Thread by @AdamWagner1

I find it pretty dumbfounding, if correct, that MPs do not as a matter of course have security protection at constituency surgeries

What is the issue? Cost? Perception that members of the public might be intimidated? It seems old-fashioned and (unfortunately) not fit for the modern world.

In the US, as far as I know, members of congress have security protection

As strange as this might sound, MPs are in quite a weak position legally. They are not employees so can't sue an employer for rights, Parliament is pretty much immune from legal remedies anyway because of the Bill of Rights

I looked into this question for an inquiry I was working on and I was surprised how poorly protected MPs are compared to a standard employee. Obviously they have power and influence but in certain situations that can mask vulnerabilities

Anyway, I know as much as you all do about the circumstances here so this may all be irrelevant, but it does worry me - my thoughts are with David Amess and his family

People responding it isn't a simple as you might think, impracticable because of multiplicity of locations, it wouldn't help because ultimately the individual will be alone with the MP. I'm not a security expert but I would hope that this leads to a review of those assumptions

Rest in peace

Just one more thought - a lot of people saying security at surgeries would discourage members of the public and break the informality. But what about discouraging people from becoming MPs, if they feel there would be a risk to their life?

Anyway, all love and strength to Sir David Amess' family and friends. A man who devoted the best part of his life to public service and died for it. A tragic loss to those close to him and to our democracy. RIP