* * * 1. News + UK + US + World + People + Politics + Business + Science + Media + Obituaries 2. Voices + GOSH Appeal + Grace Dent + Mary Dejevsky + Robert Fisk + Howard Jacobson + John Rentoul + Mark Steel + Voices in Danger 3. Culture + TV + radio + Film + Music + Books + Art + Theatre + dance 4. Lifestyle + Travel + Fashion + beauty + Food + Health + Love + sex 5. Tech + Tech news + Tech culture + Gaming 6. Sport + Football + Transfers + Rugby union + Cricket + Tennis + Golf + Motor racing + US sport 7. Appeal 1. ____________________ Search 2. + Sign in + Register 3. ____________________ Search * News + UK weather + UK + US + World + Politics + People + Science + Business + Media + Obituaries * Voices + GOSH Appeal + Mark Steel + Grace Dent + Robert Fisk + Holly Baxter + Campaigns + Comment + Editorials + Letters + Giants Club * Sport + Football transfers + Football + Rugby union + Cricket + Tennis + Motor racing + US sports * Culture + Books + Film + TV + Music + Art + Theatre + dance + Comedy + Tickets * Lifestyle + Travel + Motoring + Food + drink + Health + families + Fashion + beauty + Student + Love + sex + Business directory + Secret Escapes * Tech + iPhone + Tech news + Tech culture + Gaming * Video + News videos + Explainer videos + Sport videos + People + culture videos * IndyBest + Fashion + beauty + Tech + Homes + design + Outdoor + Food + drink + Culture * Money + Mortgages + Loans + Savings + Pensions + Money transfers + Health insurance + Investments * Extras + i100 + Puzzles + Crosswords + Apps + Ebooks + iJobs + Dating + Competitions & offers * Follow us: * * We use cookies to enhance your visit to our site and to bring you advertisements that might interest you. Read our Privacy and Cookies policies to find out more. 1. Voices Surveillance Bill: Theresa May should be aware how un-British spying on ourselves is The Home Secretary's attempts to strengthen surveillance powers at home runs counter to her party’s traditions * Bernard Porter * Saturday 2 January 2016 21:33 BST * Theresa May Theresa May Getty In seeking to extend the state’s powers of surveillance over its citizens, Theresa May’s Draft Investigatory Powers Bill is flouting a long tradition in British history. I’m not sure that the Government is aware of this. Conservatives are supposed to respect tradition as the soil in which “British values” are sown. Hence their enthusiasm for history teaching in school. But they may not realise how important the principle of not spying on their citizens was in the past. Books and television programmes on Britain’s “secret service” trace it back to Francis Walsingham in the 16th century, which is fair enough; but not if it is also assumed that it must have gone on between then and now. In fact, for a long period in the 19th century, Britain abjured this kind of thing. She left herself effectively spyless, however unlikely that must seem today. So, the secret service wasn’t a “tradition”. Traditions must be joined up. [5-GCHQ-get.jpg] Read more Concessions to surveillance bill unlikely to head off peer revolt The reasons why spying was rejected may be instructive. It was considered ungentlemanly. It could lead to abuse. “Men whose business it is to detect hidden and secret things,” wrote Anthony Trollope in 1869, “are very apt to detect things that have never been done.” The Victorians had learned that from their earlier history, in more revolutionary days, when spies had often morphed into agents provocateurs or worse. Another important reason was the damage it could do to the trust between rulers and the ruled, on which stable government depended. “Should the practice of spydom become universal,” pronounced The Times in 1859, “farewell to all domestic confidence and happiness.” The novelist Mayne Reid thought that, once introduced, even on a small scale, its effect would be “wedge-like… cleaving the columns of our glory and sapping the foundations of our dear liberty”. Read more * Surveillance plans 'could put citizens, economy and internet at risk' * UK spying laws should be scrapped, Anderson report says * Government rewrites surveillance law to get away with hacking In the early 20th century, when the modern secret service was born, some came to suspect that unscrupulous politicians or agents might harness it against democratically elected governments that they didn’t like. (Doubts still remain over the Zinoviev letter of 1924, and