The idea that a Labour Member of Parliament was being bugged and neither the Prime Minister or the Justice Secretary knew about it simply beggars belief. The fact that David Davis's letter on the subject was curiously lost in Downing Street also defies logic. They reckon he should have rung them and told them he was sending it. So much for confidence in their internal administration.I've only just caught up with this story courtesy of Greg Hurt's STORY in The Times. This has all the makings of a huge scandal. As David Davis says in his letter, it has been convention since 1966 that MPs are not bugged. If Sadiq Khan was indeed bugged, on whose authority was it done? There are only four possibilities...
1. It was authorised by the Head of Mi5 with no reference to a politician
2. It was authorised by the Home Secretary (Khan is her whip!)
3. It was authorised by the Justice Secretary (unlikely)
4. It was authorised by the Prime Minister
Which is it?
82 comments:
Or...
It was authorised by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (NuLab's favorite copper, no action likely)
or...
It wasn't authorised at all, so no-one's to blame.
or...
The request for authority was eaten by the same Downing Street dog that swallowed DD's letter and my homework.
or...
They're still waiting for Gordon Brown to decide whether to authorise it or not...
By far the most likely explanation is this: someone in either the Security Service or Secret Intelligence Services decided to bug Babar Ahmad's prison visitors, and ignored the fact that one of them might be his MP.
And David Davis meant to write but forgot to put it in the post.
How did Davis know?
Anybody who is associating with a terrorist suspect or sympathiser is a legitamate target for bugging. No reason to exempt MPs. What have MPs done recently to earn any special privaledges?
I suggest:
0. It was done by a subordinate, acting on their own authority because they were confident they would get away with it.
Did someone intercept David Davis' letter in order to prevent the Prime Minister learning about the bugging?
Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act intrusive surveillance requires ministerial level approval which (if they are playing by the rules would rule out the Head of MI5). My guess is that when the RIPA process was carried out the collateral risk assessment probably didn't include the fact that the bug might pick up an MP. I'm still not quite clear as to why an MP should be any different in this respect than any other private individual.
5. It was not authorised by the head of MI5 OR by a politician
6. The bugging was not by a UK agency
7. It did not happen
When you state that there are only X possibilities you'd better be sure about that.
As to the Davis letter.
Isn't it the case that Tories were spinning a letter which said something quite specific, that the letter Davis released was actually quite generic, that Number 10 said they hadn't had a letter saying the specific thing?
If a letter was this important one would want proof of posting or other dispatch and a receipt. Presumably Davis has that? Or did he follow the Duncan Borrowman example and use a second class stamp from a local post box?
you are getting warm Iain
its good you are asking
let this stone roll
It could be that all the prisoner's meetings were bugged and the MP was not the target so it was not specifically authorised.
You lot have clearly lost the plot.
It must be a slow news day when DD pops his head out from the parapet, ie Caulson has realised that things aren’t going well; quick lets get a story out.
Firstly, if the letter was from 3 weeks ago why has DD waited for 3 weeks?. If Hain was still in office DD would have waited another few weeks before this nonsense allegation; thus calling DD’s actually intention into question
Secondly, a terror suspect being bugged… good luck trying to sell that a negative story, but as I have already stated this is the Tory party in panic, you have had a few bad weeks recently so this stored story is pulled out of the hat to divert attention from Conway and now Tebbit going on a barny.
Isn't Sadiq Khan the assistant whip for the Ministry of Justice rather than the Home Office ?
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has been notable by her invisibility and silence on this issue, which should be firmly in her area of political responsibility.
What sort of inquiry can Jack Straw actually order ? He is responsible for Prisons, but not for the Metropolitan Police Service, especially if, the Sunday Times story is correct and the bugging was not done by Prison Service staff.
It could have been just a middle ranking Police Officer e.g. Superintendent, who authorised the Directed Surveillance (the traditional tv / film stakeout operation) in the Prison visiting area, but that should have been
notified to the Chief Surveillance Commissioner Rt. Hon. Sir Paul Rose under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. His predecessor Rt. Hon. Sir Andrew Leggatt did not mention this in his Annual reports covering 2005 and 2006.
Being put under surveillance as a resident in or visitor to a Prison is not deemed to be equivalent to having your Home or Vehicle bugged. That would require permission for Intrusive Surveillance if a microphone or video camera electronic bugging device (or tracking device) were to be installed, effectively via state sanctioned burglary, but that would also need to be notified to the Office of the Surveillance Commissioners.
