To bug or not to bug? That appears to be the current question. You can, like me, have your say on the BBC website, or read the comments left their by others. I love some of the debates on the BBC site and how excitable some of the contributors get. If only this could be harnessed into having open debate where it really matters instead of relying on MPs who are neither trustworthy, as in those who employ their teenage sons for doing nothing at the tax payers expense, or those that are corrupt [Money for peerages; funds for party politics] or are hell bent on sending us to wars in the name of their God.
Here is my say:
If the bugging of an MP is for the purpose of national security, and can be proved so, then whey should any MP be exempt? I can not believe the outrage caused by the bugging of a MP on the one hand and then the national debate we have when the security forces fail in attempts to thwart terrorists. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. If done properly and administered well, bugging should be used as a means of identifying security risks. I hope on this occasion the debate is not about the civil liberties of one MPs right to visit a constituent in prison and focuses more on the reasons behind the decision, if true, to bug the conversation.