Security for all MPs

I will add to my comment above that ex-MPs do receive a healthy pension and often have other very lucrative income streams and could probably afford their own security, if they so choose.

I cannot imagine AW ever even considering security for herself though.

I said on the other thread- I live near a cabinet minister - when they are there there is a big SUV with blacked out windows and at least 2 plain clothes officers in it. I think they take the children to school even. This level of security would be unsustainable for every MP and former MP.

Does anyone know why the police enquiry has been upgraded to terrorism related

Retired MPs are not difficult to track down, Anne Widdecombes views are right wing but not extreme why terrorist related?

David49

Does anyone know why the police enquiry has been upgraded to terrorism related

Retired MPs are not difficult to track down, Anne Widdecombes views are right wing but not extreme why terrorist related?

Maybe because their remit is a little larger than just terrorism or have better resources 🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️

Farage was apparently offered the same level of protection as Kemi Badenoch but that wasn’t good enough for him so he refused it.

Nandalot

Farage was apparently offered the same level of protection as Kemi Badenoch but that wasn’t good enough for him so he refused it.

🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️

He wants the same level of security that the home office minister gets.

LemonJam

Fair enough.

My view is that continuing to provide state funded security to all MPs who leave office until the day they die is logistically problematic, unaffordable, not viable and would adversely divert already constrained public funds from other priority areas

I agree.
Once an MP leaves office then I think they must attend to their own security arrangements.
I believe that past PM’s continue to receive state security.

Whitewavemark2

He wants the same level of security that the home office minister gets.

Well, when he’s the Home Office Minister, he can have.

IMO, I think he’s taking the mick thinking he’s more “special” and more at risk, than any other party leader not in power!

Honestly, who does he think he is?

Here's the link to MPs' security provision: www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/mps-security

On Farage turning down state funded security, claiming it was "inadequate' seems to be to be the behaviour of someone self entitled, divisive, seeking self publicity rather misguided ( why not simply top up to desired levels?) and self sabotaging. I agree with this.

We need decent people to come forward as MPs and do not want them to be put off by security concerns.

Free speech cannot and should not be curtailed, but those making pronouncements that skate round the borderline of the definition of inciting violence or of the hate crime laws do need to be aware of what they are doing.

I do not think it is possible for all MPs to have state-funded security provision for life. It should be decided on a case by case basis depending on the assessed threat level.

I think he has a point regarding his security.

I think the vitriol and comments on here towards NF are astonishing at times.

I wonder what comments and threats he receives on a daily basis from other sources.

Most MP’s face insults on a daily basis, it only takes one determined person to get close enough to them to physically attack or like Ann and two other MPs murder them.

Cossy

Whitewavemark2

He wants the same level of security that the home office minister gets.

Well, when he’s the Home Office Minister, he can have.

IMO, I think he’s taking the mick thinking he’s more “special” and more at risk, than any other party leader not in power!

Honestly, who does he think he is?

But what if he is getting more threats?

And the powers that be, know he is?

tbh, I dont really know what I think.
Which is why I start threads sometimes.

I happened to start my musings on this subject, on another thread, a day or two before the murder of Ann Widdecombe.

On that particular thread, I also brought in the security concerns of Harry and Meghan.

I had happened to start reconsidering the whole issue.

I agree with LemonJam. All serving politicians get security but I would argue that some female politicians get the lion’s share of rape and death threats, Diane Abbot has had constant threats to her life and to her family, so am not sure why these threats are not chased by the police with arrests and examples made of the culprits. Surely it is within their gift to do this. And if police involvement along with highly publicised arrests was to be used in these cases I imagine it would serve as a deterrent much more than personal security measures.
We need to catch those making these threats before they make good on those threats.
And I agree that the political landscape today can be acutely hostile, extreme, and divisive, which attracts those who are hostile and violent by nature. It used to be that the centre right and the centre left would spar but not fight dirty and agree more than they disagreed, especially in times of crisis. We have moved a long way from this model.

I also think MPs, politicians, police commissioners, people prominent in the public eye- e.g. on line influencers and celebrities etc etc also need to take some accountability for their mode and content of oral and online communication.

They responsibly need to understand and then make an informed decision to tread the right side of free speech laws and not err onto the malicious, divisive and provocative communications side and not incite violence, racial hatred, civil disobedience, interference with police investigations, spreading false rumours etc.

Some threats could be deemed *self inflicted*- seemingly knowingly and for personal, beneficial purposes- e.g. at highest level- by prominent figures like Tommy Robison, Elon Musk and Andrew Tate et al. In my view some politicians lean towards that direction also.....

Agreed GG13

The police do make malicious communications of adolescents in my anecdotal experience, often alongside on line harassment allegations- to nip such things in the bud. It's an alarming communications cultural development.

Those in the public eye need to set an example.

GrannyGravy13

I think he has a point regarding his security.

I think the vitriol and comments on here towards NF are astonishing at times.

I wonder what comments and threats he receives on a daily basis from other sources.

Most MP’s face insults on a daily basis, it only takes one determined person to get close enough to them to physically attack or like Ann and two other MPs murder them.

Is there evidence that social media bandits go on to carry out physical violence on politicians though? I don’t know the answer, but I always imagine the vitriolic posters to be a different group of people, who don’t pose a physical threat, but get their very weird kicks from knowing they are frightening their target.

