It could be a combination of 1) and 2): insufficient evidence due to having to make the raids too soon because some bell-end waved reports around in front of photographers.

What makes 1) more likely? In the absence of any evidence against these people, mere accusation – from a police force that’s not exactly been noted for its ability to distinguish between ‘terrorist’ and ‘brown person’ – doesn’t make these people any more likely than any other group of people to have been plotting a terrorist attack. Innocent until proven guilty…

How about option 3) The police intercepted some brown people making some comments/plans surrounding terrorism, either seriously or otherwise, and arrested them because the police needed a win after killing an innocent man at the start of the month, and now have released them because suggesting/planning does not equate to being able/wanting to actually do it.

I think the momentous cock-up of displaying the reports to photographers renders speculation over the case itself pointless but to claim that the raids were a deliberate distraction from the policing of the G20 protests sounds paranoid.

Little on the blogosphere? I’ve made three post on the topic, the first the day after the arrests and the last just yesterday. Mutter mutter mutter.

But, for what it’s worth, I think your scenario 2 is closer to the mark, though I suspect the truth is a bit more subtle.

Costigan – as people looking to the side can see
To be fair to Pagar though, this was written last night…

And the assumption of innocence cuts both ways: accepting the innocence of those previously suspected of a crime does not automatically transfer guilt onto the police.

Investigations begin with partial evidence and it’s entirely possible for innocent people to become suspects without corruption or incompetence of the part of the police.

The police were the ones making accusations. They didn’t back those accusations up with one scintilla of evidence.

More than two possibilities, surely.

The arrested men could have been planning an outrage (or could have been dickheads who thought it would be a good idea to pose as terrorists), the police couldn’t find enough evidence to charge them, but did find enough evidence to show that they were not bona fide students. New rules on student visas mean it isn’t enough to have a place on a course to stay here for a year, you have to actually be studying – I’ve had correspondence from the border agency asking about progression halfway through the year in dubious cases. On the whole, I think that’s a good thing – I’ve spent far too much time on overseas students who think studying is a waste of good working time (many of them do well in excess of the permitted 20 hours per week, often in below-minimum-wage jobs), and then they protest that they have failed their exam because of circumstances beyond their control and they must be allowed another year here to work some more re-sit the exams.

There’s the other option of the availability error – since Mumbai the police will have been scared shitless of copy-cats (it’s been a source of surprise to me that no one has ever tried to pull a mass AK47 assault in a Western city yet, since pulling a trigger needs a lot less brains than building a viable bomb), so any group of young Pakistani men recently arrived in the country and associating together would be heavily investigated, and in that environment the slightest suspicious comment would be amplified and dissenting voices suppressed.

One of the students was arrested at a university though, this line about them not being real students was a spin from the start to suggest that they had gamed the system. It was a protectionist move from the Home Office and it backfired when people blamed them.

I will admit my comment about the police needing a win can sound paranoid, I’m not sure I really believe it myself, and coincidences do happen; but the narrative was never secured as to exactly how dangerous the plan was nor how soon it was going to happen…it all just smells rather peculiar to me

A cock-up I can accept but in order to swallow the idea this had anything to do with G20 we’d have to believe that a senior member of the security police would deliberately flash secret documents to the press, throwing away his job and making himself a laughing stock in the process.

Somehow I can’t see anyone associated with this government as that self-sacrificing.

At this time, some parts of the government really needed a terrorist outrage. I have had thoughts that this was going to happen and that these parts of government thought so to. I think that some people were going to allow it to happen and that others (people who broadcast top secret docs) did not want it to happen and broadcasting top secret docs was one way of ensuring it did not.

I think you watched too much Spooks: Code 9

Investigations begin with partial evidence and it’s entirely possible for innocent people to become suspects without corruption or incompetence of the part of the police.

But they ARE incompetent. The justification for all the laws that have been enacted, that have destroyed our privacy and freedom, was so that they could stop terrorism. They had all the advantages you could want to ensure that when someone was arrested for terrorist activity, they had enough evidence to make it stick. And they messed up.

the police couldn’t find enough evidence to charge them, but did find enough evidence to show that they were not bona fide students

But we don’t even know this. They will not be deported because they were not bona fide students. Indeed, we will never know why they will be deported and that equates to accusation without guilt. To conviction without evidence.

I dont watch spooks, what is code 9?.

So Pagar, do you think the police should rush in when they have the first wiff of suspicion, in which case they will not have enough evidence to convict, or should they continue to gather evidence for a firm conviction, which was impossible in this case as secrecy was blown by the incompetance of a senior figure?

How do you think investigations are carried out – that incontrovertable evidence pops up all at once?

There’s no evidence of incompetence by those carrying out the investigation, just those at the top.

Cliff (16): Spooks: Code 9 was a futuristic spin-off of Spooks in which the government and the police allowed terrorists to carry out an attack on British soil for precisely the reasons you put forward in comment 13.

I wasn’t convinced by that either.

shatterface(18) Glad I dont wach that stuff.

I am not trying to convince you of anything. Just airing.

“A cock-up I can accept but in order to swallow the idea this had anything to do with G20 we’d have to believe that a senior member of the security police would deliberately flash secret documents to the press, throwing away his job and making himself a laughing stock in the process.”

