MP bugged visiting contituent in prison..........

[Rincewind]

Now days anyone should have the right to be buggered but being bugged is frowned upon. and is thought to be a breach of the human rights law. Personally I do not want either to happen to me.

[Head Honcho]

I'm absolutely sick of this crap which seeks to justify taking away freedom in the cause of protecting it. The terrorist issue is not as big as certain people would have us believe. When will some people realise that it is in the interests of some to have us scared? It makes it a damn sight easier for governments to pass what in the past would have been regarded as intrusive laws if they are so inclined. The problem of terrorism, in this country at least, was far worse, and far more regular, in the days of Irish Republican terrorism. Balls to eternal vigilance, I'm going to carry on living my life as I choose and I expect to be able to do so with no interference, within reason of course. If some nutter wants to stick a rucksack on and kill people, it will be done. It cannot be stopped by any law, only good police work. I could quite easily look up information right now on how to make one of these bombs and use it in any shopping centre tomorrow. Which law is it which will prevent me from doing so? And whats more, the more people talk about curbing certain civil liberties, the more I actually sympathise with the bastards who feel like their only way out is to maim (not their actions I hasten to add, but certainly their helplessness - noone wants to kill themselves, they do it when they feel they have no other choice).

Tell that to the 52 dead and 700 injured on July 7th 2005 you fvcking moron!

The reason you don't hear of more atrocities is the reason why our security forces should be allowed to get away with the odd bugging every now and again.

[Head Honcho]

In Palestine the Israelis make the fundamentalists' job very easy for them, by killing children on a regular basis.

Not all religious extremists are Muslims, by any means.

Bugging MPs is seriously out of order. Apart from being illegal, it shows massive disrespect for the communities who elect them.

It's not illegal.

[Chairman of the Bored]

I think all MPs should be bugged. We can keep a proper eye (or ear) on what they're up to then. "Hello son, let me slip you that cheque for £13,000 for none of that work you've done."

[Steven]

Tell that to the 52 dead and 700 injured on July 7th 2005 you fvcking moron!

The reason you don't hear of more atrocities is the reason why our security forces should be allowed to get away with the odd bugging every now and again.

The reason there are no more atrocities is that the threat doesn't exist in the first place. I refer you to my Ben Franklin quote, you deserve to be neither safe nor free.

Moreover how many other people have died in ways which could have been prevented by the Government but were not sexy enough for the Government to do anything about.

[LeeCovFox]

Tell that to the 52 dead and 700 injured on July 7th 2005 you fvcking moron!

The reason you don't hear of more atrocities is the reason why our security forces should be allowed to get away with the odd bugging every now and again.

What an intelligent response. Would you like to tell me how bugging may have prevented those atrocities. If you were able to read and understand my words you would surely have understood what I was saying. No matter what measures we take, if somebody wants to put on a explosive filled rucksack and explode themselves they will do so. The American intelligence services knew an attack was coming prior to 9/11. They also knew that there was a high likeliness that the threat would be an airborne one. But even with this information they could not stop what happened that day. The people who carry out these atrocities are simply more desperate to pull them off than we are to prevent them. Our security services have to get lucky every time in order to prevent such attacks. Terrorists only have to get lucky once. If its going to happen, its going to happen. If we continue to allow our freedoms to be curtailed then we are only edging closer and closer to the life which the terrorists would like us to lead anyway. Personally I believe the threat is minimal. Governments like us to believe otherwise in order that they can pass laws based on our feelings of fear. The IRA were committing terrorist acts with monotonous regularity. Yet I do not remember there being such a climate of fear back then.

[LeeCovFox]

It's not illegal.

You are wrong. It is illegal to bug a Member of Parliament.

[Steven]

What an intelligent response. Would you like to tell me how bugging may have prevented those atrocities. If you were able to read and understand my words you would surely have understood what I was saying. No matter what measures we take, if somebody wants to put on a explosive filled rucksack and explode themselves they will do so. The American intelligence services knew an attack was coming prior to 9/11. They also knew that there was a high likeliness that the threat would be an airborne one. But even with this information they could not stop what happened that day. The people who carry out these atrocities are simply more desperate to pull them off than we are to prevent them. Our security services have to get luck every time in order to prevent such attacks. Terrorosts only have to get lucky once. If its going to happen, its going to happen. If we continue to allow our freedoms to be curtailed then we are only edging closer and closer to the life which the terrorists would like us to lead anyway. Personally I believe the threat is minimal. Governments like us to believe otherwise in order that they can pass laws based on our feelings of fear. The IRA were committing terrorist acts with monotonous regularity. Yet I do not remember there being such a cliamte of fear back then.

