Another terror plot unravels!
The row over allegations that lives were endangered by leaks about major anti-terrorism operations deepened last night as it emerged that there were a series of disclosures about one highly sensitive investigation.
As Tony Blair rejected calls for an inquiry, and Liberal Democrats called upon the police to investigate, it emerged that journalists received up to three separate briefings about an allegation that a group of men was planning to abduct and behead a Muslim British soldier.
The Guardian has been told that an aide to John Reid, the home secretary, was responsible for one of those leaks, and has also learnt that there is strong suspicion among the highest-ranking police at Scotland Yard that one of their own officers also briefed the media.
The controversy centres on a series of raids which led to nine arrests across Birmingham in February. Six men were subsequently charged with a number of terrorist offences. The row over the leaks which accompanied those arrests erupted after deputy assistant commissioner Peter Clarke, head of Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism command, warned on Tuesday that such disclosures, both in advance of operations and while they were ongoing, could be illegal and highly dangerous.
The Guardian reports that this information which later proved to be inaccurate came from the office of John Reid while in a further development there is now a strong suspicion that a further leak came from an officer within Scotland Yard.
Defence lawyers are expected to argue that it will be impossible for any of the men arrested in Birmingham to receive a fair trial as a consequence of the leaks at the time of their arrest. One lawyer, Tayab Ali, said he had been told by a senior West Midlands officer that the disclosures may have been an offence under the Official Secrets Act.
So we are reminded yet again of how the British system of justice will be run. Without a scrap of evidence UK citizens can be arrested, no charges pressed and their lives and good names destroyed on the basis of surreptitious rumours from the office of the Home Secretary, John Reid.
Naturally, Reid attempts to spin his way out of this by blaming the government’s army of spin-doctors. A rather stupid move which is bound to backfire on him. Reid claimed that the leakers were trying to “squeeze out some short-term presentational advantage” by secretly briefing on anti-terror operations.
-
N.b. Reid clearly understands the principle: never being one to pass up a “short-term presentational” opportunity as when when he visited Forest Gate last year to warn Muslim parents to look for signs of brainwashing in their children. Right on cue, Reid was heckled by the highly visible Abu Izzadeen (aka Trevor Brooks), a well known Islamic extremist and activist, which raised questions about how it was he was able wander into the room of invited guests, reported to be at a secret location, without drawing the attention of police and security. As Abu Izzadeen was ejected from the room, Reid remarked “I was making the very simple point that however sensitive these issues are, we must never allow ourselves to be intimidated or shouted down.” It is ironic because this incident drowned the voices of moderate Muslims who were in attendance, and sadly their opinions on his talk were never broadcasted. You might also recall that this was during the period when Reid was attempting to raise his profile as a possible contender for the Labour leadership.
Other events that were unfolding at the time of the Muslim soldier beheading terror leak were damaging stories about fundraiser Lord Levy (the arrests coming a day before his), Prescott/casino sleaze and turmoil in the Home Office. A source at West Midlands Police said at the time that “There is widespread fury that Whitehall officials have been briefing sensitive details of this operation. This terror raid has come at a very convenient time for the Government as it has taken a number of embarrassing stories off the news agenda.”
Iain Dale has posted online the correspondence between Shadow Attorney General Dominic Grieve and John Reid here in which the Guardian allegations are emphatically denied. As Dale says, it is only a matter of time before the gauntlet is thrown down and some brave editor reveals the identity of the ministerial aide responsible for briefing the press. We must wait with baited breath until then.
Of course Blair doesn’t want another leak enquiry, according to the conservatives this would bring to over 60 the number of investigations that have been carried out so far. From Iain Dale.
60 Leak Inquiries in First 3 Years. In the first three years of the Labour Government, 60 leak investigations were ordered by Whitehall departments. There were nine leak inquiries alone in the Home Office in the first three years under Jack Straw (The Guardian, 14 February 2000). These included inquiries into: a leak to the Guardian of a memo from Jack Straw watering down provisions in the Freedom of Information Bill; a leak to the Telegraph of the outcome of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry; and even a leak from the Cabinet Office into David Clark’s first-class air trip to Australia and New Zealand as part of fact finding tour into freedom of information legislation.
Leak enquiries are only conducted when the leak embarrasses the government but not when the identity of the leaker would embarrass the government. A charge made by David Gauke (con) and one which the government … naturally denies.



6 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 27, 2007 at 10:32 pm
The Antagonist
Great blog and thanks for the link.
With regard to Omar Brooks and the ‘on cue’ incident with Herr Doktor John Reid at the invite only, secret location in East London, it’s worth noting that even ‘Gorgeous’ George Galloway — he who shall not countenance the notion of any ‘theory’ that doth possess the remotest scent of ‘conspiracy’, wrote an open letter to the Home Secretary about proceedings alleging that, “There are only two conceivable explanations as to how this man, at this sensitive time, was allowed to hijack your Potemkin Village performance today.”
