Anti Terror Raids Stop Iraq Style Kidnapping in West Midlands

[TAE]

I did not mean metaphor vs literal, or word of god vs tradition.

I mean, for example, that an instruction might be given for a specific circumstance.

 

[detective-boy]

I was not suggesting the police should do nothing unless they have absolute proof, I was speculating that pressure might be put on the police by the government to intervene when there is not really sufficient grounds even for a reasonable suspicion.

I can see why you were not a detective because you seem to find it impossible to (a) accept that there may be situations between two extreme poles; (b) accept that there may be cases in which the absence of sufficient evidence to convict does not necessarily mean that there was not actually a conspiracy there in the first place and (c) say what you actually mean.

Of course you can speculate on whatever you like. Of course what you suggest would be one possible reason for the low levels of charges and convictions which you describe.

But you cannot claim that the low level of charges and convictions proves that you are right. I am simply pointing out that the nature of the threat means that the police will inevitably intervene earlier and, as a direct result of that (as they well know), that may well mean that there is insufficient evidence to sustain charges, let alone convictions.

If you are saying that people have been arrested where there has been insufficient evidence to justify that action then the main check / balance is the right that an unlawfully arrested person has to take a civil action and / or to make a complaint via IPCC/police. A local community group could make a complaint via the IPCC/police themselves, too.

Very few other people know (or can be told, where the information is sensitive) what the grounds for arrest are, but the people directly concerned have a legal right to know and to take civil action if they disagree.

Without knowing the actual evidence / intelligence / information on which the arrests were made I cannot say whether or not the individual arrests were justified (and so I don't, I merely suggest that it is unlikely in my opinion, for the reasons posted) and you cannot say whether or they were either (but you do, directly equating the low numbers of charges / convictions with there being insufficient grounds in the first place).

 

[detective-boy]

I don't know ( and neither do you) if they were, because I wasn't present during any questioning.

It is perfectly feasible that those released without charge weren't asked about any specific type of plot. If, as seems likely from the fact others were charged whilst they weren't, they were only involved on the margins, they may have only been asked about what the police thought they had done (e.g. "why were you at such and such a place", "why were you with so and so", "who did you lend your car to or whatever"). If the police were interviewing the other main suspects about more central issues they would have a strategy in place for providing the exact details of what they knew to them in stages as the interviews progress (there is no obligation for the police to tell an interviewee everything they know immediately).

If they told the minor suspects all this stuff it could well get back to the other suspects (there is no way of controlling what the lesser suspects or their lawyers do with the information once it has been provided) prior to the police wanting them to know it.

As has been noted "Well, he would say that wouldn't he" but I think there is a reasonable chance that he is quite possibly broadly accurate and that they may well not have provided exact details to him for tactical reasons (especially with Gareth Pierce as his brief - guaranteed to go round shouting it from the roof tops a.s.a.p.!)

 

[detective-boy]

In a democracy, you don't arrest people who you think are innocent and lock them up for a week just to put pressure on other suspects.

The law doesn't allow that here. If they think that is the case they can sue and, if that is the case, they will win. If the grounds for their arrest are based on sensitive information (especially if it is largely intercept material) they may even win anyway because the police will choose to pay out rather than risk sensitive information in defending the case or because the law precvents them from using the evidence of intercepts in doing so.

 

[TAE]

I can see why you were not a detective because ...

You are still mixing two conversations.

 

[iROBOT]

I did not mean metaphor vs literal, or word of god vs tradition.

I mean, for example, that an instruction might be given for a specific circumstance.

That's the dichotomy that Islam itself needs to address. There are factions that do regard the above quotes as instruction.

 

[TAE]

No argument there.

 

[iROBOT]

 

[denniseagle]

For instance they had information on three of them, raided, caught nine at the raided premises, questioned them , three slipped up and got themselves caught up in 'the plot' the other three had nothing to do with it . PURE SUPPOSITION ON MY CASE - but (I think) highlighting Laptop's point

Just out of interest then,

How did the authorities 'know' they had nothing to do with the plot if they didn't question them about it?

Whilst I accept the possibility that all the plotters were 'known' about by the security services, there is always the possibility that others who were not 'known' about were involved.
Perhaps the 2 guys who were arrested and released without charge were viewed as possible 'unknown' plotters?
If that was why they were arrested, I find it slightly difficult to believe they were not asked one single question concerning the supposed plot to kidnap a muslim member of the armed services.

 

[TAE]

It is, of course, remotely possible that the released men are lying. Though I find that unlikely.

 

[detective-boy]

How did the authorities 'know' they had nothing to do with the plot if they didn't question them about it?

I have no knowledge of this case but, as it appears there was a significant period of surveillance (presumably involving technical surveillance) prior to the arrests, they may well have already known much of what was going on.

They may also have discovered things in the course of the searches which helped.

Research of the backgrounds of the prisoners would have added more information. And if they provided information on arrest or in interview which was verified then that may have added even more.

It is NOT unusual where a large number of people are simultaneously arrested for an extensive conspiracy for different ones to be questioned about different aspects they are known / suspected of having been involved in with little or no mention of some other aspects (e.g. a car thief suspected of stealing a car to be used in a robbery would be questioned in detail about that but there may be little or no questioning about their involvement with getting guns).

 

[Aldebaran]

I did not mean metaphor vs literal, or word of god vs tradition.

Many is to be taken as a metaphor, or as example to underscore or explain the underlying lesson.

I mean, for example, that an instruction might be given for a specific circumstance.

Exactly.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

That's the dichotomy that Islam itself needs to address. There are factions that do regard the above quotes as instruction.

It is inevitable when dealing with humans that what is clear to one is unclear to an other until it is explained by someone who understands while it offers the possibility to be twisted by a third into something that is not intended but in his version can serve his goals.
Obviously you belong to the second category. If you would like me to explain what you quoted, you just need to ask

salaam.