Incredible intelligence

The initial Beeb reports yesterday evening were speaking of "number of casualties in double or even triple figures", dependent on the quantities used. Data from Porton simulations (I'd have said 'modelling' was more likely, meself) was cited as the source.

These numbers aren't completely out of the question if you poured some seriously extreme data about quantity, weapon construction and purity of ingredients into the equation, but that would be so wlidly divergent from published data on non-state chemical weaponry as to be pretty much impossible.

On the other hand, such casualty rates (NB, not necessarily deaths) could be inflicted by conventional explosives in a confined space, and it MAY be the case that Porton factored in the damage that could be caused by the conventional explosive used to disperse the chemical.

My first question when I read the report was WTF were 250 police doing raiding one house? It's not surprising that there was, and is, confusion. If the supposed chemical suicide vest really existed and able to kill hundreds, wouldn't putting so many police in the vicinity be a bit foolish?

Secondly, why an air exclusion zone (which takes time to promulgate) but no evacuation of the neighbouring houses? Were they expecting an attack by the al-Qaeda Air Force?

The whole thing stinks. I actually lost a lot of respect for the anti-terorist boys from Scotland Yard in Cambodia back in 1994 and it now seems that they've got a whole lot worse.

It makes me want to cry.

Double-figure numbers certainly aren't out of the question, given that the sarin attacks in Japan killed 12 in confined spaces and injured hundreds. Hundreds *dead* I'm not so sure about. Also, we don't know (but can speculate) that the poison (reported in the Screws as cyanide, for what that's worth - the police refused to tell the BBC) refers to what was *reported by the informant* as being in the house rather than actually being found.

Chemical or dirty bombs always struck me as a complete waste of time, as if someone really *was* intent on terrorism they'd just use conventional explosives, which are more deadly and less dangerous to make, and you'd need anyway to distribute the nasties. Unconventional weaponry sounds like the kind of thing invented by the type of person who *wants* to be seen as a terrorist, or an informant, but isn't actually, or of course the Home Office when it wants to scare people.

Usually, the most dangerous terrorists are the nice quiet professionals who get on with things without any fuss (9/11 and Madrid fall into this category). The IRA, IIRC, used to be very good at spotting the wild men and not putting them anywhere near active service units.

Indeed: the Birmingham and Guildford pub bombings caused about that many casualties.

But, nevertheless, independent of the possible truth of most of the claims, the government's media management of this one feels like they're circulating various kinds of hokum.

You don't muddy waters by lying: that's easy to spot. You muddy waters by producing vague or contradicting reports, by encouraging the appearance of unsubstantiated claims and by mixing in irrelevant facts.

Where's the evidence of Government media management. You're doing exactly the same as Murdoch and the Mail. In the absence of official information you are putting your spin on... nothing. You're playing the same game. Next thing we know you'll be screaming cover-up, and demanding a public enquiry. By all means criticise the Government for what they do, Christ, I do enough of that myself, but to 'circulate hokum' whilst criticising the government for circulating hokum... is plain daft.

Bob Piper

You are disengenious, all this blog is doing is trying to cut through the heavy layers of bullshit

What hokum? There are several different stories of what's happened in East London, the police have a definite history of releasing stories that later turn out to be wrong, plus exaggerating terrorist threats. What I'm doing is attempting to catalogue the stories as they appear, with a view to comparing them to the real story when it emerges. We'll then find out who was lying (hopefully in court, which again illustrates why the rule of law, juries etc. matter).

As for media management, why do the Sun and NotW get police leaks to them when the same information is witheld from the BBC. The 'cyanide' part, which Adam Sanford on News 24 last night said was known but wasn't being released, appeared in the next days's Screws. If that isn't news management by the police, what is?

Well, I for one have faith in the IPCC so the truth will out.

Met chief could face charge over Menezes

· CPS names Blair in report on shooting
· Fresh questions over east London rai

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1789936,00.html

Fabulous. This looks like just another one of those grand big police cock-ups. I totally agree with Stef's view of this ridiculous raid:
http://stefzucconi.blogspot.com/2006/06/bring-me-everyone.html

I think its going to be a while before anything resembling the truth in this story emerges. As far as I'm aware nothing has been found so far in the house, and yet the font page of the Sunday Times is screaming "Cyanide" and the front page of the Sunday Express is screaming "Anthrax". and despite this no evacuations. Something is definately very odd here. The shooting incident is very confusing too, with so many conflicting stories and not a peep from Ian Blair.

