Can't believe nobody's mentioned the scumbag press's role in this security breach.

</p>

They take the pictures, out them and then squeal all over the media about it. Unbelievable.</p>

 

It's a conspiracy to draw the public attention away from coppers bundling over old blokes.</p>

(lookout) </p>

 

Feel a little bit sorry for the man

He is reading his papers in the official car to be sure he has his facts right. Then he has arrived and quickly bundles them together, by pure chance the important page is outward facing and before he has chance to quickly rearrange them, some bugger with 25 mega pixel digital camera with a 10 times optical zoom has photographed them, poor sod.

 

To be fair

They just took a photo (may have been a freelance photographer) not knowing what was in his hands, when they discovered what it showed they reported it rather than just printing the photo uncensored.
Fortunate that the photo hadn't already made it onto the international press wires before they could pull it.

It's also fortunate that they were to do the raids this morning (or at least that's what they say), as having to do the raids before they'd completed their surveillance and gained all their evidence could have put the whole operation at risk.

 

Eh?

</p>

If all they did was &quot;report it&quot; the how come it's all over the media and the raids were jeapordised by having to be brought forward. </p>

Anti-terrorist actions seriously compromised by the press. Get yer facts straight.</p>

 

RE: Eh?

Because if it was already on the wires and one newspaper reported it, the police wouldn't know for certain if that picture had gone elsewhere so therefore have to bring forward the raids.

You'd think, if you were carrying sensitive documents, you'd at least put them in a folder.

 

Double Eh?

&quot;It's also fortunate that they were to do the raids this morning (or at least that's what they say), as having to do the raids before they'd completed their surveillance and gained all their evidence could have put the whole operation at risk.&quot;</p>

They weren't. Which part of they had to bring them forward don't you understand?</p>



</p>

 

RE: Double Eh?

The news today was reporting that the Chief Constable of Manchester said the raids would have taken place this morning.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6064547.ece

"Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick said that he "deeply regretted" having jeopardised co-ordinated raids in the North West which were planned for the early hours of this morning but had to be brought forward and carried out in broad daylight yesterday afternoon. "

Of course they were brought forward, my point was that they had completed gaining the evidence.

 

Feel a bit sorry for the bloke in charge

a complete schoolboy error but seems trivial to resign over after 34 years in the job and all that expertise down the pan, especially when you consider some things our MPs have done but never resigned for.

In fact do MPs still resign when they f**k up? I'm sure they used to once upon a time.

 

I agree

that for an experienced anti-terrorism official to resign over this is unfortunate, and probably over the top reaction

 

Chuffin'ell you're all over the place.

</p>

So you've decided that the operations weren't jeapordised because they'd finished gathering the evidence. That's all that could have jeapordised them is it?</p>

They had to be brought forward because the actions of the scumbag press could easily have alerted the suspects. Potential mass murderers. Nice.</p>

 

RE: Chuffin'ell you're all over the place.

There was me thinking it was because we had a careless official who doesn't know what a folder is for!

I was saying that it's fortunate that they had completed the investigation as if they'd done the raids before that could mean they didn't have enough evidence for a prosecution.

 

You were saying it was fortunate they didn't have to bring forward the raids.

You've since learned they did and changed your story.</p>

And as you've already agreed elsewhere in this thread the man made a &quot;mistake&quot; which wouldn't have been a problem if a media sniper hadn't been waiting to grab his fifteen minutes of fame with no concern at all that he might blow the whole operation.</p>

</p>

 

RE: You were saying it was fortunate they didn't have to bring forward the raids.

FFS are you doing this on purpose?

Point me to where I said they didn't have to bring forward the raids - what I said was that they didn't have to do the raid before all the evidence had been gained, which presumably it was as they were due to do the raids this morning/


And when I said that they were due to do the raids this morning you said "no they weren't" until I showed you the link.

There was a photo out there, yes, but the press reported this, however because it was freelance and it was out on international wires they had to do the raid in the afternoon.

You've completly missed my point about the fact that fortunately all the evidence had been collected and they were ready to do the raids.

That's my last in this thread because you are just arguing for the sake of it and twisting what people say like you always do.

 

I haven't finished with you yet.

</p>

Everything you said is wrong.</p>

</p>