Gentlemen don’t bug their MPs’ conversations

But the innocent have nothing to fear! There’s no need to check beneath your wallpaper or behind your electrical sockets.

The UK doesn’t really have an “executive branch” in the way that the US does, and I don’t think it’s a misunderstanding, unless the general principle that one shouldn’t find weaselly technical get arounds for things one’s been told not to do is a misunderstanding.

I’m generally not in favour of the UK surveillance octopus, but I really don’t see why MPs should be exempt – if they hear of crimes within their community one would expect them to report these to the authorities anyway and the constituents are aware of that, no?

And it’s also not unheard of that MPs are involved in criminal activity themselves, in which case bugging them might be the right thing to do.

As far as the attorney-client privilege is concerned, it is of course a good thing, but it is also easily abused, e.g. Klaus Croissant and the RAF.

I would guess that there are plenty of people in the Muslim community in Tooting who would tell Sadiq Khan MP things that they would not tell the police.

First, I seriously doubt this, assuming you mean tell him things in his capacity as their MP, rather than in his capacity as their lawyer.

That would mean that, to these Muslims, there is a thing called ‘the government’ which includes the police, and of which they are (perhaps justifiably) wary, but which does not include the loyal and fervently anti-liberal (pro-imprisonment without trial, pro-ID card) government MP and Justice Ministry whip Sadiq Khan.

Not very bright, then, these Muslims. Personally, I certainly wouldn’t tell my MP something that I didn’t want the police to know about.

Second, I thought that the point about the Wilson Doctrine was that it applied to the intelligence services? Khan was bugged by the police.

Third, any source for the claim that Khan is Babar Ahmed’s lawyer? I thought he was just a supporter.

further to 11, you can “seriously doubt” what you like, but it appears that Babar Ahmed and Sadiq Khan did in fact understand their consultations to have been carried out in confidence, while the police did in fact believe that Ahmed was going to tell Khan something he wasn’t telling them, so if me and my hypothetical Muslims are “not very bright”, there’s a lot of it about.

Obviously this isn’t my fight. But I find it strange to think that the fact that the police bugged these specific conversations, among others, would lead one to adopt the presumption suggested. Why wouldn’t they adopt the presumption that, when one is in prison, all of one’s conversations are subject to surveillance, including one’s conversations with MPs? Given the facts–the MP wasn’t targeted, the bug was hidden at the jail–that would seem a more useful and relevant presumption.

If you create the presumption that the cops can hear anything that you tell an MP, then people will only tell their MP things that they would be happy to tell a cop

Of course, you can replace “MP” with absolutely anything else in that sentence and it still holds, right? Yet we (or, if you prefer, “you,” since I’m American) do want to bug some people. Even if they’ve been told there’s the chance that an MP could be bugged, some people will forget the law, or not realize they’re under suspicion yet, or just be idiots. I mean, yes, the principle you’re pointing out is an important one, but let’s not pretend that it makes bugging these conversations totally useless.

Anyway, checking up, I learn that Khan is indeed a lawyer, and he did indeed act for several people suing the Met, but he’s not Ahmed’s brief.

Besides the fact that constituents should be able to discuss issues with their MP in confidence, it’s pretty dubious for the state apparatus to be snooping on elected representatives. Down that road lies the ‘deep state’ a la Turkey. Has no one seen ‘A Very British Coup’?

“I am getting a bit worried about the general direction of some of the sermons at Bogginton Mosque, the last four in a row have been all about Israel.”

Fair enough, although we’ll never get to know anything about the significance (or otherwise) of conversations we don’t bug.

I have no problem with a working presumption that we don’t bug MPs, doctors or any other authority figure in whom the public are entitled to expect they can confide. But as with most things, exceptions should be accommodated. Where the other party is suspected of terrorist activity and the relationship with the authority figure is known to be something other than purely professional, I think bugging is not only excusable, but desirable.

I’m pretty sure I pay my taxes so that conversations such as the one between Ahmed and Khan ARE bugged. The balancing of civil liberties and state security is better struck taping when in doubt – even if this means catching entirely innocent conversations that inevitably involve a degree of privacy invasion – than it is by risking missing a vital piece of information that could prevent a human catastrophe.

