Anyone feeling spooked?

AS a water-cooler talker goes, the return of Spooks was an absolute banker.

I was one of those people who got to the end of the first half of the two-parter, went and put the kettle on, and then watched part 2 on BBC 3.

Rather irritatingly, I couldn't see the third episode (shown on BBC 3 30 minutes after episode two was shown on BBC 1 on Monday - keep up!) because of work, so in the space of 24 hours I went from being one of the smug 'I won't tell you what happens next but it's good' brigade of digitalTVites to one of the 'don't tell me, I'm waiting til next weelk hands-over-ears plebs.

If you missed the first two - and they've both been shown twice now so you had your chance - the crux of the plot was this: MI6's bosses are in cahoots with corrupt ministers to create a real fear of terrorism to the point where the prime minister agrees to form an executive committee which bypasses parliaments and makes decisions without democracy. All in the name of protecting democracy from terrorism - which in turn is being inflicted by the state.

They could do all sorts - control the media (all the media, not just the Murdoch ones they influence now) and detain people without trial. Oh yeah, and the judicary were Government-appointed.(as opposed to married to it, eh Mrs Blair?)

In typical Spooks fashion, the world - or Britain at least - came darn close to being taken over by the corrupt few at the expense of the voting majority. But MI5 saved the day, in the end. And I bet I wasn't alone in thinking, just for a moment, that 'it couldn't happen here, could it?'

By my reckoning, the answer is no. The ministers in the programme quoted a fictional bill which made it possible for the PM to go from leader of the ruling party to dictator and the swish of a pen.

But then again, what's all this about John Reid wanting to stop court cases being over-turned on a technicality? Hmmm, when I read this I was suddenly back at Spooks.

I'm pretty sure John Reid doesn't want to take over the world (maybe just Labour for now) but removing the right to a case being quashed because the proper processes weren't followed is, to me, the start of a slippery slope.

Yes, it's frustrating when Nick 'Mr Loophole' Freeman gets celebrities off driving offences time and again because the police didn't follow proceedures to the letter - but who is to blame for that? The police, I'd say, for not doing their job properly.

And once you say to someone 'sorry, but we know that we didn't follow the rules to the letter, but you can't appeal anyway', where does it stop? Do we get two years down the line and find someone appealing that their conviction is unsafe because they were beaten up by police during interview, only to be told 'sorry, but we still think you're guilty?'

Or can MI5 suddenly start using torture, because they are confident that the court will still be confident of a would-be terrorists guilt? Going back to Spooks the other night, and I remember the line from one of the crooked politicans being 'As soon as allowed Guantanamo Bay, all bets were off' or words to that effect.

I sat through Spooks thinking to myself 'it'll never happen, people will protest too much from the start.' Now I thinking: Maybe, maybe not. Reality mirroring fiction? Quite possibly.