Informant who triggered Forest Gate raid was an 'utter incompetent'
It gets bloody worse the more we discover about the police anti-terror raid in Forest Gate.
It now transpires that the man who gave the police the tip off had an IQ of just 69 and was described as an "utter incompetent" when he was jailed for a terrorist offence.
You couldn't make this stuff up.
Scotland Yard has insisted that a single reliable source was behind the raid in which Mohammed Abdul Kahar, 23, was shot and arrested along with his brother Abul Koyair, 20. They were released without charge several days later.
Police refused to comment on reports in the Sunday Mirror that the intelligence came from a former waiter, Mohammed Abu Bakr Mansha, 22, a childhood friend of the men, who was jailed in January for possessing an old address of a decorated British soldier in what police suspected was a terror plot. His IQ is reportedly 31 points below the average of 100.
Thousands marched through London yesterday demanding that the police give a proper apology for the raid rather than the muted apology given by Met Deputy Chief Andy Hayman who apologised for "any hurt that may have been caused". Astonishingly enough, Tony Blair has chosen this as the appropriate time to honour Mr Hayman with an OBE.
As I've said already, you couldn't make this up.
To recap, 250 policemen raided a house in Forest Gate acting on evidence given to them by a retard and shot a man in the chest. Hayman told us, "We'd better get used to this sort of thing" and Blair has given him an OBE.
You'd laugh if it wasn't so bloody depressing.
Click title for full article.
Tags:
5 comments:
It is stories like this and the insane Menezes incident that make me wonder if the Brits have not gone more over board with Blair's police state ambitions than has the US. Of course, here, this kind of thing happens a lot in drug related busts, but is not much reported.
Bhc, it actually is worse here than in the states.
Blair seems to think, and has said so publicly, that we have a human right not to be blown up.
It makes you wonder if he even understands what human rights are. And the bugger's a lawyer, so there's really no excuse for that level of ignorance.
I'm glad that the fact that you "haven't been following this story very closely" doesn't hinder you from jumping right in with a few racial stereotypes.
And I don't think having a brother who attended a rally in London is a reason to put anyone under suspicion, do you?
Are you responsible for the actions of your brother?
And the protest was over cartoons that depicted Islam as a religion of terrorists.
And it is remarkable, not only that they acted on the information given to them by a simpleton but that this information wa not in any way corroborated.
I'm glad that the fact that you "haven't been following this story very closely" doesn't hinder you from jumping right in with a few racial stereotypes.
The somewhat tongue-in-cheek point I made about IQ scores hardly requires reference to the particulars of this story. But don't let that stop you, carry on.
By the way, my statement also doesn't qualify as a stereotype. A stereotype is a prejudgement, often false, extended to all members of a particular group. Instead, I made a statement of statistical fact. I stated that on average the ethnic groups previously named have lower IQs than white Europeans. I did not state that all members of these ethnic groups had lower IQs. That would be demonstrably false. Nor did I proceed to give any reasoning why this might be the case, so don't worry your little head about it.
Are you responsible for the actions of your brother?
Of course not, but I suspect where you find one extremist you might very well find others. However, my larger point was that the police aren't too forceful but instead too weak in their approach to terrorism and Islamic extremism.
And the protest was over cartoons that depicted Islam as a religion of terrorists.
Good point. All those signs that said "Behead Those Who Insult Islam" and "Europe You Will Pay. Your 7/11 is on its Way" did a lot to discourage that depiction.
And it is remarkable, not only that they acted on the information given to them by a simpleton but that this information wa not in any way corroborated.
Again, I'm not familiar with all the intimate details but in general it is, of course, always preferable that information be corroborated. However, when a threat is deemed serious enough some action must be taken. If the police hesitated and a terrorist attack did take place you and others would be screaming at the police for incompetency - and you would be right for a change.
There is a balance to be struck between civil rights and the needs of the Police to protect us.
Indeed, I think this is the issue that will most divide people post 9-11 with Blair and other right wingers like yourself being prepared to give up those rights and people like myself who are not prepared to give up those rights.
On one thing though I am sure we can agree.
It would be very helpful if we had the support of the Muslim community and this incident has done us much harm within that community. An apology swiftly issued would have done much to reduce the tensions and it was unfortunate that the police held these men for so long and then failed to properly apologise.
As for the incidents surrounding the cartoons, I thought the cartoons were offensive, but I did not think that this justified the calls for jihad made by certain muslims at the time and I would have supported prosecuting those people.
Freedom of speech is a misunderstood thing. I do not have the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded building for instance, and those Muslims went way out of line when they called for the things they called for.
However, when it comes to finding the balance that needs to be struck I am reminded of Benjamin Franklin's phrase that is carried in the footer of this blog. "Those who would sacrifice liberty for a percieved increase in security, deserve neither and will eventually lose both".
Post a Comment