Well, why even allow the press to publish the photo? I know of no instance where a member of the public has found one of the many lost laptops or disks and reported it where the media have been allowed to report on the contents (though that assumes it could find them). I actually find it less believable that the government couldn’t have a) stopped the media from publishing the photo while still publishing the story or b) publishing the story AND the photo but only with censorship of the area in question, if needed by using law to ensure that.

Let’s assume (quite safely) that the letter being shown was an actual mistake and not a set up (let’s see if he gets re-employed somewhere soon…good references go a long way…), I refuse to believe that a government that allows its police to stop people photographing landmarks as tourists under terror law can’t stop the press from publishing pictures of documents linked directly to a terrorist plot. In fact I’d say the official secrets act is pretty much right there for this purpose.

The government let it run, they let it happen. Whether it was published or not the right thing to do would have been to put the police on alert just in case it was published in breach of the law, but the government simply asked the papers to hold off and gave them the green light. I find that all too convenient, so can’t just let the idea that it was a politically motivated operation die easily.

Lee, when I’m actually the LEAST paranoid person on a thread you really need to take a step back.

As I say, I’m not saying it’s the reality…but explain why the OSA was not used to allow the operation to continue uninterrupted?

Hmmm, thier not watching you are they shatterface?.

shatterface. I truly oplologise. This is my first blog response. I will try harder.

Kind regards,

Cliff

“bona fide students”

In my experience, it is pretty difficult to establish whether a student is “bona fide” using any objective measure.

Lee (22): because that would (a) be a cover-up and we have a government spectacularly bad at pulling them off and (b) this kind of inferential reasoning is precisely what I pull Laurie up for when she talks about ‘patriarchy’:

If the press publish the photo it’s because of a conspiracy, but if they DON’T publish that’s a conspiracy too. There’s no action that the government can take on this matter which isn’t ‘proof’ of sinister intent.

If failing to secure a conviction is evidence that the police tried to fit someone up but blew it then there are an awful lot of police officers trying to fit other men up for rape.

“that would (a) be a cover-up”

No, it would be adhering to the law. Are you for one second saying that a government shouldn’t use laws, created to ensure that information about state defense isn’t compromised, to keep an ongoing investigation under wraps?

“If the press publish the photo it’s because of a conspiracy, but if they DON’T publish that’s a conspiracy too. There’s no action that the government can take on this matter which isn’t ‘proof’ of sinister intent.”

You’ve misunderstood me, let me try to be clearer. The press publishing the photo is what they do if they can get away with it, no conspiracy. If they don’t publish it then it’s because the government has rightfully used the law to ensure the integrity of an ongoing operation. The only time a conspiracy can occur here is if you take the government allowing the photo to be published (since they were consulted first) as to be taking a political opportunity.

I don’t believe someone purposefully showed those documents, I don’t believe that could be orchestrated, but the fallout can be jumped on by those with hidden agendas. The possibility is there, whether that happened or not.

“If failing to secure a conviction is evidence that the police tried to fit someone up but blew it then there are an awful lot of police officers trying to fit other men up for rape.”

You’re completely ignoring two facts. 1) this investigation was far from ready to move to the arrest stage, 2) the police didn’t even bother to use the full 28 days detention to gather the evidence they needed to make any conviction.

I’m not ignoring 1) because that’s the point I’ve been making from the outset: the raids took place before sufficient evidence could be gathered, were the suspects actually guilty; if the police were hoping that they could record a meeting of the suspects or intercept specific instructions to them or waiting for them to purchase material for an attack then this was no longer an option.

And when this became clear to the police they had no reason to hold the suspects for 28 days since there was no hope of bringing charges, which answers point 2).

Again, if they HAD held them as long as they were legally entitled to this would also be evidence of a ‘fit up’.

I thought Spooks Code 9 was Spooks Kidz or something. Wasn’t it a bunch of primary school children saving the country? Or did it just seem that way (these secret agents seem to get younger every year, don’t you know).

#27 – even if the government prevented the photo from being legally shown, they couldn’t guarantee that it wouldn’t be illegally shown. The very existence of the photo was the problem.

Minor technical point: when a photograph of an official or MP holding “secret papers” is published in a newspaper, online or on newsprint, the quality of that image is too poor to read the content of the document in view. Try it for yourself. The photographer and a few editors will have access to the original image which could be enhanced in order to read the document contents. In spite of the best efforts of some newspapers to employ jihadist sympathisers, there is no evidence to suggest that sympathisers have been planted at photo desks at our national newspapers or international news agencies.

Of course, it is possible that terrorist groups plant freelance photographers at Downing Street in the hope of discovering “secret papers” by snapping Gordon’s visitors. That theory is shared by those who disbelieve the Apollo moon landings.

“#27 – even if the government prevented the photo from being legally shown, they couldn’t guarantee that it wouldn’t be illegally shown. The very existence of the photo was the problem.”

Which is why it is responsible to PREPARE to act. If the security services are worth two shits they should be able to work out when their targets are spooked at the very least, and be ready to bring them in.

The complete lack of attempt to save this operation, given it was supposedly on a similar level with the worst of the IRA attacks on this country, rather than concede almost certain defeat; it bugs me. It should bug other people too, it’s not a logical action, it’s a lazy one at best.