Theresa May strips British passport from Muslim care worker who refused to join MI5 a

Why would you be prosecuted? Unless you have done something that leaves you open to prosecution of course in which case i suppose a reluctance to talk to the authorities makes sense. There is no evidence whatsoever that any blackmail was used and the story about MI5 officers dressed as postmen and the "bombardment of phone calls" which they can't seem to prove seems like a story concocted by a James Bond fan.

There's a difference between giving information you already know and being manipulated into acting as a spy against the people around you - not wanting to be used as a pawn doesn't mean you're not law-abiding.

You would leave yourself open to possible prosecution, you might not be, but best to keep the gob shut anyway. Nothing you say will help you in any way, that's a fact. No law enforcement can force you to speak or blackmail you into doing so.

If the people around you could be plotting to hurt innocent people i fail to see how any law abiding citizen would not want to keep the security services up to date, frankly they were right to be suspicious when he refused.

You do know that the law does not require any citizen yo voluntary give any information to any law enforcement? How can you then say they were right to "be suspicious"? If they had any evidence on him, they would have brought charges. It sounds like you are actively promoting a police state.

who's blackmailing someone? From what i gather they requested information on possible dangerous people the suspect was associated with the man refused and as a result our security services became suspicious, clearly enough evidence was presented to warrant our home secretary revoking his citizenship.

All these accusations of blackmail come from the family who have provided nothing in the way of evidence. As for talking to them being used to prosecute you i don't get what exactly they would prosecute you for? To do so would require evidence that you are involved in nefarious activities.

Because Russia Today wouldn't spin/twist anything to spite a western country.

Like I said before, it is not a requirement by law(and never should be) to submit to questioning by law enforcement. You should understand that, as that may be the most important thing you take away from this conversation of ours. That's all that matters here since you were first attempting to characterise those who don't talk as being possible suspects.

They did have evidence on him, it was presented to the home secretary and she made the decision to revoke his citizenship. The law doesn't require you to give any information however if you fail to cooperate with investigations then obviously people are going to ask why, when the intelligence agencies did this they clearly uncovered evidence that warranted the removal of his citizenship.

Like I said, failing to submit to questioning is not grounds for suspicion, especially without a lawyer present, it just should never be done. Secondly, the whole story is open to questioning, and there should be a thorough investigation, starting with an interview with the MP he apparently contacted to get MI5 off his back.

No one is saying it is a legal requirement however refusing to provide information to our security services is suspicious behavior, they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't investigate further and in this case that investigation clearly led to evidence being uncovered.

Intelligence services don't need permission to investigate someones activities, if they think you could be connected or up to something they are free to pursue that (within the confines of the law of course).

Once again, failing to submit to questioning is not, I repeat, not "suspicious" behaviour, this is a bogus claim. If they had sufficient evidence on him they wouldn't be needing him to voluntarily provide information. To suggest that a person must submit to the demands of the authorities to avoid being seen as suspects is a willingness to have this country turned into a police state.

I said there should be an investigation into the allegation that MI5 used blackmail. If the MP corroborates the claim, then there is a case.

Why would any law abiding citizen refuse to give information to our security services?

Either way this story is just a bunch of unfounded accusations and wishful thinking, should probably get some proof before you start crying wolf.

I'm not suggesting it should be made illegal not refuse to give information however "suspicious behavior" is behavior that the investigating organisation deem as suspicious, you seem to be under the impression that means they must have evidence to investigate someone which is obviously a paradox as they investigate people to gather evidence.

I wouldn't mind giving information to the police for example, but I'd prefer not to talk or work for the military or intelligence agency, as I'd rather not think that by my words, I've helped prolong war in any way, shape or form

Well not really, them writing to their MP a few years ago with the same baseless accusations they are making now is not proof of anything other than that they are persistent.