I’ll probably change my mind about this the day I become the sort of person in whom the security services might be interested.

I’ll probably change my mind about this the day I become the sort of person in whom the security services might be interested.

This is precisely the reason why New Labour’s erosion of civil liberties has gone opposed: the risks are all borne by Them rather than Us.

nick- It also works that way here in the police state formerly known as the United States of America. This is why the “security” thugs in every country always need to find an Other against whom public hysteria can be whipped up. For us it used to be Commies, now of course just as with you it’s scary brown people who profess suspect religions.

This is precisely the reason why New Labour’s erosion of civil liberties has gone opposed: the risks are all borne by Them rather than Us.

Not at all. A national DNA database would be a, um, national DNA database. They’d get mine as well as Ahmed’s. They’d get my fingerprints on an ID card, too. You’re only “bearing a risk” if you like plotting to blow things up.

For us it used to be Commies, now of course just as with you it’s scary brown people who profess suspect religions.

Nope, it’s scary people of all and any colours who think, for exampe, self-immolating on a public transport network is a legitimate expression of grievance.

The police and security services are, like all public services worldwide, pretty much stretched to breaking point most of the time. The idea that they would want – even if the law permitted it – to place brown and/or Muslim citiznes under surveillance purely because they were brown and/or Muslim, is too stupid for words.

And Steve, what’s that police state doing allowing you to post counter-revolutionary material across the internet? If someone knocks at your door tonight, don’t answer it.

Using the same standard of illogic – what are you worried about terrorism for, borwnie? You’re posting, so you obviously haven’t been killed. Once you’re killed, then and only then will you have reason to complain.

‘The police and security services are, like all public services worldwide, pretty much stretched to breaking point most of the time. The idea that they would want – even if the law permitted it – to place brown and/or Muslim citiznes under surveillance purely because they were brown and/or Muslim, is too stupid for words.’

Er…no. What is too stupid for words is the idea that the security services, whose resources are, as you say, stretched to breaking point, would actually be able to or want to watch everyone.

Instead specific groups will be targeted for reasons of time and money. Ahem….’Brownie’ points will be awarded for working out which groups these might be.

“You’re only “bearing a risk” if you like plotting to blow things up.”

Well no, because a national DNA database would mean you are bearing a risk if you have ever been arrested for anything ever, regardless of whether you are charged or not, let alone tried and found guilty (or not guilty for that matter). Really, that argument is a barely dressed up version of “nothing to hide, nothing to fear”.

My view has always been that is is precisely those who have nothing to hide who should fear blanket levels of surveillance.

It is fundamental to the constitution of this country that no one is above the law or is seen to be above the law.

Ah, 911 syndrome (the other one, the one where people in the UK dial 911 when they need the police, because that’s what they have seen on TV).

I am struggling to think of a plausible-sounding principle that is less accurate as a description of the constitution of the UK: if you get into the guts of how things actually work, from parliamentary immunity from libel laws to restrictions on media ownership to embassies to like, you know, the freekin Queen, it’s categories and differentiation all the way down.

Some of those rules even make sense: I suspect the Wilson convention is one such. In any case, deregulation by someone who doesn’t make any attempt to understand the reason for the rules they are discarding has a distinctly non-glorious history.

Well no, because a national DNA database would mean you are bearing a risk if you have ever been arrested for anything ever, regardless of whether you are charged or not, let alone tried and found guilty (or not guilty for that matter). Really, that argument is a barely dressed up version of “nothing to hide, nothing to fear”.

Katherine, I’m still not clear what it is I would be “risking”? I’m talking about a national database that includes the DNA of every citizen, previously arrested or not. So far as I can tell, the only thing I “risk” in such circumstances is being eliminated from police enquiries.

Are you talking about the risk of being fitted up? If you are, then I’d have to say that the lack of a DNBA database until now has done little to hinder such efforts.

Instead specific groups will be targeted for reasons of time and money. Ahem….’Brownie’ points will be awarded for working out which groups these might be.

