MAJOR acts of terrorism or homicide are usually followed by the governing authorities calling for a crack down or a stepping up of surveillance, in other words snooping.

The recent murders in Paris resulted in the French Government dispatching 10,000 troops into the streets of France and our own Home Secretary Teresa May declaring that anti-semitism must be wiped out.

Yet it wasn't a lack of information about the perpetrators of those crimes in Paris that prevented the authorities from arresting the three killers. They had criminal records and were known to the authorities. Arguably it was the failure to act upon information the authorities had which led to the killings.

Closer to home, the failure of West Yorkshire detectives to co-ordinate the information gathered by police officers about the Yorkshire Ripper murders that allowed Peter Sutcliffe to continue killing, even though the police had interviewed him no fewer than nine times.

Good governance and proper security depend upon the quality of information and how it is used, not the quantity that is stockpiled. Yet under the Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data Code of Practice, the British Government is proposing new legislation that will allow the authorities to pry into journalists' news gathering contacts especially if they come from a doctor, an MP, a lawyer or some other professional.

Shipley Conservative MP Philip Davies reacted unfavourably to the news. He said: "It seems to me at face value that this is a typical establishment stitch-up to prevent the Press from exposing what they get up to.

"Keeping us safe from terrorism by having access to people's emails and phone calls, I have no problem with that. Keeping people in authority safe from being held accountable is completely unacceptable.

"It would protect incompetence and corruption. We cannot have that in a free society. We need a free Press. Without this the scandal of MPs expenses might not have come to public attention or wrongs in the NHS. I am wholly opposed to this. It is completely Draconian and unnecessary."

And so are 80 or more national and regional newspaper editors. They have signed a letter of remonstrance to Prime Minister David Cameron co-ordinated jointly by the Society of Editors and Press Gazette. Among them is T&A editor Perry Austin-Clarke, who said: “Some readers might not have much sympathy with newspapers complaining about journalists’ phone records being viewed by the police. After all, the national press hardly covered themselves with glory in the phone hacking affair.

”But these RIPA powers were brought in to combat terrorism. Their use in other circumstances is a real attack upon the fundamental freedoms of the press – and so upon our democratic way of life.

“Like most regional newspapers, the T&A often relies upon whistleblowers to help us report truths that the authorities might find uncomfortable but which you have a right to know.

“If journalists’ telephone records can be routinely viewed by the police and other enforcement agencies, leading to the identification of sources, such whistleblowers will not come forward. The main casualty of that will be the truth – and your right to know.”

The editors state that the revelation that the Metropolitan Police and other forces have used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to view the phone records of The Sun and its political editor and other journalists in order to identify and punish lawful police sources has caused widespread alarm.

"The new code appears to do very little which would stop a repeat of such abuse of RIPA. The Act was intended for tackling serious crime such as terrorism but it is clearly being used by police in relation to relatively minor crimes.

"The mere fact a public official has contacted a newspaper is highly privileged information. That an individual has contacted a lawyer or doctor tells us little. But the fact they have contacted a journalist identifies them as a source and exposes them to recrimination," the editors add.

Bradford East Liberal-Democrat MP David Ward commented: "I would have thought we would do everything we could to support whistle-blowers because they bring to public attention things that people want to hide.

"There is a balance between personal liberty and public safety. Where there is clear evidence that somebody has done something illegal we have a way through the courts with an independent person such as a judge weighing up the pros and cons. Once you've lost liberties it is very difficult to get them back."

Mr Ward recalled that in the days immediately after the London terrorist murders of July, 2005, there was a call for the police to have the right to hold suspects for up to 90 days without charging them. That was rejected. Similarly, the detention of children in immigration cases and ID cards were also rejected, he said.

The editors say the new Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data Code of Practice must explicitly prevent law enforcement officials viewing the phone records of journalists who are not themselves under suspicion of committing any crime. The case for over-riding the protection of sources must be made before a judge.

The guidance needs to make it clear that a public official communicating information to a journalist without official approval, in short a leak, cannot be sufficient justification for a RIPA telecoms request.

MORE BEHIND THE NEWS HEADLINES