Possibly more than 200 al-Qaida-trained terrorists in UK

#1
Good to see SOME info to backup the new terror Laws but...

If they (whoever they are) know there are 200, well the don't do they Sir John Stevens said there might be .

If 'they' do know why don't 'they' arrest them the under the new anti-terrorist laws and get them off the streets. I mean , its not like in the old days when we knew who the Players were in N.I but waited for Int or actual proof of a terror attack/ongoing/just prior to taking action.

Arrest the 200 and kill their cells dead or is that not good news as then how can the government carry on scaring the population before the election?
 
#4
This is scaremongering nonsense, and an attempt to generate panic.

There are bad people out there; there always have been, whether IRA terrorists planting bombs, Libyan terrorists shooting policewomen, Iranina terrorists holding hostages or unknown terrorists (a Libyan is in prison but it was probably an Iranian atrocity) blowing up a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie.

It is wrong to say that Al Qaeda represent a new threat that could destroy our way of life. David Davis said on Question Time that Hitler may have destroyed our way of life, but that terrorism could not - at last someone speaks the truth!

Chemical and biological weaponry are unpleasant but are not weapons of mass destruction. The only WMD is a nuclear bomb with a delivery mechanism, whether the Enola Gay or a ICBM. WMDs have only ever been used twice in anger - by the USA - and we sat for over three decades with missiles pointing east and west, ready to use. Chemical and biological weapons are extremely unpredictable, volatile and very difficult to deploy.

The reason we are being fed this nonsense is to allow the passing of terrorism laws that, it is claimed, will only be used against Al Qaeda type terrorists. This is a lie - watch as they are used to arbritrarily detain G8 protestors, foxhunters and anyone else seen as a threat to this Nazi-style government. And imagine getting on the wrong side of the law through a computer error, as happened to the Brit wanted by the FBI a couple of years ago. The system never believes it is wrong! Welcome to Kafka's world!

There is a threat out there, but it is one that should be dealt with proportionately using existing laws based on ancient and fundamental freedoms.
 
#5
200 men already partly trained in insurgent tactics? Hmm, I sense a recruiting drive for a reconstituted 3RRF - Royal Regiment of Fanatics (Queens Own Fatwah). That'll bump up the ethnic recruiting averages! You wouldn't have to worry about weapons uniforms AFVs etc, just a selection of Clarks' finest exploding Boots Combat Martyrdom. :D
 
#6
As the bint from Liberty said today, John Stevens is not only a former policeman, he is now a News of the World columnist.

His comments sells papers, he earns his money and in doing so conveniently covers his Arrse for when the cloud goes mushroom.
 
#8
MrPVRd said:
This is scaremongering nonsense, and an attempt to generate panic...........There is a threat out there, but it is one that should be dealt with proportionately using existing laws based on ancient and fundamental freedoms.
Not that I'd support the current shower, but i suppose some people will not be satisfied until there is a terrorist incident in the UK. When that happens, it'll be the good old 'blame culture' rather than 'lets deal with the problem now.'

He's an ex-Met Commissioner, not a bobby on the street. He's seen the paperwork and what is alleged. If he says he has genuine concerns, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
#9
What is the current membership of the IRA?

What is the current membership of CIRA and RIRA?

This is scaremongering. It's like 25 years of terrorist atrocities never happened in this country.

How dare Sir John say “The main opposition to the bill is from people who simply haven’t understood the true horror of the terrorism we face."

I'm sure there are members of the Conservative Party that haven't forgot having a hotel blown out from under them. I am bloody sure there are people on this forum that know what the aftermath of a terrorist attack looks like , I am one of them.

What absolutel fatuous , patronising b ollocks. I don't know what target audience you were aiming your comments at Sir John. Possibly there are people in Manchester, Birmingham,Belfast, London, Guildford, Warrington, Caterham, Derby etc , who have never heard of a terrorist attack?

Sir John, you were not a supporter of this bill in the form proposed some weeks ago when you spoke on Question Time. What has changed since?

Needless to say , I'll be watching any public appointments you gain after the next election with interest.

I am absolutey sick to my stomach, of the way this Government seeks to railroad public opinion in the direction it wants. As soon as this news broke , the b astard rottweiler Reid, was straight on the Telly saying "No more concessions"

But they get away with it, because the bloody public are more concerned with Football , Corrie and Eastenders, than they are with the world without.

Have we really become so apathetic and brainwashed, that we even forget our recent history?

The statement was an absolute gift to Blair and Clarke. By a columnist working for a Murdoch rag.

"The information I have seen" Really Sir John? If data is tortured long enough etc etc .

The security services say "Of course there will always be a threat, but where did these figures come from"?

Yes the security services always want more money and manpower. But they don't see the point of scaring the population into the bargain.

Is this what a Reichstag fire in the 21st Century looks like then?
 
#10
It won't even be the Old Bill - subject to some form of control outwith the Home Office - policing these orders. It will be some "private" organisation - Crapita, Shithexo, Securicrap or whatever.

