UK Channel 4 20/02/2006

by **OpLan** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:11 am

Monday 20th February 20.00 GMT Dispatches:Spinning Terror With Britain facing the greatest terrorist threat in our history, the nation trusts the government to devise policies to protect the nation and our way of life. But, in this film, Dispatches reporter Peter Oborne reveals that our trust may be misplaced. He presents the case that the government has reacted to the London bombings by rushing through anti-terror policies motivated by the desire to ward off tabloid criticism, gain electoral advantage and make the government look strong. This film is a damning critique of a government that has helped spin terror lies, motivated too often by narrow political calculation, an approach that has serious implications for our security. Reporter: Peter Oborne; Prod/ Dir: Dai Richards; Exec Prod: Eamon Matthews; Prod Co: Mentorn Oxford <a href="http://www.channel4sales.com/programming-and-schedules/channel4-schedules.aspx?date=20-02-2006">www.channel4sales.com/pro...20-02-2006</a> Dispatches is usually a decent hours worth of seemingly honest journalism..typically 'undercover reporter with a hidden camera' kind of stuff..one program springs to mind where they smuggled a camera into a New Labour campaign headquarters,and documented how they stock publicity stunts with party workers,so that when the prime minister or whoever is making an appearance,he has a crowd of loyal supporters to do things like ask him questions he can answer, and block critics from getting anywhere near a microphone or camera. Given it's subject matter,I can see this surfacing on the net as did the BBC proggy 'The Power of Nightmares'..

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:39 pm

moving out of data dump to general discussion

by **antiaristo** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:35 pm

The more I learn, the more this "terrorist attack" resembles what happened in Madrid in March 2004. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Families set to sue over 7/7 errors Victims' lawyers claim that Tube bombers were allowed to slip through the security net Mark Townsend, legal affairs correspondent Sunday March 5, 2006 The Observer Families of the 7 July bombing victims are preparing to sue over intelligence failings that allowed the suicide bombers to launch their attacks on London. City law firms representing them have disclosed that they are exploring legal action in the light of growing evidence that the atrocities might have been preventable had there not been crucial mistakes in intelligence in the run-up to the bombing explosions. Sources at law firm Lovells said that if it was proved that the bombings were preventable, the government could face a costly negligence claim from families of the 52 people who were killed, as well as the 700 injured. Two of the bombers were placed under surveillance by MI5 16 months before the attacks, including ringleader Mohammad Sidique Khan, but were judged not to have been a threat. This development comes amid mounting disquiet over the government's decision to refuse a public inquiry into the bombings and instead publish a 'narrative of events' compiled by a senior civil servant. Although the narrative is based on evidence uncovered by police and MI5, there is no date set for publication and its terms of reference remain vague. Yasmin Waljee, pro bono manager of Lovells, said whether the attacks could have been avoided could become a legal issue, depending on what the narrative revealed. 'It remains a possibility,' she said. 'Clients quite clearly want answers and if there are gaps in the narrative they may well do something about it, but there will have to be obvious [intelligence] gaps.' Scotland Yard and MI5 already face questions over whether the public was misled in the weeks following 7 July. At the time, Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the attacks came 'out of the blue', amid initial claims that the four bombers were 'clean skins' and unknown to intelligence officers. There is also concern among MI5 officials that details of what the security services knew about the suspects before the attacks may have been withheld from the public by ministers. It has also emerged that lawyers representing relatives of the victims are looking to launch a judicial review of the government's decision not to hold a public inquiry. If the government's narrative does not fully address concerns over intelligence mistakes, lawyers believe the legal case for a public inquiry will be compelling. legal issues,' said Waljee.'Some clients are very, very concerned about the fact that they haven't had a public inquiry and there are strong Tony Blair ruled out an inquiry, arguing that it would distract the security services from fighting terrorism. At least one other major City law firm is exploring whether to challenge the government over this decision. There is fresh concern, too, over the government's handling of compensation payouts for British terror victims. Lawyers are furious that the Home Office has ruled out awarding loss of earnings to victims while also appearing to contradict Blair's earlier promise to compensate British citizens caught up in terrorist attacks abroad. Lawyers representing victims of the 7 July bombings and those involved in overseas attacks such as last summer's bombings in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh have condemned the government's handling of the issue as 'ludicrous.' The consultation period to reform the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority following complaints about its performance after July's attacks closed last week.