A very sensible reasoned post that posters promoting an ongoing form of Soviet style monitoring in this thread would do well to read.

You are wrong. It is illegal to bug a Member of Parliament.

I am not sure it is illegal. It is a "doctrine" that came about when MI5 were spying on Politicians for political reasons.

[LeeCovFox]

A very sensible reasoned post that posters promoting an ongoing form of Soviet style monitoring in this thread would do well to read.

I am not sure it is illegal. It is a "doctrine" that came about when MI5 were spying on Politicians for political reasons.

I'm sure that the BBC referred to it as illegal bugging. Even if not, I think its wrong.

[breadandcheese]

The reason there are no more atrocities is that the threat doesn't exist in the first place. I refer you to my Ben Franklin quote, you deserve to be neither safe nor free.

I don't know how you can say the threat doesn't exist in the first place. That's merely your opinion.

I would say there is plenty of evidence that there are groups who are plotting to commit acts of terrorism, would like to commit acts of terrorism or are funding groups that would like to cause acts of terrorism.

[Steven]

I don't know how you can say the threat doesn't exist in the first place. That's merely your opinion.

I would say there is plenty of evidence that there are groups who are plotting to commit acts of terrorism, would like to commit acts of terrorism or are funding groups that would like to cause acts of terrorism.

Remember the same people taking your freedoms away are the same ones telling you there is a threat. In other circumstances that would be called racketeering.

[breadandcheese]

Remember the same people taking your freedoms away are the same ones telling you there is a threat. In other circumstances that would be called racketeering.

There is more evidence to suggest that these threats are real than a couple of suspicions and half-hearted conspiracy theories.

[LeeCovFox]

There is more evidence to suggest that these threats are real than a couple of suspicions and half-hearted conspiracy theories.

Where? The only evidence I've seen is what the government has told me. Other than what happened in Glasgow and London last summer. But attacks are inevitable. If somebody wants to do it badly enough, no amount of bugging or holding without charges will stop people. I think the threat exists. But I think its always existed, long before 9/11 certainly. That just brought it into our knowledge. The past colonial instincts of Britain and the US have caused the anger which makes people believe killing and maiming is justified. The best methods of prevention would lie in attempting to build relationships. People are under the impression we are dealing with nutters. They are no more nutters than Hitler was. They are very clever, if politically abhorrent. Stupid men could not have planned and executed 9/11.

[MPH]

personally i think most of the people on this board would be absolutly astounded if they knew even 10% of the stuff this countries secret services were upto....

[LeeCovFox]

personally i think most of the people on this board would be absolutly astounded if they knew even 10% of the stuff this countries secret services were upto....

I think you are quite right.

[Steven]

personally i think most of the people on this board would be absolutly astounded if they knew even 10% of the stuff this countries secret services were upto....

Sadly probably not at all.

[Dr The Singh]

Sadly probably not at all.

Same here!!

Unfortunately according to many governments,t national interests comes at a cost, even genocide!!!

[breadandcheese]

Where? The only evidence I've seen is what the government has told me. Other than what happened in Glasgow and London last summer. But attacks are inevitable. If somebody wants to do it badly enough, no amount of bugging or holding without charges will stop people. I think the threat exists. But I think its always existed, long before 9/11 certainly. That just brought it into our knowledge.

The past colonial instincts of Britain and the US have caused the anger which makes people believe killing and maiming is justified. The best methods of prevention would lie in attempting to build relationships. People are under the impression we are dealing with nutters. They are no more nutters than Hitler was. They are very clever, if politically abhorrent. Stupid men could not have planned and executed 9/11.

You sir, are a genius.

Are you arguing against the existence of a threat or not, I can't tell. In one breath you say the evidence of a terrorist threat is only from the mouths of government. In the next, a terrorist threat is inevitable and you believe it exists. Well the threat does exist and is a real and present danger.

Past colonial instincts being behind the terrorism. That is a broad sweeping statement not backed up by any real evidence and more symptomatic of a Western guilt complex than any hard analysis. The only element I agree is that terrorists are not fools, however asserting the best method of prevention lies in building bridges with these people who you say are no more nutty than Hitler was. If only people had reached out to Adolf and given him a big hug. Neville Chamberlain should have given him a free bj rather than merely sign a peace treaty with him.