Again, I’d want some form of tax rebate if the security services’ surveillance strategy took no account of the available evidence. Or do you think they should behave as if the chance of a terorrist outrage by the WI is as great as one from the adherents of a fatalistic far-right ideology informed by religious dogma? What do you suppose your average British Muslim would think? You know, given they like to travel on trains and work in tall buildings, too?

Katherine, I’m still not clear what it is I would be “risking”?

Fear the power of the angry hairdresser.

Fear the power of the angry hairdresser.

This was stupidly put – the gist is we leave little chunks of ourselves all over the place and if they represent your presence they suddenly acquire value.

Aule @17,

but let’s not pretend that it makes bugging these conversations totally useless

I don’t believe the potential usefulness of the bugged conversations is in dispute. Similarly, Jack Bauer (in real life) or CIA torture camps in Poland (in fantasy) might occasionally produce useful information. So let’s have lots more of all of them!

Borwnie passim,

I see that you have wholly internalised that bit about the innocent having nothing to fear. It almost pains me, so, to have to break it to you that it’s something of a despairing joke.

What do you suppose your average British Muslim would think? You know, given they like to travel on trains and work in tall buildings, too?

Presumably, they’d enjoy not travelling or working alongside someone who soils himself in fear all the time. To that end, I’d suggest that loperamide is more effective than a national DNA database.

“Are you talking about the risk of being fitted up? If you are, then I’d have to say that the lack of a DNBA database until now has done little to hinder such efforts.

So let me get this straight: because previously people have been fitted up, introducing a system that would make it vastly easier to fit people up is a good thing for the innocent? Wow, that’s some logic you’ve got working for you.

And actually, I was talking more generally, although the specifics of being fitted up are relevant. The power relationship between the individual and the state is a delicate one, and it has in numerous places and on numberous occasions tipped unhappily one way or t’other, with devastating consequences. A full, all-person DNA database, I’d argue, is a very heavy weight on one side of that balance.

And since we’re getting into reductio ad absurdum territory, if you don’t care about having your DNA in a database, I assume that at some point in the future you won’t mind about, say, a camera in your living room? Nothing to hide, right?

borwnie: Fair enough, although we’ll never get to know anything about the significance (or otherwise) of conversations we don’t bug.

Sad, but true. How does one soldier on in the face of such terrible uncertainty?

“I have a map of the United States…actual size.
It says, Scale: 1 mile = 1 mile.’ I hardly ever unroll it.”
– Steven Wright

Hypothetical and admittedly extreme question just to try and clarify things – is it ok to torture a suspect because that might yield useful information?

You’re right it is a bit unthinkable, but as rational beings we should be able to reason our way through this somehow. Hmmm… how best to do that? I know kids! Let’s put on a TV show!

Alex @ 18 AHmed “did indeed act for several people suing the Met”

Cynics might note that when the Met’s internal affairs dept (yes, I know it’s not called that) investigated and thus systematically bugged CSupt Ali Dizaei over a period of years on a variety of increasingly flimsy miconduct charges, it gave them access to his filing cabinet, thus to all his correspondence for the cases in which he was representing fellow members of the Black Police Association in civil actions for discrimination. Against the Met. Given that most of these actions end in out-of-court settlements, knowledge of how much the solicitor is advising the plaintiff to settle for is probably useful information for the defendant to have.

According to the Thames Valley copper who bugged Khan, it was the Met that put him up to it. Ahmed is suing the Met.

I admit that I may perhaps be joining too many dots here.

PS Brwonie, you eedjit – the point about all these databases is that our lords and masters (and their children) will have their own special databases, too secure for the likes of us. D’oh.

The obvious risk from a national DNA database is that the police will adopt an investigative method where they obtain a DNA sample from the crime scene, look up the top hundred matches in the database, and interview these “suspects” until they find one who looks prosecutable — no alibi, no friends in high places, can’t afford a decent lawyer — and then in court fail to mention the other ninety-nine.

Presumably, they’d enjoy not travelling or working alongside someone who soils himself in fear all the time.

I travel into London by train 3 or 4 times a week. I have a vested interest. Since when was the desire to ensure our sec servs had the best possible shot at forestalling atrocities evidence of being chicken shit? If I were chicken shit, I’d come to work with you in Tescos.