Isn't it a bit dangerous letting off a gun in a room where there may be chemical weapons?

I've linked to this page from my blog, thanks.

Tom, Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. Crink, not you, said 'government media management'. I just couldn't see it. I wouldn't doubt the police would sow all sorts of confusion, they usually do when something goes pear-shaped, but to try to attribute everything to some sort of 1984 style government media machine is giving credit where none is due.

I disagree.

1 - The government has professional news-watchers and disinformation merchants; you may remember a particularly unpleasant specimen named Alistair Campbell.

Doubtless you can also remember various bits of government disinformation that they produced: pre-eminently the massive propaganda offensive that has surrounded the Iraq war.

That was certainly the work of some approximation to a "1984 style government media machine" (Bob's silly phrase, not mine).

So something that Bob would describe as a "1984 style government media machine" exists.

But all that is irrelevant: I just mean that as a warning against suggesting that any such thing is a conspiracy theory. Some conspiracy theories of this sort are transparently true.

2 - We are now left with the question: to what extent is the Government implicated in this?

One of the most important jobs of the government is to disseminate correct information about its activities.

If the government fails to disseminate correct information promptly and clearly, then it is perfectly obvious that what the Murdoch Press lies/guesses/buys in a back alley will be the best available approximation to truth.

So much is perfectly obvious. Thus leaving the matter open is disinformative. I think this is a kind of truism.

My point was largely to say that.

3 - I'm disappointed that Bob had to invent this aspect of conspiracy-theoretic bollocks in the conversation; it's something of a nuisance having to bring this conversation back to planet Earth.

I actually said nothing of the sort.

The government/police have been extremely unhelpful. We could talk, if it is important, about whether this is due to malice or incompetence. The word "hokum" (if Bob actually has the faintest idea what it means), of course, suggests the latter.

Perhaps I should have said "government and police" when I said "government", but the relation between the two Blairs is close enough to almost make this unnecessary.

I have just found John Lettice's own article on the subject at The Register. I think it is very interesting reading.

Clued item today in The Reg...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/04/chemical_bioterror_analysis/
http://tinyurl.com/hucf4

Crink really is one of the more loathsome and tedious posters on this site. I didn't want an explanation of whether or not the government had 'a media machine' (crink's silly name, not mine). Everyone knows and would expect them to have such a thing. What I was seeking was any EVIDENCE from Crink that the 'government media machine' had been involved in spinning any or all the bullshit which appeared in the weekend newspapers. Instead of giving any evidence to support his assertion the fool embarks on a tirade of abuse. My only point was that the myriad of different stories in the newpapers had more of a smell of them inventing things because they did not have a story spun out of No.10. When the editors follow the government line they tend not to have to invent widely different pieces of speculation. Crink... because you think it's the case... doesn't make it the case.

What tirade of abuse? Anyhow, tirade of abuse or not, thanks for restoring the debate to your preferred level of politeness.

I'm not sure you read my post. It was rather long.

Anyhow, the point is simple: leaving the papers to their own devices is media management, of a rather obnoxious sort.

Then there are all these Margaret Gilmour types, who are also fairly clearly supporting a programme of media management.

I don't think I'm saying anything substantially different to anyone else...

What's silly about "media machine"?

So... the Government manages the media by spinning stories... or, the Government manages the media by not spinning stories. Have you got a persecution complex, or are you just content to... 'blame the Government'... for everything. If so, your political analysis seems strangely similar to that of my 93 year old granny before she snuffed it. Her excuse was dementia though.

Thank-you for continuing to insult me.

Growing up outside Britain, it greatly amused me to watch British TV footage of politicians: it always seemed that their primary concern was to make third-rate repartee. This is a tradition that you should probably not aspire to, funny though it doubtless is.

It was also probably not perspicacious to accuse me of a "tirade of abuse" (for having described something you said as a "silly phrase", and for suggesting you don't understand a word, and for nothing else), while calling me "loathsome", "tedious", a "fool", and likening me to your senile forebears. Never mind.

So... the Government manages the media by spinning stories... or, the Government manages the media by not spinning stories.

That is (garbled but) correct. They mightn't call it "management" if it didn't consist of a mixture of tactics: releasing false information when appropriate and merely failing to release true information when appropriate.

When something is the responsibility of the government, or the police, and it is not done, or not done right, I am very much content to blame the government, and the police. It seems about the right thing to do.

