Rachel on MI5 and 7/7

oooh, thanks
x

So much of British intelligence is taken up with disinformation and false-flag ops they don't appear to know which way is up anymore.

What do they do all day besides compiling dodgy dossiers, inventing Al Quaida myths (ask Craig Murray), planting stories in the press, shooting up foreigners on the tube and allegedly foiling alleged terror plots?

Whenever something real comes along, they're like Macavity the cat.

With the Litvinenko affair, hundreds of people have been contaminated with radioactive dirty bomb material - trundled around London's public places by by people who should surely have been under constant surveillance.

There are so many people in this country that should be under surveillance, but we simply don't have the resources - besides, the security forces are hindered by the human rights legislation. If everyone who deserved surveillance was under it there'd be people like you (if not you yourself) campaigning about the Big Brother state.
Another thing, the fact that traces of this material has been discovered around London these quantities are minute - little more than you are exposed to everyday. This post is entirely irresponsible and simply furhtering the media furoure that surrounds these incidents unnecessarily. Also, a serious incident such as this needs cautious investigation, jumping to conclusions will only make uncovering the truth more difficult - Litvinenko had worked for the Russian secret services (against us) and then defected. There are so many people who amy hae wnated him dead. It is no straight forward case - but I suppose you have a water-tight explanation for exactly what happened, you being the one person MI5 sdly misses? [Sarcasm]

Next point: the dossier I assume you are refering to is the Iraq dossier with the 45 minute claim. This was fabricated by the Labour government, in order to sanction a war to ensure oil flow from Iraq, and was nothing to do with M15.

ALright; the tube shooting. You protest when people aren't followed and the security forces don't act - but when they do, you kick off. The man they shot was in this country illegally, refused to stop when challenged by armed police, and vaulted a ticket barrier. Would you rather the police stood idlely by and watched another 7 / 7 attack unfold.

From the time of your post I'm guessing (and hoping) that you are either drunk, or form another country. If you don't like how this country works, go to some other country, may I suggets Russia - then you'll learn about the secret services.

Feel free to contact me and we can discuss this further.

Orpman - You are Sir Ian Blair and I claim my £5...

Seriously - "The man they shot was in this country illegally, refused to stop when challenged by armed police, and vaulted a ticket barrier. Would you rather the police stood idlely by and watched another 7 / 7 attack unfold."

Are we talking about the same de Menezes here?

21:40? I was in bed recuperating, on painkillers, therefore off booze, in my own house in London. I presume you meant copydude's 03:11 comment rather than my original post. It would be good if this were made clear.

I suggest you check our coverage of the Forest Gate raid. From my first post on the subject:

We kicked off, and continued kicking, when it became abundantly obvious that the Met were trying to cover up their mistake by smearing the innocent people they'd raided instead of coming clean. If, by the start of the week following the raid they'd announced that it was a mistake and that no suspicion should attach to the arrested men, they'd have perversely got a lot more credit from myself. I don't ask that they are perfect, that's impossible, but some honesty and trustfulness isn't negotiable when it comes to police forces. That doesn't include leaking the details of imaginary plots to right-wing tabloids.

No, they're hindered by lack of resources and a hidebound refusal by the government to admit that their foreign policy is responsible in part for the strain on the security services, and to do something about it. Governments always complain that human rights stop them doing what they wan. That's a *good* thing, given the record of Governments throughout history that have done exactly what they want.

@Orpman:

I feel I must take issue with your comment that if one doesn't like how this country works, one should go to some other country. Why? I am British. I am a UK native, not some nth-generation settler, my entire family has British blood going back generations and generations. I do not like the way this country works now. Should I now go to some other country, simply because this one has changed beyond what I deem acceptable? Is it right that I should leave my birthplace forever, because it was changed in a way I - and many others - do not like, were not asked about and given no real say about? I'm interested, too, in who you think this mysterious " everyone who deserved surveillance" is

Look, you're right, everyone does have a right to protest against changes which they feel are wrong. There are however, far better ways of doing it than ridiculing this country - as was done in the original post to which I responded.

And the people who deserve surveillance - there are hundreds of people who are involved in suspect organisations - shall I list some:
The men who perpertrated the 7 / 7 bombings
The various criminals who have escaped prisons, or who offended abroad and have not been added to the Home Office database
The men who plotted to kill Litvinenko

If you want to improve the country then go about it in some other way than making out that it is completely evil, wrong by running it into the ground on a foolhardy website such as this

Look, you're right, everyone does have a right to protest against changes which they feel are wrong. There are however, far better ways of doing it than ridiculing this country - as was done in the original post to which I responded.