So let me get this straight: because previously people have been fitted up, introducing a system that would make it vastly easier to fit people up is a good thing for the innocent? Wow, that’s some logic you’ve got working for you.

Bur you never did “get it straight”, so your analysis and conclusion are illegitimate. DNA evidence at most indicates a person was in a particular place at some time previously (and even then there is secondary transfer, etc.) or in contact with another party. It’s no easier (and perhaps harder) to plant DNA than it is a gun, a knife or any other piece of incriminating evidence. DNA evidence by itself will almost never be enough to convict anybody of anything. And you appear to be totally ignoring the fact that DNA evidence could be cited by defence counsel to add weight to unsupported alibis of defendants. There’s no sense in which DNA evidence is and could only ever be a tool for the prosecution.

My support for a DNA database stems from a belief that it will, in the round, help judges and juries get more decisions right in the future than we do currently. Radical, eh?

Borwnie, I can’t be bothered to argue with you regarding the specific point of fitting people up, since you seem to have made your mind up on that one. I disagree, but neither of us has a crystal ball.

What about my general point regarding the balance of power between the individual and the state though. Have you put your mind to that one?

You know, the Wilson doctrine is not some theoretical ruling decided upon out of the blue by that old fuddyduddy: it came into being because the security services were in fact bugging not just MPs, but also the Labour government itself, with the intent to use this information to cause the government to fall.

Borwnie, do you know what happened to the files of the (ever so apolitical and anti-terrorist) Internation Criminal Police Commission in 1938? Or what happened to the RUC Special Branch files at Castlereagh Barracks on the night of March 17th, 2002?

Chris,

On the first, I have no idea. On the second, I probably have a better idea than you do, but I still don’t see your point. Both of these events happened without a DNA database, so you’re proving what, exactly? You appear to be arguing that the more information that might be available to the police or any other investigating authority, the more likely we are to be fitted up. I think the reverse is likely, given advances in DNA technology and other forensic practices mean it is more likely the police will get their men and women, meaning there will less motivation to fit up than there is currently. And you, too, appear to be ignoring the potential for the defence to use DNA evidence to clear a defendant, or provide him/her with an alibi that might otherwise be impossible to provide. This cuts both ways, does it not? I think with the proper judicial scrutiny and oversight there is little to fear.

Are you happy that we’ve reached a point where science and technology has taken us as far as it should in the efforts to bring criminals to justice? The answer here is not some luddite approach to criminal investigation, but the dilligent application of minimum stadnards and practices that ensure our rights as citizens are safeguarded.

And Alex, I tihnk if sonmeone accuses me of not being capable of boarding a train without shiting myself, I’m entitled to give something back. The Tesco remark was meant to indicate that I wouldn’t have to board a train to work there. Most people who work in Tesco are local and don’t travel in by train, I’ll wager.

As a son of a former USDAW official, I’m hardly likely to be snotty about people who work at Tesco.

Sainsburys is another matter entirely.

OK, so words of one syllable _are_ necessary.

1) The Gestapo happened upon them, in Vienna, right after the Anschluss

2) pIRA got a look at them.

The point is that a DNA database, like a biometric national identity register, is a honeypot for bad types with nastiness on their mind. Think what [insert name of famous organised crime boss here] could do with this kind of information.

These honeypots can also fall into the hands of bad sorts who didn’t even _exist_ when they were created. Nobody was worrying about Nazi Germany in 1922.

I’m not especially concerned about government fit-ups with DNA evidence: I’m concerned about the database turning up for sale on a Belarusian ftp site early one Sunday morning. Have you been reading the UK papers at all recently? Watching TV news, perhaps?

The Tesco remark was meant to indicate that I wouldn’t have to board a train to work there.

“Chinny reckon,” as they used to say.

If you need to salve your fears by imputing them on others, that’s your own business. If that extends to infringing my civil liberties, I suggest finding alternative remedies.

PS – ‘borwnie’, you appear not to think that the break-in at Castlereagh Barracks on March 17th 2002 had anything to do with pIRA, or that it didn’t involve RUC Special Branch files. Or something.

Please can you let me know what you think _did_ happen? I’m always open to being contradicted if confronted by reality.