the so-called Wilson plot of the late 1960s.) Next, spying was fundamentally illiberal. Hence Erskine May, the great British constitutional theorist, in 1863: “Men may be without restraints upon their liberty: they may pass to and fro at pleasure, but if their steps are tracked by spies and informers, their words noted down for crimination, their associates watched as conspirators – who shall say that they are free?” Finally, and perhaps most importantly: spying was what the French did. In the 19th century, France was the country Britain measured and identified herself against. A ghastly series of murders in east London in 1811 prompted some contemporaries to call for a more effective detective force to prevent such things. This was Earl Dudley’s response: “They have an admirable police at Paris. But they pay for it dear enough. I had rather half-a-dozen people’s throats be cut in Ratcliffe Highway every three or four years than be subject to domiciliary visits, spies, and all the rest of Fouché’s contrivances.” (Joseph Fouché was Napoleon’s much-reviled minister of police.) So, whatever the advantages of a “detective” police might be, France illustrated the downside. Spylessness was a crucial identifier of the British against the French. (Also, incidentally, automatic asylum for foreign refugees, even terrorists.) This could be taken to surprising lengths. In 1851, a Metropolitan Police sergeant was demoted for hiding behind a tree to observe “an indecent offence”. The reason why early policemen were given their silly tall hats was so that no one would suspect them of being “under cover”. When an infant plain-clothes branch was formed in the 1860s, it had to be disbanded almost immediately when three of its four senior officers were found to have been implicated in a betting fraud. That seemed to bear out the anti-spy prejudice. The same arguments were repeated later, when London was subjected to “terrorist” threats in the 1880s (Irish Fenians) and the 1900s (foreign anarchists). In response to these, the government set up a “political” (“Special”) branch that used spies and informers; and later – around 1910 – MI5 was founded to deal (mainly) with the German spy threat. But both were largely manned by Irishmen and ex-colonial officials, whose policing traditions were less liberal. And both were kept strictly hidden from the public. It may be this that fuelled the suspicions which have hovered over Britain’s secret policing and intelligence agencies from that time onwards. Secrecy is almost bound to provoke mistrust and even paranoia. Some of that may be undeserved. On the other hand, it also provides a cover behind which these agencies can abuse their positions if they want without being brought to book. In the 20th century, this was exacerbated by the fact that members of MI5, in particular, were often ex-colonial hands, or people trusted by them – politically right-wing, in other words; which affected – to put it mildly – the objectivity of the intelligence that they provided. It is some of these people who will have been responsible for plots against Labour governments in the past. No wonder the left distrusts them. The answer is probably not to do away with them. Circumstances are obviously very different now from what they were then – including the Islamist terrorist threat, in particular – and public opinion clearly not as shocked by our transformation into something of a surveillance state as almost any transplanted Victorian would have been. But the Government should be aware of how un-British its Draft Investigatory Powers Bill is in historical terms. And should learn from the abuses of the past. The way to do that is to make the secret services more transparent and fully accountable to democracy. Secret services are always problematic; secret secret services, however, are even more so. Bernard Porter is the author of 'Plots and Paranoia: A History of Political Espionage in Britain 1790-1988' and 'British Imperial: What the Empire Wasn’t' * More about: * Surveillance * Theresa May Comments [i100.png] Most Popular Video Sponsored Features * Follow us: * * * User Policies * Privacy Policy * Cookie Policy * Code of Conduct * Complaint Form * Contact Us * Contributors * All Topics * Archive * Newsletters * iJobs * Subscriptions * Advertising Guide * Syndication * Evening Standard * Novaya Gazeta * Install our Apps [p?c1=2&c2=10476312&cv=2.0&cj=1]