I wonder if I am being somehow unclear: I feel I have said most of this several times now, and you still seem confused.

I'm sorry Crink, i know you've relentlesly posted on this subject, but what exactly have the government not done or not done right?
The police for a change have decided to act on inteligence of potential terrorism, instead of arresting grannies ect.

What are you blaming the government for now? Having a police force?
Not warning everyone that they will use police against terorist suspects?? Using police for intended purpose of trying to protect society?

Dont get me wrong I'm no fan of either of the Blairs (Devil spawn or Sir Ian) but it seems people are attacking the government over everything. Spining or not spining enough.

The police for a change have decided to act on inteligence of potential terrorism, instead of arresting grannies ect.

Possible. Whether the intelligence was any good or not, we don't know. Perhaps it will turn out to be as good as the intelligence that lead to de Menezes's death.

Perhaps we will never know. However, I agree, it appears to be the case that they have acted on evidence of potential terrorism. I will suppose that they have for what follows.

What are you blaming the government for now? Having a police force?

If you take the time to read one single word I've said, just any one single damn word, you'll notice I haven't blamed the government & police for their actions in this matter yet. So I don't understand why you choose to misrepresent me by suggesting that.

What I am blaming them for is their provision of information about it afterwards.

Firstly, they do not, by default, announce public enquiries or investigations into things like this. This means that, unless the public pushes hard, the public will never find the truth. That's a pain.

The public needs to know the truth, (about this and everything else of importance), because the public is supposed to be able to act correctly in a democratic country (whether that means in elections or in public protests and public commentary).

Therefore the Government has an obligation to say things, which had better be true. It hasn't done this.

Why do you (Anonymous) and Bob not get this? The government is wrong if it says nothing, and wrong if it says something which is a lie. That must be obvious. But both of you have asked about this, as if you don't understand.

Think about the law: "telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". It's just the same.

Secondly, as mentioned elsewhere, once the government/police have decided to do nothing rather than publicly lie, they can start passing information via embedded journalists: Margaret Gilmour and her friends. This can be unofficial lies. Or indeed, it can be unofficial truths: nasty surprises the government wants to bury but without official confirmation or official responsibility.

The pronouncements of these people are, of course, subject to no journalistic analyses; they are the journalists. They have a veneer of independence and impartiality, but they are a government wing.

It's fundamentally dishonest, because embedded journalists never tell you that they are just providing propaganda.

It's fundamentally unfair, too, because you bet Kate Roxburgh doesn't have any embedded journalists.

it seems people are attacking the government over everything

Your heart should not bleed for them; I'm sure the bastards'll survive a little more attacking.

Being criticised is what they are there for. You can't tell them what to do just by voting for them: that confuses too many issues. And you certainly can't just sit back and cross your fingers. That leaves criticism.

That slurping sound you can here is Crink disappearing up his own arse. He starts off by saying the Government has managed the media by circulating all sorts od confusing stories. When asked to provide the evidence for this he changes tack and accuses them of managing the media by saying nothing. The facts are that there is an ongoing police investigation into information they have received, which has resulted in the shooting of one of those under investigation, which in itself will require the police to carry out an investigation. These are operational matters, and whilst I would fully expect the police to brief the Home Secretary, I nwouldn't at this stage expect the Home Secretary to brief the Sun, Mail, NoTW or Crink to satisfy their curiosity and potentially corrupt the investigation into the "alleged" Terrorists" or the internal police inquiry. If the Home Secretary did the suspects solicitors and the Police Federation would be overjoyed.

That doesn't mean I want a cover up. But if people shoot off at the lip, as happened with the Stockwell tube case, it gets quoted back at them later and compounds the cock-up.

From various news reports, it seems that a source alleged that one of the brothers was in possession of a toxic device small enough to hide in a jacket and possibly containing cyanide. Now, you don't need to be a weapons scientist to know that this is sounding ineffectual at best and probably bogus. Various interested parties - the government, MI5, the police and the media - are very keen to demonstrate that the terror threat is real and severe and so staged a huge public raid to find the device. The result was the a hyped up police officer in a noddy suit shooting and severely wounding a man coming down the stairs in his pyjamas and further alienation of the muslim community.

The government and the police have their own PR departments. MI5 even has its own journalists. Of course they try to manage the news. You only have to look at the bogus stories released followed the execution of the Brazilian for evidence of this.