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1723749,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/u...49,00.html</a> Qutb, I think you owe a reponse on this one. Not to me, but to those who were the victims.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Met suppress files that tell full shooting story David Leppard Police hold back dossier that could reveal Sir Ian Blair's role after Tube killing fiasco THE Metropolitan police have blocked attempts by independent investigators to obtain sensitive files about the role that Sir Ian Blair, the commissioner, played after the shooting of an innocent Brazilian man on the London Underground. Well-placed sources say the Met has declined repeated requests by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to disclose hundreds of pages of internal papers. The documents give the Met’s private assessment of the botched counter-terrorist operation that led to Jean Charles de Menezes mistakenly being killed by Yard marksmen at Stockwell Underground station last July. The IPCC wants the Yard files handed over before it reviews Blair’s response to claims by the de Menezes family that he made false or misleading statements after the shooting. The fresh legal tussle has reignited claims by the de Menezes family that the Yard is attempting to cover up its true culpability for the shooting. This weekend Harriet Wistrich, the family’s solicitor, said: “Every time the police attempt to resist providing information in relation to the shooting it creates the impression they have something to hide. If they’ve nothing to hide, why not come forward with it?” The papers include discussions about how much compensation the Met thinks it should pay to the de Menezes family; the risk that individual officers might face murder or manslaughter charges; the vulnerability of Blair and the Met to an action for civil damages; and whether Special Branch officers altered surveillance logs to cover up the mistaken identification. De Menezes, a 27-year-old electrician, was shot eight times by two Scotland Yard marksmen on a train at Stockwell. The shooting happened on July 22, the day after four suspected Islamist suicide bombers tried to detonate bombs on three Tube trains and a bus. At the inquest into de Menezes’s death 10 days ago, John Cummins, the senior IPCC investigator, said publicly he had experienced no obstruction from the Met in his inquiry. But behind the scenes, the IPCC has pressed for the Met files at two meetings in the past three weeks. The commission has told Blair it is entitled to them under section 17 of the 2002 Police Reform Act, which gives it the power to demand “all such information and documents” it judges necessary to conduct its inquiries. The Met has declined to surrender the files. Scotland Yard bosses insist the papers are “legally privileged” and they are under no legal obligation to disclose them. One senior source said the discussions had been “cordial” and did not amount to a dispute. He said: “Quite properly, if you are under suspicion and you take legal advice you expect those conversations to be privileged. “But the IPCC thinks section 17 trumps everything. They think they are entitled to everything they want. We’re saying as a point of principle here, no, they are not.” Behind the scenes, the tension between the Met and the IPCC has been simmering since the day of the shooting. Part of the IPCC’s own file on the killing of de Menezes, showing police blunders, was leaked last September. The file showed how an undercover officer who was supposed to be watching for a suspected terrorist to emerge from a house in Tulse Hill, south London, was relieving himself at the time de Menezes appeared.The disclosures infuriated Blair and led to renewed calls for his resignation. The Crown Prosecution Service has said it hopes to decide by Easter whether any officers will be charged with murder or manslaughter. Last December the IPCC began a second inquiry after the de Menezes family complained that Blair had misled the public over the shooting. Senior Yard insiders fear this new inquiry could potentially force Blair to resign. It is focusing on comments Blair made at a press conference a few hours after the shooting at which he said: “I understand the man was challenged and refused to obey.” That statement turned out to be false. In a separate statement, cleared by at least three senior officers, the Yard’s press bureau said of de Menezes that “his clothing and his behaviour at the station added to suspicions”. The Met now accepts that there was nothing suspicious about his clothes or behaviour. A spokeswoman for the IPCC said: “Our investigation is progressing and we are working with the Metropolitan police to ensure we have access to all the necessary material.” Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president, is expected to raise the case when he visits Britain this week.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2070470,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...70,00.html</a> It's known in the trade as the "Mills Defence"