It went as follows:
———————–
Dear Home Secretary,
I have been watching open-mouthed the altercation you have provoked in East London with your ill-judged, patronising and provocative foray into territory you clearly barely understand. There is much that will be said about the child-like – Patricia Hewittesque! – performance you gave your audience. I want to concentrate on the altercation.
The man who harangued you – Abu Izzadine – is a well-known and violent extremist from an organisation your own government has proscribed. Yet he was allowed within punching distance of the British Home Secretary. How ? Why ?
This is the same man who led a group of fanatic thugs in the brief “hostage-taking” of myself and my daughter and several innocent members of the public during a general election meeting last year. This is well known to the Special Branch and senior police officers in East London – the very people in charge of your security today.
This man has appeared on many occasions on television and in the press as a dangerous extremist who has praised the terrorist attacks on July 7th and 9/11. His comments were amongst those adduced in your own government’s case for the proscription of the Al Ghuraba organisation.
There are only two conceivable explanations as to how this man, at this sensitive time, was allowed to hijack your Potemkin Village performance today.
Either our police and security services are so fantastically incompetent that Bin Laden himself might have slipped in to beard you at your podium. Or someone somewhere wanted to engineer precisely this confrontation to show you in a certain light and to portray the Muslims of Britain in the most aggressive violent and extreme way possible, as a justification for the utterly counter-productive policies you are following.
Which is it ?
Because, as you know, I am not a believer in conspiracy theories I am leaning towards the first explanation. If I am right then yet again the Metropolitan Police have proved almost comically incompetent. The sight of a small, slight, helmeted police officer being dwarfed by a giant ranting fanatical thug – talk about a thin blue line! – as all that stood between you and a violent attack will certainly have provided food for thought and encouragement to the country’s enemies. Yet again the justification for continuing in office of Sir Ian Blair must be called into question.
But if I am wrong, and this all turns out to have been some Nixonian “dirty tricks” operation..then of course the questions raised are much more profound and dangerous
I await your response with interest.
Yours sincerely
George Galloway MP
———————–
Original letter on the Respect web site: http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1171
April 28, 2007 at 10:26 pm
athenaeum
Thanks for that Ant! And for your kind comment.
Earlier today I watched this week’s Question time where the issue of the leak was addressed – QT tends to be a toe-curling episode for me most of the time and this week’s programme did not disappoint. The one thing that was NEVER discussed was the fact that the leak was false! That fact was completely side-stepped and inevitably the question of the innocence of the people arrested and the injustice of it all also never made it onto the airwaves.
There was a lot of hand-wringing over the issue of whether to string people up for endangering lives by leaking information (those people being the spin-meisters in Herr Reid’s office – you can just imagine the butt-clenching thats going on there right now) and Scotland Yard’s leaker was never mentioned.
The Health Secretary put it all down to speculation, of course, and asked for the evidence to be presented first so that nulabber could decide whether to hold an enquiry. DImbleby, with a twinkle in his eye, asked her whether it wasn’t the job of the enquiry to uncover that evidence.
Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practise to deceive!
April 28, 2007 at 10:30 pm
athenaeum
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi?redirect=fs.stm&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&news=1&nol_storyid=4097948‘,’console’,'toolbar=0,location=0,status=0,menubar=0,scrollbars=0,resizable=0,width=681,height=487
If you haven’t watched it yet, it’s here. The author Douglas Murray makes me want to stab my eyes out.
April 28, 2007 at 10:32 pm
athenaeum
Oh and it was Caroline Flint, Health minister, not secretary…
April 29, 2007 at 2:12 pm
aulelia
great post athenaeum
i am not currently in the UK but i’d love to know whether all of this will affect blair’s legacy with the public. what are your thoughts?
April 29, 2007 at 10:17 pm
athenaeum
Thanks Aulelia and nice of you to drop by!
Where to begin! We’re certainly not going to be erecting statues in his honour! This latest incident is just one of many that have brought disgrace to the labour govt. In my opinion, I think his biggest legacy will be the question “why did we let him get away with it?” And the answer will be that representative democracy was weakened under him so there was nothing that could be done to alter the course of some of Blair’s most drastic actions, like the war in Iraq. He simply paid no mind to the public who were very much against it. And in other areas most of the UK is to the left of Blair on social issues. But he has presided over the most vicious attacks on education, health, welfare and an increase in inequality and polarization of society.
Here are some epithets which will forever be associated with him:
War criminal.
Bush poodle.
Liar.
Blair’s is damaged goods and reviled en masse by the British public. It’s really sad that he destroyed the Labour party in the process. Imagine he came in with such a huge majority, a lot of people really believed that things were going to improve under him after the hell of Thatcherism and that we would create a kinder, more prosperous Britain. Instead we got more Thatcherism and a war which has cost over £4.5 billion.
The Americans love him and no doubt he will be going on speaking tours of the US when he is finally dragged kicking and screaming from No.10. The US awarded him a medal for services rendered but he hasn’t been able to pick it up yet for fear that this will lead to charges of his being Bush’s poodle.