Undercover police spied on Labour MPs in 1990s

According to whistle blower Peter Francis Police routinely spied on Labour MPs

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/scotland-yard-spied-on-labour-ministers-including-jack-straw-and-harriet-harman/ar-AAa0efD?ocid=iehp

 

I wonder if these were the extremists that Mrs May had in mind when she spoke of blacklisting? The Met police seem to think nothing of having relationships & babies with environmental activists whose organisations they target; collaborating with the Economic League and the gutter press for backhanders, and now this. What a shame they weren't as keen on spying and collecting information on MPs and other members of the establishment who sexually exploited children....Still I suppose they were too busy to be bothered about that

Behaviour one would expect of the Stasi

Special Branch must have had far too much time on their hands if they thought Harman, Straw and Hain posed any threat to the state.

Anyone who attended any demonstrations in the 1980s got used to being photographed by Special Branch spotters.

 

Smile for the camera please.

Excuse me. Too right. Harriet Harman - a great Gran daughter of Joseph Chamberlain - is pro-establishment, and as far as the others are concerned, I think the Special Branch officer conducting the enquiry should be given early retirement pending a psychiatric evaluation.

Indeed, when 'New Labour' was elected they must've been so pleased

 

I have no confidence that anyone in Special Branch will be called to account or have the back of their hands slapped for this. I mean how many people have died in police custody, and there have been no prosecutions, no nothing. The police can act with impunity.

 

Still I wonder why they never thought to spy on the likes of the Economic League, or the Claremont Set, or the Consulting Association?

It would be interesting to know exactly who gave the order for this to be done.

 

Surely the police have no authority to carry out surveillance on elected members of parliament without being ordered to do so?

 

So who gave those orders and why?

It would be interesting to know exactly who gave the order for this to be done.

 

Surely the police have no authority to carry out surveillance on elected members of parliament without being ordered to do so?

 

So who gave those orders and why?

 

Surveillance of the lefties has been going on for ages. MI5 had Harold Wilson and others under surveillance in 1974.

Surveillance of the lefties has been going on for ages. MI5 had Harold Wilson and others under surveillance in 1974.

 

Yes MI5, that's the organization that I'd have expected to carry out any investigation but we're talking about the police, what's their involvement?

 

Also if they're carrying out surveillance of 'lefties' are they also doing the same with 'righties'?

 

After all, it was a number of right wing fascist sympathizers including members of the aristocracy who were prepared to sell the country down the river and do a deal with the Germans in WW2 wasn't it?

According to whistle blower Peter Francis Police routinely spied on Labour MPs

Do you really think this is some sort of exceptional(-ly bad) behaviour by security services?

 

Incumbent Gvts have always used security services to collect information about not only the opposition, but its own representatives, so that -inasmuch as possible- nothing can come as a surprise and 'type reply plans' are drafted in advance. That's beside the sort of personal inquiries to clear access/accreditation to certain levels of information.

 

When I was doing my national service (after such personal inquiries were conducted into my background, of which I was completely unaware at the time), I happened to see the files for many of the local French MPs, Sénateurs, Regional Councillors <etc> (right-, centre- and left-leaning). Far from biographical-, political- and appointments-only information, they contained all manner of completely personal/intimate information, e.g. trysts with who/where/when, drugs (and/or dependents or relatives doing-), <etc>. I s**t you not.

 

Might go some way to explain my cynicism in all things State/political, mind.

 

The tinfoil-hatted brigade will knee-jerk read all manner of conspiracies into that (and they may well be right in some instances), and more rational types (like me ) simply see it as intrusive information gathering 'because they can', of little actual use/value.

Edited March 27, 2015 by L00b

Do you really think this is some sort of exceptional(-ly bad) behaviour by security services?

 

Incumbent Gvts have always used security services to collect information about not only the opposition, but its own representatives, so that -inasmuch as possible- nothing can come as a surprise and 'type reply plans' are drafted in advance. That's beside the sort of personal inquiries to clear access/accreditation to certain levels of information.

 

When I was doing my national service (after such personal inquiries were conducted into my background, of which I was completely unaware at the time), I happened to see the files for many of the local French MPs, Sénateurs, Regional Councillors <etc> (right-, centre- and left-leaning). Far from biographical-, political- and appointments-only information, they contained all manner of completely personal/intimate information, e.g. trysts with who/where/when, drugs (and/or dependents or relatives doing-), <etc>. I s**t you not.

 

Might go some way to explain my cynicism in all things State/political, mind.

 

The tinfoil-hatted brigade will knee-jerk read all manner of conspiracies into that (and they may well be right in some instances), and more rational types (like me ) simply see it as intrusive information gathering 'because they can', of little actual use/value.

 

No, information is useful at some point in time

These were probably started at the time of the Cold War when the threat of war with a communist country was always possible.

The surveillance was probably to see where loyalties would be in such an event.

No, information is useful at some point in time

Considering Gvts, majorities and MPs alternate regularly, today's potential blackmailer would be tomorrow's potential blackmailee...so, along the same logic as the nuclear MAD equilibrium, nobody does anything with the information, as the safest way of maintaining the quid pro quo.

 

That is, until and unless a big enough spanner gets thrown into the system to break down the equilibrium: exactly what (very probably-) happened with sexual impropriety by influential people in the past decades, and now fast coming off at the wheels despite the ongoing damage control attempts.

Edited March 27, 2015 by L00b