by **antiaristo** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:25 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Revealed: How suicide bomber used to work for the Government By Ian Herbert, North of England Correspondent Published: 11 March 2006 His raging hatred for the West, in a video justifying the London suicide bombings, has made him seem the most transparent of the four men who detonated bombs in rucksacks and killed 52 others on 7 July. But Mohammad Sidique Khan's extraordinary and rapid transition from law-abiding citizen to terrorist is revealed in documents showing he used to work for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), helping promote British firms overseas. He also helped Leeds police deal with confrontations between rival gangs of youths. Leeds education authority's personnel file on Khan, obtained by The Independent under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act, shows details of his work for the DTI's export arm in Yorkshire in the mid-1990s, when Britain was seeking more trade links with Asia. But the investigations reveal that Khan lied on his CV about the seniority of his role at the DTI, which escaped the Leeds primary school that hired him on the basis of it. But he did help in the government-led drive to get more trade missions off the ground between 1995 and 1996. Khan prospered as a primary school learning mentor, and his file provides the first real sense of the charisma and empathy with young people which enabled him ultimately to recruit fellow suicide bombers Shahzad Tanweer and Hasib Hussain. But it also charts his sharp decline from 2003. Prolonged absences from school - when it is now known he was visiting Pakistan - were followed by an unexpected failure to return from extended sick leave in 2004. He was told his pay was being stopped and he sent an undated typewritten letter to the headteacher, Sarah Balfour. "I'm sorry I've not been in touch for a while," he wrote. "A lot has happened in the last few months. There is no definite timeframe to when I will return. We are returning next week. Unfortunately this is a letter of resignation from my post." Before Khan took his job with the DTI in August 1995, he had been on a trip to the US. Friends said he came back with cowboy boots and a leather jacket, telling his contemporaries he wanted a career in the US. He became an administration assistant with the Benefits Agency, which he said was dull. The DTI offered better prospects. John Major's Conservative government had just published its Competitiveness White Paper which committed the DTI to boost overseas trade, in Asia among other places. Khan's role did not include "monitoring security" for visits by exporters to overseas British embassies, as he said on his CV. But his fluency in Urdu and Punjabi may have made him optimistic about his prospects of moving beyond his relatively lowly position. Khan left to study at Leeds Metropolitan University in September 1996, and took a 2:2 in business management, his file reveals. He clearly believed his vocation lay in steering disenchanted youths away from crime. He took paid youth and community work from Leeds council while finishing his degree and juggled a job at a petrol station in Ilkley, West Yorkshire. The youth work was for a Saturday club affiliated to Leeds Community School, itself linked to the Iqra bookstore where police later found DVDs glorifying terrorism. He wrote on his school job application: "As a youth worker I have had extensive experience in managing difficult children. I was approached by a member of the community who told me in confidence [that] his younger brother had been suspended from school and his parents were extremely upset. I began ... a discussion with the child [and] met his parents at their house and the situation was [resolved]." Khan also detailed a "potentially dangerous" confrontation at a school. "I have an excellent rapport with the youth [community] so ... I targeted the ringleaders and spoke to them, calming them down and offering sympathy as well as empathy. "We then approached the teachers and as a large group casually walked together up Beeston Hill which [defused] the situation." Associates of Khan have confirmed his role as an interlocutor between police and youths. Khan also described his interventions in the case of a young heroin addict, his help in getting excluded children back into school and how he arbitrated in a dispute between rival gangs. "I feel patience and understanding comes through experience and maturity," he wrote. "I constantly analyse society and speak to people regarding current issues. I consider my ability to empathise with others and listen to their problems as well as offer viable solutions to be one of my strong assists." Hillside Primary was obviously impressed, giving Khan several extensions to an initial £200-a-month contract. He also drove the school minibus. Mrs Balfour, wife of the Labour MP John Trickett, valued him and allowed him paid special leave. "He was great with the children and they all loved him," she has said. "He did so much for them, helping and supporting them and running extra clubs and activities." Khan's handwritten notes, which seem to be a part of his appraisals, reveal more. "I'm energetic, I [look for a] way of bettering things," he wrote. "Can build up trust and rapport with disillusion, understanding and empathy." Khan clearly became disenchanted with the modest form of Islam practised by his father, Tika Khan, and stepmother, Mamida Begum. But in 1999 he had started frequenting the mosque. His file shows the process to radical Islam had started by 2002, a year after he joined Hillside. He began taking leave on religious grounds. He took more than two weeks in January/February 2002 for "Muslim religious obligation, Haj, pilgrimage" and a similar period for "religious observances" the next year. From November 2003, he took 18 months, costing his employer an estimated £6,000. But the sharp decline came in September 2004 when he was signed off sick, first for three days, then a further 10 days, a further three weeks and another three weeks. He is believed to have cited depression. On 9 December 2004, after 10 weeks of absence began, Mrs Balfour told her personnel department in an "urgent" memo: "Sidique Khan should have provided the school with a sick note from November 22. Despite several letters reminding him of the school's sickness-reporting procedures he has failed to provide a sick-note. I request you to stop [his] pay." Three days before, Khan had flown to Pakistan via Istanbul with Shahzad Tanweer. A week later, they took a train to Lahore then Faisalabad, and disappeared, Pakistani security officers said. They surfaced in Britain on 8 February. MI5 believes they met Muslim extremists during the visit. Khan died, killing seven others, when he detonated his bomb at Edgware Road station on 7 July. The life of Mohammad Sidique Khan * October 1974 Born, Leeds * 1994 Works first for Benefits Agency, then DTI (1995), then learning mentor at Hillside Primary (2001) * 2001 Upsets father and stepmother by marrying a girl of Indian-Muslim descent, Hasina Patel, whom he met at Leeds Metropolitan University * 2003 Establishes gyms in Beeston, radicalising young British Muslims. Periods of absence from Hillside * July 2004 Introduced to government minister Hilary Benn during school tour of Commons. Is also subject of routine MI5 threat assessment after his name crops up in an investigation; check not pursued * September 2004 Begins long sick leave * November 2004 Travels to Pakistan with Tanweer to prepare for London attacks * July 2005 Bombs Edgware Road Tube station<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article350613.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...350613.ece</a>

UK Channel 4 20/02/2006

UK Channel 4 20/02/2006

Re: UK Channel 4 20/02/2006

The Powers Are Separating.

A Bit More For Qutb to Ignore

The Resume of a Patsy

Who is online