There is nothing in the Sunday Times story or in the interview by David Davis on Sky News, that suggests that any other secret agency apart from the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command (which was at the time still split between the Special Branch and the Anti-Terrorism Command).
The Wilson Doctrine was reaffirmed by Gordon Brown via Written Answers on July 17th 2007 and again on September 17th 2007.
Given your contacts Iain, is there any chance of you publishing a full copy of the Letter by David Davis, which Downing Street are claiming not to have received, and which Sky News have flashed up on the tv screen in their report ?
Surely by not making this Letter available online immediately, the Conservative Party website and media spin doctors, are still pandering only to the mainstream media, rather than treating the blogosphere and people interested in politics online with respect ?
This is very dodgy, not the bugging, but how did Davis know.
I think he has shot himself in the foot here. Now there will be an inquiry and he will need to disclose his source.. Oh dear.
It's disgraceful, and clearly racist, that some on the right are now accusing Mr Sadiq Khan MP of being some sort of muslim fifth-columnist.
Why can't he visit an old school-friend, in prison for ALLEGED terrorist activities, without having his private conversation bugged?
What is this country coming to?
Watchinhg you said
Surely by not making this Letter available online immediately, the Conservative Party website and media spin doctors, are still pandering only to the mainstream media, rather than treating the blogosphere and people interested in politics online with respect ?
SPOT ON !!!!!..
Davis has either made the whole thing up on advise fron Tory HQ Spinners, or the Prison service has Tory moles who are feeding data to Tory HQ...Either way I think Davis is going to regret this.
Chris Paul. I agree with you. There are more possibillities.
Surely they weren't bugging the MP, they were bugging the convict? Given that he was in the Big House, why should he have any expectation of privacy? The only time he should expect privacy, I would have thought, would be if he was meeting his solicitor, not an MP.
@ Anonymous 6:04 PM
"Anybody who is associating with a terrorist suspect or sympathiser is a legitamate target for bugging.?
By that faulty "guilt by association" logic, all the Anti-terrorist Police should spy on each other because they associate with far more terrorist suspects than normal people do, in the course of their professional work.
It is the same for Members of Parliament, they are elected to represent everyone in their constituency, including criminals and the many innocent people who fear Government bureaucracy or policies.
If MPs cannot talk or communicate with their Constituents in private, then the terrorists will have won.
That does not mean that MPs should be automatically exempt from being investigated for corruption or treason, outside of their constituency work, but that does not appear to be the case with Sadiq Khan.
Things have changed since 1966, not just technologically e.g. mobile phones and email and other internet communications, but with other Elected Parlaiemnts and Assemblies as well.
There is no good reason why the Wilson Doctrine should not also apply to Constituency communications involving Members of the European Parliament, Members of the the Scottish Parliament. Members of the Welsh Assembly and Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I don't know what happened, but I bet it's cock-up, not conspiracy.
Full DD letter:
dated December 11 2007
Dear Prime Minister,
You will recall the Wilson Doctrine, first articulated by Harold Wilson in 1966, under which it was set out as a matter of public policy that Government would not tap the telephones of Members of Parliament.
Your immediate predecessor and other Ministers have, since 1997, consistently confirmed that this policy remains in place.
I have reason to believe that the policy has been breached in relation to communications between a constituent, arrested and detained as a terrorist suspect since 2003, and his Member of Parliament.
I would be grateful if you could review this serious matter and inform me of the outcome of your review.
In addition, I would be grateful if you could confirm that there has been no change in the Wilson Doctrine under your premiership, in light of your clear commitment, made on July 3 of this year, to 'restore power to Parliament in order to build the trust of British people in our democracy'.
I am writing on a confidential basis, in the first instance, given the nature of the subject, the related sensitivities and to afford you an opportunity to provide a briefing on Privy Council terms if you deem it appropriate on grounds of national security.
I look forward to hearing from you.
David Davis
Unless Guido is right clearly Blair - Tony authorised the surveillance !
Alternatively what specifically does the Wilson doctrine cover
@ qwerty - actually attempting to correspond with 10 Downing Street / Cabinet Office or the Home Office is very hard work. They have a history of not bothering to acknowledge letters or email for weeks and months.
David Davis said on Sky News, that he was not unduly surprised by the lack of any reply to his letter, as he had asked, if necessary to be given a security briefing on Privy Counsellor terms, if there did happen to be some sort of active national security investigation in progress, which might have been operationally compromised. His assumption was that Gordon Brown would instigate an internal inquiry and that he would be informed in due course.