Why doesn't Bliar go all the way and set up his own force, with brown shirts.... He could even stick a twisted megalomaniac in charge of it - Blunkett as Himmler?

From the Guardian

Private firms to police terror orders

Alan Travis and Michael White
Monday March 7, 2005
The Guardian

Private security staff are to be used to monitor the controversial new anti-terrorist control orders in an attempt to save money, according to preparations being made to implement the policy by the Home Office.

Senior civil servants have been asked to assess the likely impact of the control orders which are being rushed through parliament. Their report discloses that private security staff are to monitor the day-to-day surveillance of the terror suspects through electronic tagging.

The Home Office says the control orders will be cheaper than the £40,000 annual cost of holding a terror suspect in a high-security prison such as Belmarsh. But to save further money "where possible the monitoring of the orders will be contracted out to private companies as per existing arrangements with companies like Securicor and Group 4".

The disclosure of the likely involvement of private security firms comes as the home secretary, Charles Clarke, faces a make or break week to get his prevention of terrorism bill onto the statute book . The existing powers allowing terror suspects to be detained in Belmarsh lapse next Monday.

Close aides last night denied claims that Mr Clarke would announce fresh concessions to avoid an embarrassing defeat later today when the detailed operation of the bill comes under renewed attack from a cross-party alliance of peers in the House of Lords. Instead he will wait and see what shape the bill is in when it returns to the Commons on Wednesday and what concessions - if any - he needs to make to head off a revolt even more dangerous than the one that ended with last week's narrow 14-vote Labour majority.

The official Home Office assessment of the emergency anti-terrorist legislation prepared by senior civil servants also admits that only 10 to 20 terror suspects are expected to be issued with control orders each year. "The figures for those expected to be subject to a control order are not expected to be substantial," the report says.

That conclusion appears to conflict with warnings from Tony Blair who spoke of hundreds of potential terrorists in a recent radio interview.

The former Metropolitan Police commissioner, John Stevens, also said yesterday that at least 100 - and probably nearer 200 - al-Qaida trained fighters were "walking the streets of Britain" and potentially able to carry out devastating terror attacks. Writing in the News of the World, Lord Stevens said that "the main opposition to the bill is from people who simply haven't understood the brutal reality of the world we live in".

The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten, accused ministers of sending out contradictory messages about the scope of the legislation.

"If we're being asked to take exceptional powers we should at least be given an idea of how often they will be used. The bill must be radically amended in the Lords to give defendants proper safeguards, and to make sure that these powers are only used in the very few cases where prosecutions cannot be brought," Mr Oaten said."

The Home Office report estimates it will cost between £100,000 and £250,000 a year to keep 20 terror suspects under surveillance for a year, including the cost of tracking their bank accounts.

But it makes no assessment of the costs of imposing a full "house arrest" on a terror suspect, perhaps reflecting Mr Clarke's determination to keep such powers in reserve.

Securicor and Group 4 are already contracted by the government to run the electronic tagging systems monitoring the movements of sex offenders and criminals released on licence from prison.

Although the private security companies have a relatively good record, the use of private security staff to minimise costs will raise fresh questions about their security vetting.

Harry Fletcher, of Napo, the probation officers union, said if the government was right and "these people were amongst the most dangerous in the country, the monitoring should be the responsibility of the state and not private security companies. The information that will be available to these people will be highly sensitive.

"To have private companies in the intelligence loop could compromise that process. The people who currently monitor electronic tags are predominantly low paid with minimal training. Do we really want national security in these hands?"

A "race equality impact assessment" drawn up by senior Home Office officials will also fuel criticism in the Lords. They admit the Muslim community "may feel disproportionately affected by the new anti-terror powers".

The Home Office assessment says: "While the powers are designed for general application, whatever the nature of the threat, at present the greatest threat to the United Kingdom is assessed to be from extremists who justify their acts with reference to Islam.

"Muslims are a faith group and can come from any racial group, but the majority of Muslims resident in the UK are of Asian origin.

"With this in mind, we will seek to engage local communities if possible where action under the new provisions may have a direct bearing on an individual within their area.

"Our aim is to reduce community tension by reducing the fear of a terrorist attack. We can pursue this goal by engaging with community lead ers of whatever ethnic/faith background."

It adds that a system of safeguards is to be built in to ensure that control orders will not be used to target groups because of their race or religion and that efforts will be made to minimise any adverse impact on community relations.
 
#11
He's an ex-Met Commissioner, not a bobby on the street.
He's an ex-Met Commissioner that deliberately failed to take action on endemic corruption within his force. He is as politically aware and any of the shower within No 10. Perhaps he senses a new job in the offing!
 
#12
MrPVRd said:
He's an ex-Met Commissioner, not a bobby on the street.
He's an ex-Met Commissioner that deliberately failed to take action on endemic corruption within his force. He is as politically aware and any of the shower within No 10. Perhaps he senses a new job in the offing!
Agreed, he's a politician and there may be another job in the offing, as PTP says. I suppose all Police are corrupt :roll:

Personally, I think he's apolitical as his response about homeowners being able to use excessive force wasn't appreciated by the Govt.