'Bombers were going to target pubs, clubs and gas supplies...'

[JHE]

Another question I have is... when the police foil these sorts of operations, isn't it normally important for them to wait until the plan is put into action so they can catch the crew red-handed? Why did that not happen here, especially as there would be no risk to anyone?

Sounds bloody risky to me!

You are a strange chap, Jazzz.

 

[TAE]

We shouldn't forget the plot to blow up Old Trafford either. That was a good one.

The ManCity supporters would have loved that, if WWII is anything to go by.

One awaits further details in the trial but my initial impression is that there seems to be no 'smoking gun' here if indeed any sort of gun. I'd be very wary of interpreting isolated quotes where one does not know the context.

I agree. I shudder to think of the kinds of stuff I've said to friends, privately discussing hypotheticals, being played in court.
But if the defence team is any good at all, they should be able to clear that up. Unless, of course, it was NOT hypothetical chit-chat but real planning.

Another question I have is... when the police foil these sorts of operations, isn't it normally important for them to wait until the plan is put into action so they can catch the crew red-handed? Why did that not happen here, especially as there would be no risk to anyone?

I don't know, something can always go wrong and I doubt they would want to take any more risks than they need to.

 

[editor]

Sounds bloody risky to me!

You are a strange chap, Jazzz.

If he'd bothered reading the thread, he'd see that detective-boy has already offered a well-informed opinion on this based on his inside knowledge of police strategies.

 

[laptop]

Sounds bloody risky to me!

But how else is Jazz going to get a "let it happen on purpose" rumour going, other than by asserting that normal MO given an apparent terrorist cell would be to let it run...

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

well sorry for not immediately joining your string-em-up club.

Surely you mean 'shoot-em-in-the-head' club?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I would be the first to congratulate the police on preventing terrorism, but we can't really believe a word they say about this stuff given past events can we?

 

[editor]

Surely you mean 'shoot-em-in-the-head' club?

Sorry. Seeing as his remarks were aimed at me, could you explain your unpleasant embellishment please and tell me why you think it's funny?

 

[editor]

I would be the first to congratulate the police on preventing terrorism, but we can't really believe a word they say about this stuff given past events can we?

I'll take it on face value and wait to to see how the trial unfurls, myself.

 

[Jazzz]

I don't know, something can always go wrong and I doubt they would want to take any more risks than they need to.

editor was right I missed detective-boy's post above. However, they had replaced the explosive with something inert so there was no risk... whatever the reason, it doesn't look like they have red hands.

 

[Jazzz]

I'll take it on face value and wait to to see how the trial unfurls, myself.

Good so you aren't assuming they are guilty.

Glad we got that one sorted! That was easier than I thought...

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I would be the first to congratulate the police on preventing terrorism, but we can't really believe a word they say about this stuff given past events can we?

Indeed.

With regard to 'The Ricin Plot That Never Was', we may do well to remember that not only were we misled regarding the 'facts' of the case, but someone saw fit to attempt to censor the story afterward.

The lies and distortions that were fed in the wake of the summary execution of the innocent Brazilian at Stockwell tube have already been mentioned.

 

[editor]

Good so you aren't assuming they are guilty.

How about you read my fucking posts before trying to shove words in my mouth, you deceitful little shit?

I know basic, honest research is an alien concept to you, but if you keep posting up damaging lies about me, you'll have to find a new place to propagate your obsession.

An apology would be a good start, mind.

 

[editor]

whatever the reason, it doesn't look like they have red hands.

So your mind is made up before you've even seen or heard the full evidence?

Nothing new there, then.

It's like 'Huntley is innocent!' all over again.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

It's like 'Huntley is innocent!' all over again.

indeed.

 

[detective-boy]

Of course, if I were a defence brief and such evidence were produced, I'd have a damn good go at probing the chain of [whatever] - if only out of curiosity and a desire to watch the appointed Geek X from the security services squirm behind their screen

They're fantastic! Was working on armed robbery when the security services first got their brief expanded to include serious crime in the mid-90s. It was all surveillance they were doing but, in criminal cases, with the disclosure provisions, surveillance officers all had to make statements and could no longer hide behind the arrest team's accounts ... Oh, the looks on their faces ... and the search for a pen ...

 

[detective-boy]

And yes, would blowing up Bluewater really be such a bad thing? I can say that without fear because I'm not a muslim, perhaps.

Or, just maybe, because you don't have a warehouse full of fertiliser in Acton.

Another question I have is... when the police foil these sorts of operations, isn't it normally important for them to wait until the plan is put into action so they can catch the crew red-handed? Why did that not happen here, especially as there would be no risk to anyone?

The reason is simple: because if they intend to do that and something goes wrong, then people die. Would YOU be willing to risk that?

Which bit of my previous post did you not understand? http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4345928&postcount=41

(ETA: I know others have said the same, but it's worthy of repetition ... just in case you missed this as well ... )

 

[editor]

Which bit of my previous post did you not understand? http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4345928&postcount=41

He's been too busy jumping to knee jerk conclusions rather than actually reading the contents of this thread first.

 

[detective-boy]

In fact, I have been in possession of a large quantity of food grade hydrogen peroxide, which - get this - I'd obtained under the pretence that it was for a cleaning company.

Now where IS that freephone number ...

 

[Jazzz]

The reason is simple: because if they intend to do that and something goes wrong, then people die. Would YOU be willing to risk that?

Which bit of my previous post did you not understand? http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4345928&postcount=41

(ETA: I know others have said the same, but it's worthy of repetition ... just in case you missed this as well ... )

yes, well two can be guilty of missing other people's posts, as I pointed out earlier the police had substituted an inert substance for the fertiliser. So that concern really doesn't wash here.

 

[Jazzz]

Now where IS that freephone number ...

I think the point is made

 

[Jazzz]

oh and editor... please chill out a bit. If you were a girl I'd be wondering if it was your time of the month!

Some of your hyperbole here is just quite ridiculous... and that's coming from someone who spent last night dancing at unsound with a toy skunk! Sorry I didn't make it to PROD earlier would have been good to say hi.

 

[likesfish]

big warehousefull of fertilizer not in the gardening or farming supply buisness a bit of explaining to do methinks

 

[detective-boy]

So that concern really doesn't wash here.

Yes it does. You know that bit has been replaced. But are you sure:
(a) there is no more
(b) there is no other aspect to the plan
(c) that there is no other part of the network, with similar plans and means

Basically, until you search and detain, you are working on the basis that you have enough pieces of the jigsaw to enable you to see the whole picture ... and experience tells you that that is frequently NOT the case.

 

[detective-boy]

... and that's coming from someone who spent last night dancing at unsound with a toy skunk!

[derail] Where did you get the toy skunk? I want one! [/derail]

 

[editor]

oh and editor... please chill out a bit. If you were a girl I'd be wondering if it was your time of the month!

Ah yes. Yet more personal insults and no apology for posting up your lie previously.

Shame on you.

Aren't you embarrassed by how many times your failure to undertake even basic research in a single thread is revealed?

You tried to fabricate my opinion because you failed to read my earlier posts and then managed to completely miss detective-boys long and considered reply.

Why bother taking part in a thread if you're just going to post up knee jerk drivel and not listen to what people are saying?

 

[editor]

Basically, until you search and detain, you are working on the basis that you have enough pieces of the jigsaw to enable you to see the whole picture ... and experience tells you that that is frequently NOT the case.

Like I said, Jazzz rarely has any intrerest in waiting for the full facts. They tend to get in the way of his 'found on the internet' fairy tales.

 

[Jazzz]

[derail] Where did you get the toy skunk? I want one! [/derail]

pm on its way!