His letter did not specifically name Sidiq Khan, or his constituent
Babar Ahmad in order to protect his source of information. That could also explain a reluctance to entrust such sensitive information to telephone or email contact with Downing Street.
Or, it could have been done by, or in coordination with, American intelligence agents.
Don't forget that not too long ago the Sunday Times reported US claims it has the legal right to kidnap people on British soil and extradite them to the US, as they have done previously in Italy. With this attitude, what's to stop them from carrying out other shady intelligence work without the knowledge of the PM? We're just an American outpost nowadays.
Since the rest of can be bugged - why not MPs ? Lets face it they are hardly better people than the rest of us.
The Wilson Doctrine relates to telephone tapping not table tapping.
I think it would be a good idea to bug all MPs as a matter of course. Statistically, more of them are crooks than in a sample of the same size taken from the general population.
I reckon that David Davis went public following the conclusion of a parallel investigation by the Sunday Times. May be the same source, possibly tipping off the Sunday Times after he felt that his other avenues for whistleblowing (Davis and an unnamed MP) were being stonewalled.
It is possible to point to a cock-up, with the MP being the unintended target of the bug. However, the efforts of the whistleblower seem to indicate otherwise.
There are a few possibilities:
1. Bug is for prisoner only, Khan was a coincidence. If so, why the whistleblowing?
2. Bug was for prisoner and Khan, with both as suspects (either with reason or through US-inspired paranoia). Unlikely, with the exception of the paranoia scenario.
3. Bug was for prisoner and Khan, fishing expedition. Most likely. Explosive if true!
4. Bug was for prisoner and Khan, with Khan aware of bug. Less likely than 3, more likely than 2.
Does this help?
Inside information available here
there was gossip of bugging in the commons 10 months ago that "dishonorable" members were being monitored
question is was this the case of is there more
order order
No Jailhouselawyer, it doesn't help at all.
If I'm ever in the market for a second hand axe (slightly used) though then I'll give you a shout.
"Surely they weren't bugging the MP, they were bugging the convict?"
Thats hair splitting .
MP's are not exempt .They are generally not spied upon by CONVENTION thats all . Labour jeers at conventions , ask Blair .
man in a shed:
exaxtly
I wonder if David Davis could scalp a sitting Prime Minister from the opposing bench. We can but hope.
This is a non-story.
First, no doubt the bugging was targeted at the prisoner, not the MP. Are we suggesting that people can't be monitored because they might come into contact with an MP?
Second, it was no doubt authorised under the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 s.5. on the grounds of national security. The Home Sec would have known which is why she is keeping mum.
Third, communications between constituent and MP are not privileged. They are not the same as those between a lawyer and client. To suggest that they are is disingenuous.
Fourth, the idea that somehow MPs have not been bugged since Wilson is pants. Messers Adams and McGuinness were under surveillance, and they knew it!
Fifth, MPs do not enjoy the benefit of clergy when it comes to their activities. They are not above the law. Frankly, I am sick of hearing how they need special treatment.
What would you do without David Davis?
This is a total bore!
BUT
If Brown handles it badly - again
it will be another nail in his coffin.
geoff: You are trying to bug me but it is not working. If the information did not help you, then you are past help.
rohan: "Third, communications between constituent and MP are not privileged. They are not the same as those between a lawyer and client". In the prison world they are equally privileged.
This is not a non-story!
If it was a routine surveillance operation which inadvertently picked up an MP, why the vehement whistleblowing?
Check out Straw's non-denial denial: "It is completely unacceptable for an interview to be conducted by a MP, on a constituent matter or in any other issue, to be recorded". Note that he states "recorded" and not "intercepted" or "monitored".
It is correct to point out that this would not be a breach of the law but a breach of convention, but this should not be used to downplay the gravity of the incident. It looks as if this was a fishing expedition, perhaps on behalf of the US. This illustrates the contempt shown towards our rights, if even a conversation between a prisoner and a supposedly loyal MP is fair game - you can imagine the conversation..."yeah, the Spams want something on this bloke... let's stick a bug in....an MP, so what...we'll get it signed off anyway".
This is why the extended detention periods and ID cards must be opposed....once introduced, these powers will be taken for granted by a disintrested contemptuous administration in the same way that saw the loss of the HMRC disks and Armed Forces recruitment records (mine included). Rights and liberties - and conventions - are viewed as minor administrative inconveniences...like unreliable WMD intelligence not providing a convincing case for war...."okay, let's sex it up a bit..."
