if the security services are listening in on their conversations. If they think that this is the first MP to be bugged since the Wilson Doctrine came in, they are almost certainly being naive.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mps have never been told that they wouldn't be bugged. The Wilson Doctrine and the last two PMs have both covered phone taps.

    IAnd forgive me if I am wrong but wasn't it the person the MP was talking to that was being bugged - with the MP just one of the visitors?

    Oh, and finally, isn't it entirely feasible that an MP could be part of any "terror ring" and therefore why should he/she be exempt because he is an MP?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mps have never been told that they wouldn't be bugged. The Wilson Doctrine and the last two PMs have both covered phone taps.

    IAnd forgive me if I am wrong but wasn't it the person the MP was talking to that was being bugged - with the MP just one of the visitors?

    Oh, and finally, isn't it entirely feasible that an MP could be part of any "terror ring" and therefore why should he/she be exempt because he is an MP?

    hmm all bugging/tapping (different methods, same effect) should have to be authorised by someone, not just ordered by someone as is the case here in the police ordering a bugging to be done, without any judical clearance or plans to get get delayed clearance if it had to be done in an emergency

    MP + constituents talking shouldn't be bugged, much like laywers + clients
Sign In or Register to comment.