[LeeCovFox]

You sir, are a genius.

Are you arguing against the existence of a threat or not, I can't tell. In one breath you say the evidence of a terrorist threat is only from the mouths of government. In the next, a terrorist threat is inevitable and you believe it exists. Well the threat does exist and is a real and present danger.

Past colonial instincts being behind the terrorism. That is a broad sweeping statement not backed up by any real evidence and more symptomatic of a Western guilt complex than any hard analysis. The only element I agree is that terrorists are not fools, however asserting the best method of prevention lies in building bridges with these people who you say are no more nutty than Hitler was. If only people had reached out to Adolf and given him a big hug. Neville Chamberlain should have given him a free bj rather than merely sign a peace treaty with him.

With Hitler we attempted to talk. Clearly it didn't work. All I'm saying is we should atttempt to build relationships with those we wouldn't have in the past. As for not having any evidence of colonialism having helped this situation along, Somalia used to be the hub of terrorist preparation. Afghanistan later took this role. Both nations were left behind by the US and Russia after the Cold War as they no longer served a purpose. They were neglected. As a result, they became failed states, the people became bitter towards the bigger powers, and they opened their arms to those who wanted to train within their borders in order to harm them. And I have not said I do not believe there to be a threat. There is always a threat. Now it is predominantly from Arab Extremists. 15 years ago it was Irish Republicans. Somebody will always have an axe to grind, and if they want to do damage, they will find a way. What I have said, is that the threat is minimal. It is nowhere near as big as the governemnt would have us believe. It suits the government of the day for its people to be scared. Having said that, although the threat is small, its is there, and this makes attacks inevitable, because the security services cannot stop everything. Attacks are always inevitable, whether from Arab extremists, or animal rights protesters, whoever. There is always somebody with a problem. What I will not do is stop living my life in freedom, nor will I allow others to attempt to encourage me to do so. Because no law they can bring in, will ever stop somebody using force to further their cause if they are desperate enough.

[Steven]

You sir, are a genius.

Are you arguing against the existence of a threat or not, I can't tell. In one breath you say the evidence of a terrorist threat is only from the mouths of government. In the next, a terrorist threat is inevitable and you believe it exists. Well the threat does exist and is a real and present danger.

Past colonial instincts being behind the terrorism. That is a broad sweeping statement not backed up by any real evidence and more symptomatic of a Western guilt complex than any hard analysis. The only element I agree is that terrorists are not fools, however asserting the best method of prevention lies in building bridges with these people who you say are no more nutty than Hitler was. If only people had reached out to Adolf and given him a big hug. Neville Chamberlain should have given him a free bj rather than merely sign a peace treaty with him.

There is no "evidence" for that except from those that would take your freedoms away. If you can supply a credible independent source I might take it seriously. It is a racket. You have to remember there were "drills" in operation to test the readiness of the systems in case of attack on both the 11th of September and the 7th of July. Coincidental or not. Moreover both the security systems had been installed by an overseas company with strong links to a certain Middle East secret service. Coincidental or not. GW Bush's brother sat on the board of the company overseeing security at Boston on the 11th of September. Coincidental or not. Too many other "coincidences" to mention.

As for reaching out rather than bombing, every time. Indeed those that would not take this action first should be considered bloodthirsty. If people do not want to be reached out to then keep trying until it is futile then declare war and not until. War is not the first option.

Finally as any history student will tell you, even if Chamberlain had offered Adolf a bj it would have been useless as Hitler was impotent due to syphilis.

[Rincewind]

Maybe one way to be certain of our safety would be to bug everybody. Just be careful that your good morning to your friendly corner shop owner is just good morning. And don't go into hospital unless you are on your deathbed, the secret service may think you have an ulterier motive. If you make friends with anyone on a messageboard make sure they have an English name even if they are City supporters.

Seriously no amount of bugging will prevent anyone who is determined enough to cause mayhem. In fact more bugging could gain terrorists more recruits. It is hard to argue against anyone telling you that you are being given unfair treatment if you are being watched, bugged or stopped on a regular basis.