I see
So its OK for local councils to bug 350,000 ordinary people a year - see Friday's Telegraph - but its not OK to bug members of the Westminster Beltway when they turn up in prison to see childhood friends who are held on terrorist linked offences?
I am astonished by the Tory party making something out of this non-story.
The Conservative party should be on notice - "the big tent" is being dismantled and moved somewhere a long way from the three party/fourth estate Westminster beltway that is starting to bore the shit out of ordinary people who see no baring on what seems to concern them and on what is happening on every street across the land.
I find it reasuring that no one is exempt, as MPs are far too big for their boots. Would you want to confide in Straw or Brown, I would not trust them as far as I could throw them.
Iain. Do you think MPS are something special. No one I know does. MPs have no respect in the country.
They think they are some sort of elite who should be exempt from the law.I would remove all their privledges except their right to say what they want in the house.
Babar Ahmad has been scheduled for extradition on the orders of a former Home Secretary (who was presumably in possession of the salient facts of the case). The charges against him are serious and involve the security of this country.
The bugging took place in a prison where Babar Ahmad was being detained.
We are in a state of war with Islamic extremists. All over the world these groups are plotting to kill us.
All bets are off. Mr Sadiq Khan should get on with his life and take a reality check. I don't trust him because I do not trust any MP. They should be subject to the same crappy authoritarian rules we all have to deal with.
They want parity with Priests on confidentiality? Yeah.
So what? MPS have allowed all sorts to be bugged, letters intercepted and in general being spied on. Notice they get upset when it happens to them.
They don't like it up them, do they to paraphrase an old sketch.
Why hasn't David Davis made an issue of this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=L2VJ1GBKCUCWLQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbenefit103.xml
Benefits for multiple wives?
FFS
Its really time to leave England when this happens and nobody on the mainstream right says a thing.
.......Hey Andy did you here about this one?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nislam403.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
Geoff - Jailhouse Lawyer would do well to drop his laughable professorial stance regarding crime. He doesn't understand that anyone who knows who he is wouldn't touch his link with a barge pole. He got some trash law degree in prison because they had to keep him occupied for 18 years or whatever it was (not long enough to pay for taking a life).
He claims to be a media consultant on prison law, but he also claims benefits from the British taxpayer, meaning relatives who loved the woman whose life he terminated with his axe attack are probably contributing to his upkeep, which goes against human nature.
In fact, there ought to be a series of boxes to tick on tax forms. Do you want money to go to providing prisoners with TVs and gym facilities? Tick here. Do want your money to go to building special muslim toilets facing away from mecca with your taxes? Tick here. Etc.
That would be illuminating, would it not?
"The idea that a Labour Member of Parliament was being bugged and neither the Prime Minister or the Justice Secretary knew about it simply beggars belief."
Haha, indeed; in fact, they should probably still expect it...
verity and geoff.
jailhouselawyer describes himself as a prison law consultant and presumably gets paid for his activities.
As he is in receipt of Benefits and is clearly not making himself available for work, he obviously needs a little help.
National Benefit Fraud Hotline:
0800 854 440
These people would love to help him towards his goal of rehabilitation into mainstream society.
Happy to Help.
Non sequitur, but The Daily Mail reports today, Monday, that Peter Hain had his 80-year old mother on the payroll as his part time secretary.
Guido had the right idea. Blow up the Houses of Parliament. It is vile.
But, in these days of threats to our security. WHY should Members of Parliament NOT be bugged.
Some have proved to be unscrupulous. Why allow them free rein?
If Tom Dick and Harriet are to be bugged then so should they.
Wasn't Wilson, himself, under MI5 surveillance at the time.
The picture on TV news was of a table in a common visiting room. It could well be that all prison visitors are monitored to check whether they are passing drugs or arranging for an escape or another heist.
How convenient that this story gets into the press just as the Tories are facing some bad press.
I wonder who gave it to the Sunday Times?
Quite frankly Sadiq Khan was naive to suppose that his conversation with Babar Ahmad, in prison, would not be "bugged" bearing in mind the alleged charges against that individual.
qwerty - "this is the Tory party in panic, you have had a few bad weeks recently ... "
are you sure?
unlike the disasterous few months (or years anyone?) that Labour have been through recently?