*I also think MPs, politicians, police commissioners, people prominent in the public eye- e.g. on line influencers and celebrities etc etc also need to take some accountability for their mode and content of oral and online communication.

They responsibly need to understand and then make an informed decision to tread the right side of free speech laws and not err onto the malicious, divisive and provocative communications side and not incite violence, racial hatred, civil disobedience, interference with police investigations, spreading false rumours etc.*

I agree with that.

There are hate crime and incitement to violence offences that sometimes politicians are very close to violating - free speech is important but needs to be within the bounds of the law.

Casdon

GrannyGravy13

I think he has a point regarding his security.

I think the vitriol and comments on here towards NF are astonishing at times.

I wonder what comments and threats he receives on a daily basis from other sources.

Most MP’s face insults on a daily basis, it only takes one determined person to get close enough to them to physically attack or like Ann and two other MPs murder them.

Is there evidence that social media bandits go on to carry out physical violence on politicians though? I don’t know the answer, but I always imagine the vitriolic posters to be a different group of people, who don’t pose a physical threat, but get their very weird kicks from knowing they are frightening their target.

I do not know the statistics either Casdon but as I posted it only takes one

Similar to the anti-terrorist police, they have to be accurate every time in order to stop any bombings/attacks, the terrorist only has to get lucky once…

GrannyGravy13

I think he has a point regarding his security.

I think the vitriol and comments on here towards NF are astonishing at times.

I wonder what comments and threats he receives on a daily basis from other sources.

Most MP’s face insults on a daily basis, it only takes one determined person to get close enough to them to physically attack or like Ann and two other MPs murder them.

I don't think he has any point at all. There is actually nothing particularly special about him that puts him at more risk than any other MP, even high profile ones.

As you rightly say, MPs face insults, and often more, on a daily basis. That's all MPs, not just Mr 'I'm a special case' (which he just isn't. And you should see what people say about Sadiq Khan, not even an MP...

The legal, but minor, assaults Farage has experienced, one egging and two milkshake throwing incidents, are not unique to him. I haven't noticed any public figure who has experienced similar screaming loudly and publicly for special treatment. His overweening self importance and desperation for publicity should be ignored, not pandered to.

Farage is a man who so far has survived being hit by a car, testicular cancer, a wheel coming off his car on a French motorway and a plane crash.

I completely fail to see how any of these qualify him for publicly funded security.

You’re right GrannyGravy13, I think there must a be hundreds or thousands of people who make online threats to public figures though, politicians included, who aren’t otherwise known to the police, and who wouldn’t pose a physical threat, the hardest part would be weeding out the ones who might, and treating them differently to mitigate the risk.

Nige could always top up his security with his £5m.

The problem with Reform is that it is a not a democratic political party but a very wealthy business with a self-appointed head who cannot be deposed and which trades daily in the politics of grievance.

Its MPs and party entourage follow instructions to do the media rounds, appear on GBNews or tweet material intent on stirring up hatred and division. We know they are following instructions as they all say the same things using the same buzz words. This week the buzz word is establishment. The vitriol in Zia Yusuf’s posts is truly shocking and someone needs to rein him in. He is dangerous.

If you spend every day stirring up hatred and division don’t be surprised when people start to hate you.

David asks why this has been upgraded to terrorism.

As I understand it, the man was initially arrested on suspicion of murder and then rearrested on suspicion of commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

Commission

This means carrying out or doing the act itself. It refers to the physical violence completed.

Preparation

This covers the steps taken before a violent attack occurs. It includes planning the attack and gathering weapons. You can be found guilty of preparation even if the final attack is never carried out.

Instigation

This means persuading, encouraging, or helping others to carry out terrorist acts. It includes glorifying past attacks, publishing statements that encourage violence, or recruiting others to join a cause.

Note the or in the terms or arrest. He may or may not be suspected of instigation.

What’s makes a murder terrorism? My understanding is that it comes down to motive and intent. While murder is the unlawful killing of a person, terrorism uses violence or the threat of violence specifically to intimidate a civilian population or force a government to change its policies.

I don’t wish to speculate on what has happened here and he hasn’t been charged yet but nothing Ms Widdecombe said or did was going to force the government to change its policies simply because she wasn’t an MP and certainly wasn’t part of government. She was a vocal member of a party which seeks radical change but has limited power beyond making some ministers veer further right in their policies, say on immigration.

Is the civilian population going to be intimidated by her murder? I doubt it. Shocked certainly but not intimated as we know that acts of violence against women are an everyday occurrence. Stranger violence and murder is relatively rare but it does happen.

I would argue there is less likely to be civilian intimidation from this than there is say of crimes committed by men of non-white ethnicity simply because of the street riots that have and may ensue as a result.

If Ms Widdecombe was targeted because of her involvement with Reform that’s going to be very sad because, according to her good friend Roger Gale MP she had no affection for Farage.

I'm in agreement with MaizieD at 13.57.

Plus vegansrock at 14.00.

It makes absolutely no logical sense why Farage would turn down state funded security for his MP role and top up accordingly to his satisfied level with either Reform funds or personal funds, or through his Thorn in the Side UK Ltd company. After all he is an extremely wealthy man.

Plus the majority of his time and effort is devoted to his high profile media and broadcasting work, Cameo videos, crypto currency and Gold Bullion marketing campaigns and US republican support activity outside the UK ie way outside his public service MP role in the UK

Quite frankly why should the state provide for the majority of Farage's money making ventures and efforts outside his MP role?