If MPs exempted themselves from the Snoopers’ Charter, isn’t that corruption?
![[Image: @richard_littler/Twitter.]](https://voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/161127-Theresa-May-is-Watching-You.jpg)
[Image: @richard_littler/Twitter.]
The news article quoted below indicates that MPs clearly considered that they did have something to hide, as they clamoured to exempt themselves from scrutiny under the Act.
That indicates corrupt intentions, to This Writer at least.
I’ve been trying to find out whether this amendment was voted through, and which MPs supported it if it was.
Can anybody provide useful information?
The only amendment to the government’s sweeping new spying bill so far made by politicians is to stop them from being spied on.
The Investigatory Powers Bill – sometimes referred to as Snoopers’ Charter 2 – has been criticised by experts and tech companies, as well as by the government’s own watchdogs. But politicians have so far submitted only one amendment as it makes its way through parliament on its way into law, The Next Web reports.
As the law is currently written, it requires that the Prime Minister must be consulted if a warrant is to be issued allowing for the monitoring of an MP’s communications.
But the new amendment proposes that those requests must also go to the Speaker of the House of Commons, The Next Web points out. That is the only change so far submitted by politicians.
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
crooks hay they sure dont want them looking in to see whot this corrupt lot get up to
But of course they will be spied on anyway…..as they are now
No wonder our laws are such a mess if this was the only amendment they could suggest putting forward. To be frank against my better judgement I feel that the Lords do a much better thinking job on some of the crap being pushed through parliament. At least they think about and challenge what comes through the system this lot just seem to get the dosh without inputting anything useful…or maybe they really are unable to think about things beyond their own sheltered existance. MPs are supposed to be acting for the population not protecting their own self interests and skull duggery which if it reflects what Hillary Clinton was up to on her emails I can quite understand why they want to keep just anyone seeing what MPs get up to. No….if it is a new law it should be for everyone not just the plebs with no exceptions or favours.
Were anyone to ask for justification of this Bill, no doubt the phrase National Security would be proffered. Since when have MP’s ever been exempt from National Security, I seem to remember several cases of impropriety emanating from our trusted representatives. To suggest MI5 will not be privy to MP’s meanderings beggars belief, but not so in the public domain., because such meanderings then become subject to National Security themselves.
Good point – undermined, unfortunately, by your insistence on hiding behind a pseudonym for no very good reason.
For those who can’t see his details, Sanjit=Brian Carr, who posts here under his other name as well.
Dear Mrs May as MPs have voted to be excluded from the Snoopers Charter I too would like to add my name to the exempt list.
If you’ve done nothing wrong and are not suspected of intending to do something wrong in the future why should you be put under surveillance? And why should MPs be exempt from surveillance doled out to every other mobile phone or internet user? We know from past history that far to many MPs get up to all sorts of monkey business and nefarious activities. But really shouldn’t somebody independent, like a judge, have to issue a court order upon application by the police or security services, as with opening mail or intercepting phone calls, before people have their online activities scrutinised? If the purpose of this is to stop terrorist and criminal activities why do local authorities and government departments like the DWP need access to personal browsing histories?
I’ve done nothing wrong but I don’t want to be watched, or spied upon. If I want people to know what I’m up to, I’ll tell them. As a performer, I spend my working life under the gaze of others; I don’t want the rest of my life to be the same. We know that M.P.s are as likely as Joe Public, if not more so, to be up to no good. What makes them think that they are above reproach? The expenses scandal an others show exactly the opposite. Hypocrisy! The only thing that separates them from us is their position. Given their position, one would argue that they should be subjected to greater scrutiny, because of the sensitivity if the information in their possession.
I don’t know the details of this legislation but surely, there must be just cause shown, before any surveillance can be carried out?