John Rieds Spin could wreck case

#2
To be honest John, my feeling is that Reid is a skillful player who is using the groundswell of outrage to grease the way for a major rework of UK Anti Terror law including aspects of the Human Rights act. He has judged public mood very well since coming to power and he's aiming to take on Brown for Tony's seat. It was Brown who released the names of 19 suspects - I wonder why?
 
#3
Are the suspects HM subjects, or are they immigrants? If subjects of the Crown, that really sucks, but if immigrants, why not deport them to say....Iraq? All kinds of accidents are known to happen when people play with live ammo on the two-way shooting range....
 
#4
Yank_Lurker said:
Are the suspects HM subjects, or are they immigrants? If subjects of the Crown, that really sucks, but if immigrants, why not deport them to say....Iraq? All kinds of accidents are known to happen when people play with live ammo on the two-way shooting range....
They are mostly HM subjects which means they are still subject to the 1254 Treason laws - you have seen how Braveheart ends....

“When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his Queen, or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a man do violate the King’s companion or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried or if a Man do levy War against the King they ought to be judged Treason.”

Catchy eh?

Most lawyers agree with Edward Garnier, QC, that “those who are natural born British subjects, irrespective of their ethnic origin or creed, owe an allegiance at all times and in all places to the Crown”.
 
#5
The names were released by the Bank of England as a pre-requisite for freezing their assets, a requirement under anti-terror legislation. Not by Gordon Brown. How Reid's comments affect the suspects cases is unclear, he has merely omitted the word 'possible' or similar. Overwhelmingly government and press comment has been careful enough to not prejudice future prosecutions.
 
#6
The way the article is worded and the joint Goldsmith-Reid statment suggests this was just Goldsmith laying down a marker. He has an obligation to ensure the system operates fairly and quite apart from anything else that means ensuring not just that these guys' rights to a fair trial are not prejudiced by anything that is said by officials/ministers/the media, but that the defence lawyers cant use anything that is said to get their clients off the hook.
 
#7
I have a far graver concern.

Could John Reid's spin have triggered the attack?

He made a speech on the terrorism threat, conveniently before the arrests. This was a change to the itinerary, as a leaked copy of the "grid" published in the Mail on Sunday shows. The original speech was to be on immigration and border control.

Also, conveniently before the arrests, the Republican Party sent out begging letters for cash support, highlighting the Al Qaeda threat. Again this is covenient timing.

Now, call me naiive, but if I was aware of a threat, I would not make my awareness apparent in public, by trying to generate political capital in advance of any arrests.

Peter Hitchens has written an excellent article on the threat posed by former Commie John Reid in the Mail on Sunday. I think that Reid has no scruples whatsoever about any action that could be undertaken for political advantage.
 
#8
MrPVRd said:
I have a far graver concern.

Could John Reid's spin have triggered the attack?

Now, call me naiive, but if I was aware of a threat, I would not make my awareness apparent in public, by trying to generate political capital in advance of any arrests.

Peter Hitchens has written an excellent article on the threat posed by former Commie John Reid in the Mail on Sunday. I think that Reid has no scruples whatsoever about any action that could be undertaken for political advantage.
Mr PVRd, the Peter Hitchens piece only shows the author's obbession with the radical politics of thirty years ago, he dismisses the threat from Islamic Facist Terror Cells as being nothing compared to unapologetic former commies (Putin anyone?). Hitchens has no love for Reid or New Labour (nor do I). But Reid has no scruples - Great! Then he is perfectly placed to dismantle the culture and policy of appeasment that the past years have created.

Shame on you for going along with claims that Mi5 and SB are part of this conspiracy, maybe you should chuck your Gillete and get down the local Mosque.
 
#9
Shame on you for going along with claims that Mi5 and SB are part of this conspiracy, maybe you should chuck your Gillete and get down the local Mosque.
This is posted from the mosque, I have changed my name to Al-PVR'd the Martyr! :wink:

I wasn't really interested in Hitchens' other views - I thought his article on Reid was spot on. I recall that the other sibling Christopher Hitchens was referred to as a "drink-sodden former Trotskyist popinjay" by the ever-eloquent George Galloway, so perhaps Peter Hitchens has an acute eye for the likes of John Reid.

My view on the "conspiracy" is as follows:

- Was there a plot? Probably.
- Could this have led to large-scale loss of life? Possibly.
- Did the security services act correctly? Certainly.
- Will this goverment milk every drop of personal and party political propaganda value out of this plot? Certainly!
 