I don't know the full details of the MP/prisoner story but it just appears that he is a MP doing his job by listening and giving support if he believes his constituant deserves it. Anyone can visit their MP's at their office with complaints, petitions and any other problems. Whether they do anything is another matter. With some/most Mp's you will only see them at election time when they are happy to shake your hand or kiss your baby or ass if you have no baby.

[Head Honcho]

You are wrong. It is illegal to bug a Member of Parliament.

Believe me it is not illegal

[Raj]

Believe me it is not illegal

It is.

[breadandcheese]

With Hitler we attempted to talk. Clearly it didn't work. All I'm saying is we should atttempt to build relationships with those we wouldn't have in the past. As for not having any evidence of colonialism having helped this situation along, Somalia used to be the hub of terrorist preparation. Afghanistan later took this role. Both nations were left behind by the US and Russia after the Cold War as they no longer served a purpose. They were neglected. As a result, they became failed states, the people became bitter towards the bigger powers, and they opened their arms to those who wanted to train within their borders in order to harm them. And I have not said I do not believe there to be a threat. There is always a threat. Now it is predominantly from Arab Extremists. 15 years ago it was Irish Republicans. Somebody will always have an axe to grind, and if they want to do damage, they will find a way. What I have said, is that the threat is minimal. It is nowhere near as big as the governemnt would have us believe. It suits the government of the day for its people to be scared. Having said that, although the threat is small, its is there, and this makes attacks inevitable, because the security services cannot stop everything. Attacks are always inevitable, whether from Arab extremists, or animal rights protesters, whoever. There is always somebody with a problem. What I will not do is stop living my life in freedom, nor will I allow others to attempt to encourage me to do so. Because no law they can bring in, will ever stop somebody using force to further their cause if they are desperate enough.

In that sense, you are right with regards failed states allowing abhorrent ideologies to take hold. However, I don't think terrorism can be eaasily explained like that. Admittedly, I cannot explain it, but the current major threat of Islamism originated in Egypt, not a massively successful state, but hardly a failing state.

The rest re: taking away freedoms and living with the threat, I agree with. We shouldn't live in fear.

[breadandcheese]

There is no "evidence" for that except from those that would take your freedoms away. If you can supply a credible independent source I might take it seriously. It is a racket. You have to remember there were "drills" in operation to test the readiness of the systems in case of attack on both the 11th of September and the 7th of July. Coincidental or not. Moreover both the security systems had been installed by an overseas company with strong links to a certain Middle East secret service. Coincidental or not. GW Bush's brother sat on the board of the company overseeing security at Boston on the 11th of September. Coincidental or not. Too many other "coincidences" to mention.

As for reaching out rather than bombing, every time. Indeed those that would not take this action first should be considered bloodthirsty. If people do not want to be reached out to then keep trying until it is futile then declare war and not until. War is not the first option.

Finally as any history student will tell you, even if Chamberlain had offered Adolf a bj it would have been useless as Hitler was impotent due to syphilis.

Steven, your posts are becoming less and less credible.

The very fact that terrorism has occurred in this country in London and Glasgow shows there is a threat from Islamist groups. You only have to read their literature and speak to them to see their belief and see the actions they are prepared to take. If you believe MI6 tried to blow up Glasgow airport or blew up London, or that those gentlemen under trial in Leicester Crown Court for plotting to kidnap Muslims serving in the armed forces to "cut their head off like a pig", then I think you foolish.

Islamism is a very real ideology that is prepared to use violence to achieve its aims. You only have to look around the world. Take Iraq, where these groups were prepared to use two mentally disabled people to strap explosives on them, walk them into a crowd and blow them up, taking out as many innocent Iraqi citizens as possible. These groups have a very vicious and evil ideology.

Unfortunately, they were allowed to setup and create logistical bases here (e.g. Mohammed Omar Bakri). So I don't think you can say these groups are not here in the UK or that we are not under any threat.

You talk of outreach. How do you reach out to someone with an overriding belief that he is of one religious faith and believes that you, an unbeliever should either live in subjugation to him or be killed? Where does negotiation start, from what common belief? Yes, war should not be the first option, but it is an option that should be used when necessary, as it was in World War 2 and not as it was used in Iraq.

The only area I agree with you is that our freedoms should not be curtailed and that our security forces and intelligence groups have enough laws at their disposal rather than needing anymore. Nor will ID cards restrict the terrorist threat. In this case the bugging of a suspect. If the Intelligence forces thought it appropriate, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. If their suspicions are missplaced, what's the worst they're going to hear?