No internal inquiry into blasts

From the Beeb:

The idiotic fat cnut unelected crony Falconer (the man who gave us the Dome and the botched constitutional reforms) says that there is no inquiry into why the bombers were not picked up. There will be a raft of new laws (the standard reponse of this shower of sh!t) that will be unenforcable.

So, even if mistakes were made, these will not be redressed. The UK will be waiting under the same set of circumstances for the next attack whilst fat t0ssp0tt ministers are chauffered around London in their armoured limousines.

No inquiry is under way into why the London bombers were not picked up by the security services, Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer has said.
He said "now is not the time" for an inquiry, but for a decision on what legal steps were needed against terror.

And he denied proposed new anti-terror measures were "slamming the stable door after the horse had bolted".

A newspaper says MI5 had assessed one of the bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan, but decided he was not a threat.

The Sunday Times said the 30-year-old teaching assistant had been subject to a routine threat assessment when his name cropped up during an investigation last year.

However, officers apparently decided that as he was only "indirectly linked" to that investigation, he posed no threat and no action was taken.

Khan, from Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, killed himself and six other passengers in the Edgware Road bombing on the London underground.

Hasib Hussain, 18, from Holbeck, Leeds was responsible for the Number 30 bus bombing, in which 13 people died; Shehzad Tanweer, 22, from Beeston in Leeds for the Aldgate Tube blast, which killed six, and Germaine Lindsay, 19, from Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, for the King's Cross Tube explosion in which 26 people were killed.

The London bombings did not mean that the intelligence and security services had failed or that existing laws were wrong, Lord Falconer said.

"We have got to learn the lessons and that is why we are bringing forward these new laws. Now is not the time for any form of inquiry," he said.

"I think all the political parties are agreed that the right course at the moment is to focus on what further steps need to be taken in relation to the law but also getting to the root of that evil ideology that is driving this terrorism."

The new anti-terror laws proposed by the government are due to be discussed by Home Secretary Charles Clarke and his opposition counterparts on Monday.

The essence of the crime is, for example, those very few spiritual leaders who are urging people by glorifying the acts of other suicide bombers

The new Anti-Terrorism Bill - in train before the London attacks - is expected in the autumn and the legislation could be on the statute books by next summer.

Mr Clarke has already outlined details of the plans in a letter to Tory David Davis and Liberal Democrat Mark Oaten, in an attempt to gain consensus.

The planned new offences would outlaw "indirect incitement" and "acts preparatory" to, and "providing or receiving training" in terrorism.

Lord Falconer told BBC News that under the new laws, people "attacking the values of the West" and "glorifying the acts of suicide bombers" would be imprisoned for "long periods" and "deported wherever possible".

But no law could stop terrorism altogether, he added.

"The evil ideology driving this is getting to the hearts and minds of a very small number of people," Lord Falconer said.

"We need to be effective in dealing with them... to make it absolutely clear there will be no compromise."

Shadow home secretary David Davis said he hoped for "a pretty constructive outcome".

The government had "done a good job in terms of crystallising what we are trying to do to stop people inciting young men, or anybody for that matter, to terrorism", he added.

The problem is going to be in finding the right words and implementing it in a way which is really dealing with people who are inciting and not preventing honest discussion of the underlying causes of this horrendous political situation the world is in now

Mr Davis also called for additional proposals to allow phone taps and other intercept evidence in court.

Labour former cabinet minister Clare Short said it was vital that the laws did not prevent people discussing the political situation.

She warned that the prime minister's wife Cherie Blair could face prosecution if anti-incitement laws were not carefully drafted.

Mrs Blair apologised three years ago after saying some young Palestinians felt they had "no hope" but to blow themselves up.

"The problem is going to be in finding the right words and implementing it in a way which is really dealing with people who are inciting and not preventing honest discussion of the underlying causes of this horrendous political situation the world is in now," said Ms Short.

Lord Falconer dismissed her concerns.

"The proposal is that indirect incitement should consist of statements made with the intention of encouraging other people to commit terrorist acts.

"That most certainly is not the sort of thing that Clare Short is referring to."
FFS, give it a rest. I'm not a big fan of this goverment either, but I saw fatty Falconer on the telly this morning and he said now was not the time for any sort of enquiry. He didn't say there would never be one. and in that respect he's just about right.

There are ongoing ops, so just let them get on with it, it's bad enough with the Meeja needing fresh meat on this story circling overhead.

You might not realise it, but people like you are unwittingly giving succour to the fellow travellers of The Guardian and Independent.

With Veg on this one. Hindsight is an excellent investigative tool but it won't help anyone if half of MI5 and SB are too busy worrying about their own jobs to get on with this one.

Time for lessons learnt later, and if anyone has made a real howler rather than a bad call it can be dealt with then.

Chances are an MI5 officer came back from annual leave on monday to find a post it note saying 'call ahmed. urgent!!' on his computer.

I agree that now is not the time as long as the issue is not quietly brushed under the carpet to spare embarrassment. Suspicion is understandable, when it is this shower in charge that we are dealing with.
Of course now is not the right time for an inquiry - these things take time to set up properly. The spin doctors have to decide when it will be most politically expedient, Bliar and the gang have to decide the outcome, and Falconer has to find a 'suitable' judge.

Seriously, if there is to be an inquiry I would rather it was into the shambles that has led to so many untraceable illegal immigrants, the asylum fiasco and the way in which the police have been hogtied by PC policies which are more about making the government look good to their voters than fighting crime.
The problem with having an enquiry "at the right time" means usaually at the time the government judge it as good for them, i.e. when something else is so hot everyone, news/media are running with it, then they will ahem.. "bury" the enquiry so as not to draw fire on themsleves.. talk about paranoia!! - and fcukin' spineless, and arrsewipes, and knobheads, and - jeez, there are so amy of them with faces you want to tw@t!!!....

(erm... rant off :oops:)
Sorry VB - said much the same as you really - didn't read through yours properly...oh well... back to the beer!!!


Book Reviewer
What the hell use would a huge public enquiry be?

We can all think of times in the last few years when the ball got dropped and everyone involved made a lot of effort to identify how/where it got dropped and what to do differently in the future.

It's a non-winner, frankly - we can't hope to stop 100% of this. Remember how hard it was with the 'Ra, who were mostly known and whom we'd been looking at for 30-odd years, a fair amount got in under the radar there, didn't it?

Now add in an even harder community to penetrate, stuffed with clean skins and linguistically amazingly diverse.

Good drills from Box 500 and MPSB to date, to my mind. Bad luck on this one, a tragedy and an atrocity, but, just like it wasn't the cops who killed Steven Laurence (spelling?), it wasn't the Security Service or the Met who did the bombing.

Similar threads

Latest Threads