And the people who deserve surveillance - there are hundreds of people who are involved in suspect organisations - shall I list some:
The men who perpertrated the 7 / 7 bombings
The various criminals who have escaped prisons, or who offended abroad and have not been added to the Home Office database
The men who plotted to kill Litvinenko

If you want to improve the country then go about it in some other way than making out that it is completely evil, wrong by running it into the ground on a foolhardy website such as this

1 - I am not Sir Iam Blair (though I wouldn't mind a knightood'

2 - Yes

There's a straw man at work here. I don't think anyone (even WTWU at SpyBlog) has ever said there should be no surveillance of anyone anywhere anytime. That it should be legal, with judicial oversight and not used for political purposes seems to be me to be fairly mild requirements on our part, as that's the essential difference between law enforcement (which we're dead keen on, particularly if it involves Blair on the end of it) and a police state (not so keen on that).

The tip towards the police state end of things is greatly facilitated by unprofessional behaviour by the security services in leaking to friendly journalists (contrast the MOD's strenuous efforts to stop anyone with a notebook going anywhere near the Lord Protector's new model homeopathic army in Helmand, for fear what they might see).

Anyway, if there had actually been some proper surveillance, de Menezes might still be alive. It was the watchers who bungled, which lead to the train of events that ended on the train.

Well why then, did you post such an unbablanced, unjustified view of the security services - which started this entire discussion.

And, I admit that some mistakes were made over the shooting of de Menezes. However, I believe that the block of flats he came out of were under surveilance - on suspiscion of another resident. Up until then the only reason he should have been under surveilance (which would have proved his innocence) was the fact that he was an illegal immigrant - it is impossible to justify that. However, you cannot suggest that the police should not act by a man wearing a bulky jacket, vaulting a ticket-barrier and refusing to stop when commanded to do so by armed police. After the 7 / 7 bombings it is understandable that police are cautious and people on the Undergroung networ act responsibley.

I'm getting bored now

I'm getting bored now
then go away - and try and establish some basic facts before you comment.

Well, we know that Scaramella was under surveillance from his recorded phone calls with both Guzzanti and the American agent Perry.

Given that Scaramella was planting RPGs on Ukrainians in order to frame Romano Prodi, while putting words into the mouth of UKIP's Gerald Batten at the European Parliament, that would make him and his associates a pretty high-profile risk, wouldn't it?

Not to mention Litvinenko's links to the Chechen terrorist, Zakayev and to the Godfather of gangsters, Berezovsky, who has promised to bring down Putin by armed coup. Oh, and Litvinenko also testified on the London Bombings.

If all that isn't worthy of intelligence attention, what is?

orpman: you said you cannot suggest that the police should not act by a man wearing a bulky jacket, vaulting a ticket-barrier and refusing to stop when commanded to do so by armed police

But according to the police themselves,he wasn't wearing a bulky jacket, didn't vault over a ticket barrier and didn't refuse to stop when commanded to so by armed police.

Lies Lies So Many Lies
Sir Ian Blair has lied so many times he has contradicted himself over the issue of the shooting. Blair gave an interview on August 21st in which he admitted he did not know his officers had killed an innocent man until a day after Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead at Stockwell Tube station. Yet THREE DAYS EARLIER on August 18th, it emerged that Blair himself "tried to halt an independent inquiry into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes just hours after the innocent Brazilian's death.
Obfucation and fear waffle

It isn't so much about the all to common mistakes that were made or using fear for political capital; but rather the consequential cover-ups... And more pertinently the death of an innocent young man!

But I would also say that the pressure from government on the security forces must be colossal...For some reason!!!

Orpman . you're a dead duck.

Either you are a well-meaning under-informed dumb-bum troll , or paid shill.

Time spent on you would be wasted.

Some of the comments on Rachel's post are worth visiting.

Mad Prfiling would mean I'm under 24hr surveillance. One of my friends knew some of the Baader-meinhoff gang at uni. I was at Essex Uni in 1969, shortly after lord triesman, a dangerous element then, with mutual friends, and so on, ..... now a spokesman on foreign affairs ...

Hain used to be a suspect character, now a million percent sold- out .

Welcome to Stasi-World.

It just might make a teensy-weensy tiny bit of difference NOT to engage in Military Ops in the wrong places ?

"Losing an Empire, and NOT finding a role" sums it up .

keyboard prob inhibits further diatribes .... !