This video from Britain says about itself:
Ex-MP George Galloway is angry that GCHQ has been and is spying on MPs for decades, and all Prime Ministers have lied to MPs about it, and so has GCHQ and the police. Now MPs’ empty words they tell the 99% “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” bites back at them.
By Peter Lazenby in Britain:
Spooks given free rein to spy on MPs
Thursday 15th October 2015
Wilson doctrine has no legal basis – judges
BRITAIN’S spooks have free rein to tap the telephones of MPs and peers, a special court ruled yesterday.
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) — a judicial body independent of government — ruled that the so-called Wilson doctrine banning Britain’s secret intelligence services from routinely tapping parliamentarians’ telephones had no basis in law.
Lawyers representing Green MP Caroline Lucas, Green Baroness Jenny Jones and former Respect MP George Galloway have alleged that their communications are routinely intercepted by GCHQ, Britain’s spy centre at Cheltenham.
“This judgement is a body blow for parliamentary democracy,” said Ms Lucas.
“My constituents have a right to know that their communications with me aren’t subject to blanket surveillance — yet this ruling suggests that they have no such protection.
“Parliamentarians must be a trusted source for whistleblowers and those wishing to challenge the actions of the government.”
She said that new surveillance legislation must protect parliamentarians from “extra-judicial spying.”
But Mr Justice Burton ruled yesterday that the statement had no basis in law.
“As parliamentarians who often speak to whistleblowers — from campaigners whose groups have been infiltrated by the police to those exposing corruption in government departments — this judgment is deeply worrying,” said Ms Jones, adding that it was “crucial that people feel they can contact us without their communications being monitored.”
Leigh Day lawyer Rosa Curling said: “Promises made by successive prime ministers about the Wilson doctrine were not worth the paper they were written on.”
And human rights group Liberty policy officer Sara Ogilvie said the decision “laid bare the inadequacies of surveillance laws.”