A self-inflicted injury
When the great controversy erupted over the ‘bugging’ of MP Sadiq Khan when he visited his friend and constituent Babar Ahmad in Woodhill prison, where he is fighting extradition to the US on charges that he ran a website raising funds for Taliban and Chechen terrorists, I wrote here and here that this was an artificially whipped-up storm. The claims that the bugging breached the Wilson doctrine that MPs should not be bugged and that Sadiq Khan MP had been targeted because he was both a Muslim and a thorn in the official side were wide of the mark because a) the Wilson Doctrine didn’t apply in this case since it only applies to surveillance requiring a Home Secretary’s warrant which is not needed for bugging; and b) it seemed that it was not Sadiq Khan who was the target of the bugging but Babar Ahmad.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary made a statement to the Commons on the inquiry into this affair by the surveillance commissioner, Sir Christopher Rose. Sir Christopher had concluded that a) the Wilson doctrine did not apply to the bugging, only to surveillance which required a ministerial warrant, and b):
It is absolutely clear from Sir Christopher’s report that my hon. Friend was not the target of that surveillance.Moreover, the police didn’t even know that Sadiq Khan was an MP. Can there be any greater ignominy?
However, having squashed every accusation flat the Home Secretary then put her gears into screaming reverse and said that, as Sir Christopher had pointed to a degree of unclarity in this area she would be issuing revised guidance that any conversations between MPs and their constituents would be treated as ‘confidential information’ and protected from covert surveillance.
This is yet another bad capitulation on the security front. Hallowed as the relationship between MPs and their constituents may be, we are living in a time of unprecedented threat to this nation. If any MPs have been consorting with members of jihadi networks, the security service jolly well should be listening to what they are saying. The extent to which this government is going to undermine its ability to defend this country against the threat that it faces is simply astounding.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (17)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 There is only one question that frightens Brussels - Fraser Nelson
2 Printing money is not the solution - Humphrey Carpenter
3 Labour and the KGB - Fraser Nelson
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
GASCONY
GASCONY, SW France, near Condom-en-Armagnac 13th Century stone house, 21st Century luxury for 12 in 5 en-suites. 50 acres +
BIG SAND STEEL BAND
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, Tarn et Garonne.
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2009 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Kevyn Bodman
February 22nd, 2008 9:37amMostly right again, Melanie. Terror suspects should not be immune from surveillance just because the other party in the conversation is an MP. And I don't see why MPs should be immune from surveillance anyway except in strictly defined areas, and those relate to the interests of the constituent, not the MP. But the range of those empowered to authorise surveillance needs clearing up. And I must repeat my point of last week, we do need to be careful how far we go because any reduction in a terrorist suspect's freedom could soon be a reduction in my freedom too, and yours.
GNO
February 22nd, 2008 10:56amWhy are MPs presumed to be beyond treachery? If they can vote themselves a salary hike way beyond the inflation rate, when they can have second and third homes paid for by the tax payer, when they can employ their family members and award them salaries of hundreds of thousands for no work done, when they can be on the EU gravy train as MEPs and commissioners claiming allowances of hundreds of thousands – again for no work done, when they can deny us a referendum on key issues of EU constitution, when they can take us on an illegal wars across the globe, when they allow millions of migrants without so much as a scant security check, when they give blessing to a unilateral independence to a country occupied by ethnic invaders, when allow alien Sharia law through the back door, when they can allow hate preachers to spout their vile sermons, when they allow sensitive data on its citizens to get lost without batting an eyelid, and so and on…why are they still seen as loyal to “Great “ Britain? I’d say, bug the whole treacherous cabal of Westminster and for good measure also the one sitting all high and mighty in the palace of Lambeth.
Frank Pulley
February 22nd, 2008 11:54amThere are two words that come to mind when this issue is raised. George and Galloway!