Idiot
Who cares who authorised it? The issue is whether this MP is a terrorist sympathiser or not. Are Labour's muslim MP's the Sinn Fein of Al Quaeda?
tone made me do it @ 12.31 is right on the money with drawing our attention to the multiple benefits for multiple wives scandal.
If you set out to worsen race relations in Britain, you could do no better than this overt piece of racist vote-buying, which the MSM are passing VERY lightly over.
While the likes of the whinging Sidiq Khan will quickly pull out the race card, the real offence against good relations is an indefensible policy such as this.
Where are Trevor Philips, and Lee Jasper when policies like this are quietly implemented against the interests of their groups, or the Gay & Lesbian League, who as someone pointed out at Guido, may wish to claim for multiple partners?
If this is the way forward for ZaNuLab's multiculturalism project, while Michael Nazir-Ali is under threats of death, it really is time for the indigenous population to decampt to a new home. This one has been sold out from under the legal tenants.
"They're still waiting for Gordon Brown to decide whether to authorise it or not..."
Thank you teesbridge, you made my day.
A further option:
It was authorised by the CIA.
The CIA & British Secret Service have, since WW2, been almost Siamese twins. This was rather hinted at by the BBC last night.
Since David Davis is "believed" to have links to the secret service it is likely taht this came from a disgruntled member. If it was because he was disgruntled about the CIA being assisted in carrying out operations against British MPs inside a British prison he would be right to be disgruntled.
As for the missing letter. Difficult to believe Brown would be stupid enough to lose it, or that the postman would. Which leaves somebody senior in the cabinet office deliberately censoring the PM's mail. That should be a sacking ofence, at the least.
Whoever authorised the bugging was doubtless "incorrectly advised" about the operation of the convention so how can they be held responsible for their actions?
Verity and Co - for what it's worth, I think your attacks on John Hirst (jailhouse lawyer) on this blog are becoming extremely boring. If there is a single onew of Iain's zillions of readers who doesn't know about the murder by now I would be surprised.
Iain - I don't give you advice lightly, but my view is that you should either ban the guy from the blog altogther if you don't think he's a suitable person to be here, or alternatively ban Verity and others from making these mean-spirited, tediously repetitive comments.
Who do these MP's think they are?
Mr Khan is certainly an very opportunistic man who uses the Muslim card very well indeed.
About time 'The Wilson Doctrine' got upgraded to the 21st Century, yes?
So now we know - it was a police "initiative".
So much for your "there are only four posssibilities".
Novelty items, gimmicky lists, and now a distinct lack of imagination - you really are doing your best to remove yourself from my Favourites list.
Paul Linford: Thanks old chap, but my conviction was for manslaughter and not murder. I believe that Iain is aware of the identities of "geoff" and "jus passin thru". Probably friends like Derek Conway. Upstanding pillars of the community. I don't think. It's a poor show when somebody cannot make a serious contribution without the attack dogs being let off the leash.
So now we know. Was a senior police officer in Thames Valley Police. Wilson doctrine hasn't been broken as that only relates to bugging by the security services.
Did David Davis not listen to the statement by Jack Straw? As he completely missed what Straw had said.
Anyone else think the media have made a massive story out of ... well, not much really.
My understanding is that MP's can not be bugged if on onstituency business. As the person the MP was visiting was in prison he was no elligable to vote, therfore how could he be described as a constituent?
Also if MP'sare asking us to give uo more and more civil rights to help combat the threat of terrorism shouldn't they be willing to give some of their own rights?
Another case of do as we say not as we do.
What Jack Straw has said about MPs being bugged seems to be:
Firstly background: The security services (MI6, MI5, SOCA & GCHQ) need ministerial authority for bugging. The police need be permission of a chief officer (ie, Chief Constable) & NOT ministerial permission.
The Wilson Docterine: Straw said this only applies when ministerial permission is needed, ie When the security services are bugging. Therefore the police can bug MPs but MI5 etc cannot.
Therefore if, as seems to be the case, the police bugged an MP - thats fine.
"A decision to bug a conversation between a Labour MP and his constituent was taken by a Thames Valley Police officer, the BBC understands."
So none of the above! You're not quite as clever / well informed as you think you are, are you? But then no one could be...
anonymous 5.09: Are you sure it wasn't a PCSO?
Could the "perfect" few commenters please refrain from passing derogatory remarks to other seemingly "less perfect" commenters? It only serves to show what bitter and twisted personalities they possess. This topic has been stained with their bent view of humanity.
