Greatly, thank you. It explains everything ...Dhimmi said:Hope this helps.
Men convicted over fertiliser bomb plot
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
disownedspirit
New Member
but the real story for me is that the cops or MI5 knew about the 7/7 bombers but did nothing
what MI5 told the intelligence and security commitee
this is not true
someone is lying here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6610209.stm
what MI5 told the intelligence and security commitee
this is not true
someone is lying here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6610209.stm
No. They didn't. No-one has ever suggested they "did nothing". What they did do was assess them, amongst all the hundreds, if not thousands of others with peripheral connections with the core suspects, and decide that they did not merit being principal targets. Which, with the benefit of hindsight, we know was wrong. It is valid to examine what was known, and the context. It is valid to ask what was done with the information they had (and I suspect there are probably some significant issues here, although I doubt very much whether they would have led to 7 July attacks being prevented).disownedspirit said:
But is wrong to say that they "did nothing".
But in the world of the critics there are two options:TAE said:
1. Criticise the police for NOT acting on sketchy bits and pieces when hindsight shows that they WERE terrorists; or
2. Criticise the police FOR acting on sketchy bits and pieces when hindsight shows that they WEREN'T terrorists (or there is insufficient evidence to support charges) ....
I would hope that those are two separate groups of people.
I'd certainly put myself into category 2, not category 1, and I think I have been quite consistent in that.
But you are right when you say that SOMEONE will criticise the police no matter what they do.
I'd certainly put myself into category 2, not category 1, and I think I have been quite consistent in that.
But you are right when you say that SOMEONE will criticise the police no matter what they do.
disownedspirit
New Member
detective-boy said:
why did they lie to parliamentary commitee?
Who? About what?disownedspirit said:
Not really. MI5 now have a role in dealing with terrorist threats and organised crime. The principles are exactly the same. As I have posted repeatedly (and will continue to do so, because it is a simple, unarguable truth) - there is a difficult decision to make - intervene too soon and you may be dealing with innocent people or you may not have suffciient evidence to make charges stick, intervene too late and an attack may get through which you could have prevented. In a world where information is ALWAYS imperfect there is no answer to this dilemma.fela fan said:
John Reid would be perfectly justrified in shrugging his shoulders and saying "OK, I give up - we have insufficient evidence to substantiate charges but the Courts say we can't do anything lawfully to restrict the movements of suspects so, fine. If that's what you want they stay at large whilst we try and build a case up and, if they blow the fuck out of someone in the meantime, tough." That would be a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
JHE said:
Didn't realise ICI still existed.
When I was growing up in a small town. Everyone seemed to either work for ICI or for a lawnmower factory. My dad and eldest brother opted for the lawnmower factory. ICI shut down operations there ages ago
w.t.f.
One of the jurors seems to have claimed that some of his fellow jurors did not take their duty in the case very seriously.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6620747.stm
I thought it was illegal to talk about that kind of stuff, or did he manage to just about stay inside the limits with what he says in that article?
One of the jurors seems to have claimed that some of his fellow jurors did not take their duty in the case very seriously.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6620747.stm
I thought it was illegal to talk about that kind of stuff, or did he manage to just about stay inside the limits with what he says in that article?
disownedspirit
New Member
detective-boy said:Who? About what?
if you dont read the news and cant work it out no wonder you are ex pig, even david davies could work this out, and im sure you are brighter then him
imagine not being a cop because you are too dim
but it cant be true because you can type
TAE said:
The Times story on which that was based looks, to me, on the face of it, like a blatant breach of the Contempt of Court Act.
It may not be insignificant that he used it to plug his latest business venture.
It does rather appear that the poor lad was miffed at having to spend a year in the company of an Old Bailey jury that included people Not Like Him. Bailey juries do tend to include working-class people
I would hazard a guess that his fellow jurors were as glad to see the back of him as he was of them. Especially when it gets to him being all shouty when not elected Chair.
detective-boy said:
But wait a minute, john reid was the man responsible for bringing in the 20 day (i think) detention law without charge and without recourse to a lawyer.