Jean Charles
February 22nd, 2008 12:45pmYou're absolutely right Melanie! The police should have the power to bug anyone at anytime. To put restrictions on their ability to do so means that the terrorists have won and our namby pamby cowardly appeasers known as politicians have blinked once again in the face of the mortal threat we face on a daily basis. If you haven't done anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about.
field
February 22nd, 2008 1:58pmJean Charles - Not sure if you are being ironic or not. The surveillance society is an unhappy consequence of there being so many people in this country of doubtful loyalty. I am not sure if anyone has asked Mr. Khan if he makes a habit of visiting his constituents in jail. It would be interesting to know. But this man was not just a constituent - he was a lifelong friend. My rough and ready rule would be: If we had the right policies in place on citizenship, immigration, welfare and Islam then there would be far less need for surveillance and we could afford to be more restrictive about surveillance. As it is the government does everything to allow the problem of imported terrorism to occur: letting people who hate us take up citizenship; allowing mass immigration of people who have no sympathy with our culture; allowing Al Queda cells to function on the back of welfare payments; and failing to tackle the ideological challenge of Islam for reasons of political correctness.
Thinkster
February 22nd, 2008 3:50pm'field', spot on. Saves me a posting.
Thinkster
February 22nd, 2008 4:35pm'field', spot on. Saves me a posting.
Hamster
February 22nd, 2008 4:58pmHow does being a lifelong friend cancel out the remand prisoner's status as being a terror suspect? As a friend he might be even more likely to let his guard slip. Why should the state, who's first duty is to protect the innocent, look away at a moment like that? What's to hide? If it's an innocent chat, what's the harm? As for the argument that these sorts of powers might end up one day in the hands of Caliphate administrators, I have to say, I doubt it. Islamic states aren't noted for their subtlety. Bugging would be the least of our worries.
John
February 22nd, 2008 6:02pmOne law for MP's as usual and another one for the public. Corruption again.
Paul B
February 22nd, 2008 8:20pmWonder what the Police overheard? Is Khan worried and trying to scare the Police off further investigations. Just curious. One would have thought that an MP, loyal to the Crown, would have encouraged the Police to bug his conversation with an alleged terrorist, either to assist in the prosecution (or in this case, extradition to the US) or to assist in proving his constituents innocence. Just a thought.
John
February 22nd, 2008 8:40pmYou are judged by the friends that you keep. If this MP has a lifelong friend that is facing terrorist-sympathising charges, then that makes said MP a prime candidate for bugging, IMHO. The Wilson Doctrine is nonsense anyway and can be abused, leaving MPs immune from prosecution for almost anything. Why should MPs not be held to the same, if not a higher standard, than the rest of us? They get far too many favours as it is.
Fabio P.Barbieri
February 23rd, 2008 9:15amWas this, then, indiscriminate bugging of everyone who spoke with this person? And if so, did it include his lawyers? That would certainly violate established legal rights.
Verity
February 23rd, 2008 2:41pmMelanie writes: "The extent to which this government is going to undermine its ability to defend this country against the threat that it faces is simply astounding." Yes, it is. And it is deliberate.
Austin Barry
February 23rd, 2008 5:33pmIt's very difficult to sensibly consider the niceties of bugging etc. when faced with an implacable enemy bent on theoretical genocide. Essentially, all bets, and gloves, are, or should be, off.
Peter
February 23rd, 2008 9:10pmAll MPs should have to register visits to criminals,terrorists and terror suspects.If they have nothing to hide they have nothing o fear.
I don't know about anyone else,but I don't have any lifelong friends who are any of the above.If you visit them in prison you cannot say you didn't know.So those who do should not be surprised if the police or security services come knocking.
Frank Pulley
February 24th, 2008 7:12pmPeter writes: "All MPs should have to register visits to criminals,terrorists and terror suspects". Yes, and given the current reputation of many Members of Parliament, the register should be placed in the lobby of the Palace of Westminster as it would be necessary to sign it every time they enter the lower house.
Hereford
February 25th, 2008 11:22amVerity, are you saying that the Government is deliberately working to Islamise Britain? Wow! if that could be proved, it would be a total bombshell.