It was probably 'none of the above'.
Since the asinine updates to the Prevention of Terrorism / War On Terror / If you're not with us, you're with the Woolwich, sorry, Terrsts.. The cops have been given far too much power, and have carte blanche to eavesdrop on whoever they like with little judicial oversight.
Why do you think they called it the RIP Act ? Because it spells the death of civil liberties, dummy..
@And if you think we have it bad here, just be glad you aren't living under the Patriot Act in the good 'ole US of A.
'Lives of Others', here we come - look on the Bright Side, at least there will be lots of ex-Stasi who are now eligible to work here now that we have opened our borders to all of the East Europeans...
This is very common and accepted practise, providing it is done in old communist Russia or old GDR. No place here in free (?) western society.
Also Iain, please control these feral dogs who stalk your comment box.
Well done DD. This could have been dealt with through closed channels. Instead, its been made a big story, with the result that in future all terrorist suspects will be aware that their table may be tapped. Party politics above national security any day. Shocking that this sort of disorderly contempt for the safety of the public should be displayed by someone who claims to be a Conservative.
There are three or four comments here which attack another poster who, as far as I can see, has done nothing to deserve it.
Why do you allow this sort of thing Iain? Or do you approve.
Well perhaps you'd like to identify which ones and I will have a look at them.
I do not read every single comment. I skim read as many as possible before allowing them through. If people alert me to offensive posts I can then look at them. If they merely complain generally, then it's more difficult.
So the cops did it, all their own idea. No one else knew.
Fair enough.
If you believe it.
Why has it been put about that the cop whose idea it was is the subject of "unrelated disciplinary action"?
Was this a fishing expedition to help bolster the extradition case, or to get the inside track on the likely counter-extradition strategy?
Iain,
I was thinking of these in particular:
verity said...
Geoff - Jailhouse Lawyer would do well to drop his laughable professorial stance regarding crime. He doesn't understand that anyone who knows who he is wouldn't touch his link with a barge pole. He got some trash law degree in prison because they had to keep him occupied for 18 years or whatever it was (not long enough to pay for taking a life).
And
jus' passin' thru' said...
verity and geoff.
jailhouselawyer describes himself as a prison law consultant and presumably gets paid for his activities.
As he is in receipt of Benefits and is clearly not making himself available for work, he obviously needs a little help.
......
All a bit nasty IMHO and quite unnecessary. I don't know if these people have a history, but......!
Anonymous, both of these are fair comment. Jailhouselawyer calls me far worse on his blog. If he can't take it he shouldn't dish it out.
Anonymous 8.34 and 9.54 pm. said ....
"There are three or four comments here which attack another poster who, as far as I can see, has done nothing to deserve it.
Why do you allow this sort of thing Iain? Or do you approve."
If you look up Jailhouselawyer's history you will see why he attracts such opprobrium and I think you will then agree that he is a most evil and obnoxious character.
A dark day indeed when an MP can not meet with his constituent without being spied on. These are the first steps of a police state. A constituent will usually see his/her MP as a last resort when they feel that other conventional avenues have failed. Such as if they believe they are the victims of injustice or police brutality and they wish to take their issues up with a higher authority ,which is not as uncommon as we may like to believe. To think that such a conversation will be bugged by the police is exactly the definition of a police state. Remember, Baber Ahmed has never been convicted of anything in the UK but is simply fighting extradition to the US. Though I would be delighted to see the back of him we must uphold the rule of law no matter how bitter it may taste otherwise the terrorist have already won.
I have met Sadiq Khan on two occasions and he is a man of the utmost integrity and it saddens me to read some of the closet racist comments on this blog and others.
Iain: "I do not read every single comment. I skim read as many as possible before allowing them through."
Sort of like batch approval? You skim read 1 in every ten comments?
Even skim reading them you would see that the posts by Verity and Co. are nothing to do with the post and are in fact libellous.
I suggest you tighten your quality control procedure.
And he calls you worse on his blog...? C'mon, don't be so childish.
Rules: "please try to steer clear of personal insults where possible"
If you're not going to ban these people then maybe a warning at least.
sim-o said...
'Rules: "please try to steer clear of personal insults where possible"
If you're not going to ban these people then maybe a warning at least.'
The trouble is Jailhouselawyer is an insult to humanity.
Anonymous:
YOU are an insult to humanity. If you can't say anything nice and ON TOPIC, please begger off and leave this to genuine commenters.
Post a Comment