Don't get me wrong, i totally understand the thrust of your argument, but that is one of the reasons i think british foreign policy is sick. I doubt any of all this bullshit occurs in new zealand, sweden, senegal, malaysia, or ecuador.
[you may have noticed i've done one example per continent]
We are doing intelligence, looking for terrorists, have MI5, and all this bloody security apparatus for the simple reason that our country IS a terrorist itself. We are a prime example of state terrorism. We reap what we sow. But in order to try and buck the laws of cause and effect, we have this huge security machine...
Madness i'm afraid.
But it would include some "acceptable casualties" ... and as soon as you mention that the people arguing for it start back-pedalling like fuck.TAE said:
You CAN have this position (and we do in relation to every other type of crime - it is an essential corollary of the principle that it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted) but the inevitable result is that there WILL be attacks that get through and some deaths WILL essentially be considered acceptable. The sooner we accept this truth, instead of claiming that there is some utopia in which information is perfect which can be achieved, the better.
It's irrelevant whether I am brighter than him or not ... he is undoubtedly better informed than I am and he may be in a position to know exactly what was / was not provided in evidence to the committee, by whom (i.e. MI5 or police), when and, if there were things omitted, why that was (other than "lying", because of ongoing criminal trials, or because they weren't asked, for instance).disownedspirit said:
All I know is what has been discussed in the public domain. I have no way of answering any of the above questions. Which is why I was surprised at your definitive statement and asked for more details.
So have you got any? WHO "lied"? About WHAT?
Yes. Precisely in order to try and deal with the problem of people who are suspected of being a threat but against whom there is insufficient evidence to bring a criminal case. And he has been told by the Courts (and the media) that it is not acceptable, nor have a couple of other attempts. Hence my suggestion that it would be reasonable for him to now shrug and say, "Well, I tried. But we don't want it, so, hey, don't blame me when something goes bang!"fela fan said:
detective-boy said:
As it happens i've just accidentally watched a film called 'in the name of the father'.
In this film the british government pass a seven day detention law on no charge for suspected terrorists.
Very shortly after five people get taken into police custody and are terrorised and brutalised into confessing their 'crime'. The main man only breaks down on the seventh day when one of the police tell him that they will kill his father.
The court convicts the five and they remain in prison for 15 years, when their innocence is then established. But the old man has already died and never saw his freedom again.
Yes, the guildford five.
It's good that the courts and media refused this 20 day detention. I didn't know that they had done that, and if that's so then that is a win for those that support the process of democracy.
What this illustrates of course is that british governments have a long history of brutalising ordinary people in the name of the 'security' of the nation state.
Time and time again, generation after generation, our governments act in identical manner to terrorists.
It's no bloody wonder they're always looking for terrorists. They created them by their very own actions.
What a mad country.
Time and time again, generation after generation, our governments act in identical manner to terrorists.
It's no bloody wonder they're always looking for terrorists. They created them by their very own actions.
What a mad country.
Fine. So you agree that there is an "acceptable level of casualties" then? Yes?fela fan said:
detective-boy said:
Yes. It's all about reaping what you sow, as a nation, and it's all about cause and effect.
If we, britain the nation, are responsible for brutalising and killing others, how can we say in all honesty that it should not come back to haunt us?
I believe in sorting this dreadful mess out by dealing with the roots of it all.
And that is that we the UK are a murderous nation, and have been for a long time now.
Incidentally, those that died in 911 and 7/7 were personally unlucky and on a personal level i sympathise. But i also sympathise with the thousands that the UK kill off, and the millions the US kill off.
Yes, living in a free society does include that.detective-boy said:
Some do, some don't. I don't.detective-boy said:
I agree whole heartedly.detective-boy said:
But I think it is actually the government which is pushing this idea of a risk free utopia, claiming we can (only) be safe if we let them curtail our rights.
Similar threads
