No charges after anti-terror raid

metallideth · 22nd April 2009, 1:44pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8011341.stm

I wasn't sure whether to open up a new thread for this, or put it in the G20 police assault thread as the whole thing has had the distinct whiff of a smokescreen from the get-go.

Quote:

All 12 men arrested over a suspected bomb plot in the UK have now been released without charge by police.

Eleven - all Pakistani nationals - have been transferred to UK Border Agency custody and face possible deportation.

Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Peter Fahy defended the inquiry, saying he was not "embarrassed".

But the Muslim Council of Britain said the government should admit it had made a mistake and claimed the way it had dealt with the men was "dishonourable".

**Ghostsuit** · 23rd April 2009, 11:17am

Ok so 11 of the 12 are illegal immigrants, therefore have committed a crime and rather than charging them were deporting them?

AWESOMEUS MAXIMUS · 23rd April 2009, 12:07pm

I don't think that's the issue.

*LesMTS* · 23rd April 2009, 12:14pm

Is the issue not that they rushed into action without finalising the evidence because, in masterclass of press responsibility, details of the operation were published after a photographer snapped the documents?

Runt · 23rd April 2009, 1:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghostsuit

Ok so 11 of the 12 are illegal immigrants, therefore have committed a crime and rather than charging them were deporting them?

Are we reading the same article or is my maths that bad? Of the twelve, one is British and 10 hold student visas.

I'm not understanding why they are being deported if no charges were brought and why they were even held in the first place if there wasn't enough evidence to make a charge. I must be missing something.

*LesMTS* · 23rd April 2009, 1:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runt

Are we reading the same article or is my maths that bad? Of the twelve, one is British and 10 hold student visas.

I'm not understanding why they are being deported if no charges were brought and why they were even held in the first place if there wasn't enough evidence to make a charge. I must be missing something.

They were under surveillance, the police still had a lot more information to gather but the papers blew open the operation. So the police were faced with a choice between "act now" or call the operation off and potentially leave some nasty individuals to relocate and begin planning again.
They opted for the former but, because it was rushed and investigations couldn't be finished, they didn't have all the evidence the needed to charge them (or to say they were up to nothing remarkable). They're being deported, I believe, because they still may be a security risk.
It's the press that's at fault here.

Runt · 23rd April 2009, 1:22pm

Oh, tough choice. Ridiculous the media managed to get hold of it in the first place if it was that important an operation but I also hate the fact you can fuck with someone's life by holding them at length without a certain amount of evidence. If there isn't enough to bring charges then technically there's been no crime so why should they be deported?

*LesMTS* · 23rd April 2009, 1:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runt

Oh, tough choice. Ridiculous the media managed to get hold of it in the first place if it was that important an operation but I also hate the fact you can fuck with someone's life by holding them at length without a certain amount of evidence.

The official in charge of it was photographed getting out of a car with the documents in view (and sacked). He definitely should have been more careful, but it's not reasonable to suggest that the information on the documents was on view to the public, as if you could have read it by simply walking past the man. It was irresponsible to put such information in the public domain.

Runt · 23rd April 2009, 5:22pm

Indeed. It'd be great if someone sorted out some shit that prevented them from RUINING things like this (and also stop printing the names/pictures of people who've merely been 'accused' of crimes or 'arrested on suspicion'). Still not convinced the right thing was done afterwards though by holding those people with an obvious lack of evidence.

*LesMTS* · 23rd April 2009, 5:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runt

Still not convinced the right thing was done afterwards though by holding those people with an obvious lack of evidence.

Nor am I, but I don't envy the decision maker.

metallideth · 23rd April 2009, 5:35pm

The main curiosity from my point of view is what would Bob Quick, in the middle of an apparently serious criminal investigation, be doing entering through the front door of Downing Street in order to consult ministers? The very fact of his being there begs any enquiring mind to ask the question 'why', especially when there are so many other places to meet, and ways to have the information divulged to interested parties.

As far as I'm aware, it is not general protocol for people to enter the front door of Downing Street unless there is a need for them to be seen doing so. Would it be outlandish to suggest that Bob Quick - knowingly or unknowningly - ended up being part of an effort by the Met and/or the cabinet to effectively create a "terror threat" story in order to bury more pressing yet less flattering news?

PAPA LAZEROU · 23rd April 2009, 6:14pm

I would have charged the terror suspects.....charged them for the free room and board that the UK taxpayer (thats us if ya dont know) forked out for them after their little 'adventure' in the beautiful UK.

Utter fucks....come to MY country and 'plot' terror for easter will ya??? WILL YA FUCK BLOW UP MY CADBURYS DAIRY MILK EGG YA FANATICAL FAN-DANS!!!! Have a prison cell and think about what you have done you naughty naughty little fuckers.

Kinda funny tho that they are getting deported to fuck for their troubles lol

Semprini · 23rd April 2009, 6:53pm

Stormfront's that way, mate.

**Ghostsuit** · 23rd April 2009, 9:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runt

Are we reading the same article or is my maths that bad? Of the twelve, one is British and 10 hold student visas.

Never read the article just the quoted bit.

Don't mention stormfront, something like them added me to a mailing list, it was some weird shit they sent about black guys up for rape charges and stuff.

Runt · 23rd April 2009, 9:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghostsuit

Never read the article just the quoted bit.
.

Dude, 'Pakistani nationals' does not automatically mean illegal immigrants

Although I'd understand if you came to that conclusion based on the fact they were being deported. Considering no charges were brought against them, I could see that as being the only reason they should be deported (if it was the case, but it isn't).