Bob, you're probably not reading the posts that you are responding in your own indefatigable way to, but a lot of people out here are. You're just making yourself look like a silly troll.

Couldn't disgaree with most of that doughnut, other than the fact that with the Brazilian the media all released the same 'terrorist' stories. a clear implication, even if only an implication, that there was some news management going on. This time around virtually every newspaper had their own theory and version of events, which, to my cynical eyes, implies lazy-arsed journos with no story making one up.... safe in the knowledge that if it is total bullshit it will be chip paper before anyone knows it, and if it is accurate it will be hyped up by 'our man in the know' the following week.

This has been a very busy thread with some serious and interesting debate ... so (although it's not something I usually do) I will throw in a conspiracy theory, just for fun !

1. The timing has been just perfect to get the press off 2-shags Prescott's back. It also serves the dual purpose of maintaining our high state of fear.

2. No one ever has to prove the source of the 'intelligence lead' and they never will.

3. They never intended for anyone to get hurt - just the result of the usual low level of Met Police firearms competence (running upstairs with 'thick-gloved' finger on trigger - recipe for disaster).

4. If they were really looking for a significant chemical / biological weapon, it is doubtful in the extreme that Met Police lawyers would have sanctioned the raid without public evacuation.

Of course, I may just be a nutter !

We're all nutters - people who don't accept what's 'common sense' that 'everyone knows is true' are often seen as such. Aaanyway.

Would that it were - the persistence of the 'ricin' plot gibberish goes to prove that even completely discredited stories still have currency in the 'Islamic-terrorist-horrible-weapon-rules-of-game-changed' fear factories that used to be the mainstream media. Here's Gordon Brown pouring mud into troubled waters:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/sunday_am/4706014.stm

The current detention limit is still 14 days.

How nice to see ringverse enter the debate in his normal considered way. Last time I had contact with him he thought it was OK if the BNP controlled the country because they would only kill a few tens of thousands of immigrants. Yes... and I'm a troll. Coming from you I count that as the highest praise.

Vervet, it is always possible the Met decided to deploy their forces to kick down doors and shoot someone as a device to take the heat of John Prescott.

Hang around... you're in good company here, and it's safer than going outdoors where there are people looking to get you.

Eh -? I haven't said anything Bob!

For the record, I actually think you were closer to the mark than Crink on the original point about the 'government' spinning this one. With the Ministers appearing to be holding this one at arms length [with the exception of Blair's 101% backing]. I sense police cock up and ass covering before government spin as we have seen previously in similar situations...
But by the time I read the thread, the bitchslappin' had already started :)

Just re-read the thread, I think you are refering to Goatchurch's comments.

Bob, dear chap, do you *really* think that that reflects ringverse's opinions?

Sincere apologies Ringverse... it was Goatchurch who was talking shite before, although perhaps this proves his point that I should read the bloody thing before firing off a fizzer. Sorry for that terrible slander.

Forest Hill, London Shooting
There’s a certain amount of “chatter” on the Internet that the Metropolitan Police were “set up”. Suspect this is largely from xenophobic “little Englanders” that can’t bring themselves to criticise the police, and adhere to the “innocent until proven Muslim” principle.

I really don’t think the Met need any help to shoot themselves in the foot; the Lansdown Road raid was Keystone Kops meet the Godfather. However, there is the potential of a massive compensation payout. Brothers Mohammed Abdul Kahar and Abul Koyair have been rendered unemployable for life, as too many people will assume they “only got off on a technicality”. Sticking my neck out here so don’t let me down boys, but that technicality could be they are entirely innocent.

Then of course there was serious injury; Mr Kahar was shot in the shoulder during the police raid, which was a 04.00 house invasion by armed intruders. And let’s not forget all the emotional trauma, damage to reputation and anything Ms. Gareth Pierce (activist and leading human rights lawyer) can come up with. The police can hold the brothers until Saturday, but to date there’s not a shred of evidence against them. Top brass must be getting desperate. Trust Sir Ian Blair is drafting his resignation letter. Can’t wait for the headline: “Blair resigns (Ian not Tony, but watch this space)”.
Shall we start the bidding at £20 million?

Bob: You need to lighten up there .... a small injection of humour doesn't justify your sarcasm ... just keep an even perspective on life and chill some.

Vervet, the thing about humour is that generally it is expected to be funny. Your comment was not the slightest bit funny... therefore doesn't qualify.