It seems increasingly likely that the intelligence the police used identify the "suspects" and to break into an innocent Muslim family's flat, was from a "police informer". (source)
And today's the spin from the Met is
"even if it suggests a 5% likelihood of something nasty, we can't take that risk".
But this avoids the question of why the raid was given such a high profile and does little to increase the trust in police relationship with the Muslim community, whose cooperation is paramount if the vital intelligence is to flow to the authorities.
To rely only on a police informer is always likely to present difficulties. They are always paid, either in cash or promises, and to that extent the information they provide must always be examined with care.
This, presumably a leak from the Met/SIS, was reported by the BBC last Friday.
"Security sources have described the Forest Gate raid as "potentially significant" and said it followed months of surveillance." (source)
Months of surveillance? If that was the case then why is the official version now that speed was of the essence? And during those "months of surveillance " what attempts were made to corroborate the informant's evidence?
This bears all hallmarks the Charles de Menezes shooting. In that case the police, presumably in another intelligence led operation, had De Menezes' flat in Scotia Road under surveillance and still managed to shoot an innocent man.
When the police eventually admit this was another botched operation, surely calls will grow for an enquiry into the effectiveness of our security services. Are we getting good value for the £1.5 Billion the funding planned for 2005/2006? (source pdf) The list of intelligence failures is growing.
Comments