#10
Well Al-PVR'd the Martyr, there was an excellent thread on ARRSE a few months ago about how New Lab were Leninist in method but not in principle - which explains a great deal, if I can find it again I'll post it for you.

Reid will certainly use it for all its worth - but compared to Prescott who he's snubbed, Brown who he's made look irelevant and Tony who he has out preformed in his judging of the public mood, he's a winner. And Leninist political setups are as darwinian as any other.
 
#11
Any party in Government would milk for all its worth, a successful operation against terrorist's.
 
#12
Any party in Government would milk for all its worth, a successful operation against terrorist's.
Agreed, but this bunch would do so without any regard for the truth or the consequences in terms of public trust.
 
#13
I don't think anyone in the Government is lying to us about this operation.Many "Islamic Fascists" are spouting that drivel,but so far Reid and his opo's have been keeping us informed as best they can.What else can he tell us without risking serious consequences when these suspects end up facing our courts,sorry their courts,them being British subjects.

If GWB can use the phrase I think I can.
 
#14
I found far more interesting the comments from friends of the arrested suspects. As with the 7/7 bombers they were described as "normal, nice bloke, can't believe he would" etc etc
What is causing these "nice normal" young men to revert to such acts? Where are they getting the training, the equipment? I still think there is a group behind 7/7 and this latest plot who are preying on young men angry at the way Bush and Blair have acted over Iraq and Afghanistan and using these Brits to do these things. Of course they could do it themselves but how much more satisfying to have the acts performed by British citizens.
 
#16
Grad said:
I found far more interesting the comments from friends of the arrested suspects. As with the 7/7 bombers they were described as "normal, nice bloke, can't believe he would" etc etc
What is causing these "nice normal" young men to revert to such acts? Where are they getting the training, the equipment?
Here is an uncomfortable thought.

What if the reason that apparently normal decent citizens volunteer to be inslamic terrorists is the same sorts of reasons that normal decent blokes volunteer to fight for other causes. They beleive their cause is right and are willing to die (and kill) to make a violent protest about their grievences. Its the same way that Irish republicanism attracted idealistic volunteers.

Mass murder is never right, but serious grievances attract reasonable people to do unreasonable things. Its not an irrational illness its ordinary human psychology.

If so the British Muslims that wrote about their copncenrs wioth British Middle East policy who are right and the government making facile statements.
 
#17
Mass murder is never right, but serious grievances attract reasonable people to do unreasonable things. Its not an irrational illness its ordinary human psychology.

If so the British Muslims that wrote about their concerns with British Middle East policy who are right and the government making facile statements.
Terrorism is ok then if you disagree with your government ? I dont think so,not in a democracy. Its just an excuse to kill people.
 
#18
If you support a cause and deem it legitimate you fight for it.

After the adventure training
and the mates
and the pension
and the travel
and the free accomodation
and the duty free cigarettes
Its one of the reasons people joined the armed forces.

What makes soldiers fight for the crown makes radical muslims fight for their ideology.

"We" arent mad, just convinced of our cause.
They arent mad they just didnt buy into the "forward as one" advertising campaign.
 
#19
I get your point but don't wholly agree. My husband and all the others who have joined the British armed forces wouldn't agree to become suicide bombers or at least I have never met one that would.
I can see that these young men are angry and agree with some of their points but what has made them turn from normal people with an issue against government to people willing to die and kill other brits Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist and Christian alike in the process?
I could understand a young man getting so angry he went to Afghanistam and joined the Taliban if he believed their cause just. I wouldn't agree but would understand that he felt the need to join an "army" fighting for what he believed in. BUT I can not understand what can turn a person who has grown up in this country with all the priveledges and freedoms even the poorest of us have into a suicide bomber.
 
#20
armchair_jihad said:
hey are mostly HM subjects which means they are still subject to the 1254 Treason laws - you have seen how Braveheart ends....

“When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his Queen, or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a man do violate the King’s companion or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried or if a Man do levy War against the King they ought to be judged Treason.”
I thought the plan was to blow up lots of people on planes? I don't recall any part of the plan involving violating the King's daughter or any other plot to kill Her Maj. So it ain't treason.

Bunch of b&*$%£ds though.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Forces Pension Society Armed Forces Pension Scheme 0
Themanwho Current Affairs, News and Analysis 278
joey_deacons_lad Waltenkommando 20

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top