Security for all MPs

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️

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

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 🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️

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?

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.

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.

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, thought also think it would be good if it was possible.

Thats was in answer to fancythat 11.31

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

LemonJam

I found the post title somewhat confusing. I think I'd be less confused if the post title was written clearly in the posters own words rather than quoting another poster from a different thread to talk about what that other poster said in the other thread context. But that's just me being confused I guess.

Anne Widdicombe has not been a UK MP since 2010 16 years ago. Are we being invited to consider UK state funded security measures for every serving UK MP- or everyone that has ever served as an MP once they have left office until the day they die? That surely would be unaffordable, logistically problematic and not viable? How would it be funded?

All serving MPs do currently have state funded security and even with the tightest, highest level security safety cannot be guaranteed. We only have to look at attempts on Trump's life as an example and I doubt there is any politician in the world with as much secret security protection as Trump.

Looking at the current level of serving MP state funded security and possible improvements- I understand Shabana Mahmoud has instigated a review?

I don't think "outspoken" serving MPs merit a higher level of security necessarily. What is the threshold for "outspoken"? What is an acceptable versus unacceptable level of being "outspoken"?

MPs serve the public and the public should be able to expect them to speak and bah as mature, responsible adults. They should know and have the skills to maintain appropriate communications orally and on line. Perhaps guidelines on 'appropriate communications in political discourse' might assist those who are by nature more aggressive, pugnacious and argumentative? Zia Yusef springs to mind as someone in that context but he's not a serving MP.

UK Political discourse in my view has become more aggressive and divided, driven by contentious issues, e.g. (not exhaustive!) immigration, climate change and 'culture wars'. Increasingly aggressive and divisive rhetoric in politics and social media has normalised toxic debate and hostility towards public figures. AW was a prominent public figure for example but not a serving MP.

We'd be better trying to find a way for serving politicians to find a way to debate such contentious issues without aggressive rhetoric in my view.

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. Perhaps attitudes like that contribute to the political discourse paradigm shift?

Great post! I agree with it wholeheartedly!

Fancythat AW wouldn’t have met the criteria, she’s not been a serving MP for many years. She was a “voluntary” member and speaker for Reform.

I believe the other thread started, which I now do recall mentioned both serving and ex-MPs security, giving them publicly funded security would cost a fortune.

Whilst this murder and that of David Ammess and Jo Cox were utterly horrific, thank goodness they are relatively rare. I agree though three murders is three too many.

Anne Widdicombe has not been a UK MP since 2010 16 years ago. Are we being invited to consider UK state funded security measures for every serving UK MP- or everyone that has ever served as an MP once they have left office until the day they die? That surely would be unaffordable, logistically problematic and not viable? How would it be funded?

I dont know. Part of the reason for this thread.

I googled "which Uk jobs have the highest murder rate".

AI answer
Sex workers, taxi drivers, and police officers face the highest rates of work-related homicide in the UK.

I am surprised about taxi drivers.

bah = behave

I found the post title somewhat confusing. I think I'd be less confused if the post title was written clearly in the posters own words rather than quoting another poster from a different thread to talk about what that other poster said in the other thread context. But that's just me being confused I guess.

Anne Widdicombe has not been a UK MP since 2010 16 years ago. Are we being invited to consider UK state funded security measures for every serving UK MP- or everyone that has ever served as an MP once they have left office until the day they die? That surely would be unaffordable, logistically problematic and not viable? How would it be funded?

All serving MPs do currently have state funded security and even with the tightest, highest level security safety cannot be guaranteed. We only have to look at attempts on Trump's life as an example and I doubt there is any politician in the world with as much secret security protection as Trump.

Looking at the current level of serving MP state funded security and possible improvements- I understand Shabana Mahmoud has instigated a review?

I don't think "outspoken" serving MPs merit a higher level of security necessarily. What is the threshold for "outspoken"? What is an acceptable versus unacceptable level of being "outspoken"?

MPs serve the public and the public should be able to expect them to speak and bah as mature, responsible adults. They should know and have the skills to maintain appropriate communications orally and on line. Perhaps guidelines on 'appropriate communications in political discourse' might assist those who are by nature more aggressive, pugnacious and argumentative? Zia Yusef springs to mind as someone in that context but he's not a serving MP.

UK Political discourse in my view has become more aggressive and divided, driven by contentious issues, e.g. (not exhaustive!) immigration, climate change and 'culture wars'. Increasingly aggressive and divisive rhetoric in politics and social media has normalised toxic debate and hostility towards public figures. AW was a prominent public figure for example but not a serving MP.

We'd be better trying to find a way for serving politicians to find a way to debate such contentious issues without aggressive rhetoric in my view.

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. Perhaps attitudes like that contribute to the political discourse paradigm shift?

Cossy

I’ve not seen another thread, I do think security for MPs warrants a thread of its own.

ALL serving MPs are already offered paid security via our government, at the same baseline level.

However some maybe offered further security based on criteria, Mr shingle explain this better than I can.

“ While every serving MP receives a baseline level of protection and support, specific allocations differ based on the following:Routine Security: Every MP is offered baseline measures and a dedicated, named police contact under the national Operation Bridger program. This includes security briefings, advice, and standardized physical upgrades to their homes and constituency offices.Enhanced Security: MPs facing higher or more specific threat levels receive elevated measures, which can include panic alarms, active patrols, and manned guarding at public events.Close Protection: Only a select few MPs (such as the Prime Minister, Home Secretary, and certain senior Cabinet members) are automatically granted permanent close protection (e.g., dedicated bodyguards, official cars, and drivers). An individual MP may have their security elevated to this level only if intelligence indicates an exceptional, severe risk.”

Thank you for that.

We can only hope that the MPs who need higher protection levels are granted it.

Sadly, I wouldnt have thought Ann Widdecombe would have been eligible for much.
Not sure how much she would have wanted anyway.

Actually, if we wish to analyse this more closely, the public organisations/services most likely to be physically harmed/attacked are NHS staff and the police.

Even jobcentre staff are at risk of physical attacks. In my 14 years of working in Essex, in Essex alone we had a security guard (ironically) stabbed to death, and bottles of acid brought into various jobcentres and many many other threats.

We all underwent “security” training, how to mitigate acid attacks, how to remove all traces of ourselves working within a jobcentre (not wearing passes et when popping out for lunch etc).

Very sadly and alarmingly this is the world in which we now live and it certainly isn’t helped by some of the co language used by very well known public figures like Trump.

It’s also not “new”, I remember only too well the horrific death of Lee Rigby.

We all need to be vigilant and those in public service more so.

Sarnia

I feel that if someone like Ann Widdecombe can be murdered then anyone can. At 78 and no longer an MP she was hardly a driving force in today's politics. If the police find that her murder was politically motivated then steps should be taken for the protection of Ministers and MP's.

They all have access to publicly funded security now.