UK Counter-Terrorism (merged thread)

[Norfolk]

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

In today's Daily Telegraph, under the title 'Repressive law turns terrorists into martyrs', a guest opinion column by Col. Tim Collins (of Gulf War fame for his message before war commenced): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../03/do0304.xml

Pungent as one would expect from him; draws upon his Northern Ireland experience and the UK governments proposal for 42 days detention before charge (passed first legislative stage).

davidbfpo

Indeed.

It would seem that the Government misses few opportunities to ignore the sound advice of experienced professionals in such matters. Is it simple incompetence, bad advice, or a reflection of a particular mentality?

[davidbfpo]

Originally Posted by Norfolk

Indeed.

It would seem that the Government misses few opportunities to ignore the sound advice of experienced professionals in such matters. Is it simple incompetence, bad advice, or a reflection of a particular mentality?

A mixture of all three factors plus some others. So much of the government's policy on counter-terrorism, plus many other areas of policy, is theatre: make an announcement that appears effective, introduce new laws (often badly worded to the point of being worthless) and then wonder why no-one uses them. The Financial Times is the only UK paper to ask a year on, after one Tony Blair statement what happened to the announced policies.

The classic was deploying light armour, tanks to London Heathrow airport a few years ago in response to a perceived threat to aviation; loved the footage until someone asked what value were they and then blamed the Army for giving them only one response option.

davidbfpo

[marct]

Hi David,

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

So much of the government's policy on counter-terrorism, plus many other areas of policy, is theatre: make an announcement that appears effective, introduce new laws (often badly worded to the point of being worthless) and then wonder why no-one uses them.

And pretty bad theatre, too! That was certainly my impression upon reading "Promoting Good Campus Relations, Fostering Shared Values and Preventing Violent Extremism in Universities and Higher Education Colleges" - schlock that wouldn't have more than a two night run if it wasn't financed by the Gov't!

In a lot of ways, I am reminded of the reactions that appeared in North America surrounding the Satanism Scare (Google, Amazon) of the 80's and early 90's. Bad theatre, bad social science, and just plain silliness all around.

[davidbfpo]

Originally Posted by marct

And pretty bad theatre, too! That was certainly my impression upon reading "Promoting Good Campus Relations, Fostering Shared Values and Preventing Violent Extremism in Universities and Higher Education Colleges" - schlock that wouldn't have more than a two night run if it wasn't financed by the Gov't!

Yes, an amazing document, which the university heads appeared to accept, but was rejected by the main campus teaching union and national student union. 'Hate Crime' is an acceptable topic, not radicalisation / extremism. It does contain some good parts. Just to help things along there were two arrests at Nottingham University, when someone noted a "terrorist manual" had been printed off for a student (PM for more details, although on the Kings of War blogsite).

How do US / Canadian universities react to these issues?

davidbfpo

[Steve Blair]

Most of the universities I've been around tend to ignore those issues, at least on the basic level. You'll see some pontification by administrators on one subject or another, but the student body on the whole ignores it and goes about their business. College athletics are the big money maker these days, along with research, and it tends to draw better if the school avoids taking a stand on anything until after something bad happens.

Sorry if that sounds cynical, but I've seen more ink spilled about the "need" for an indoor practice facility for the football team than I have any real examination of extremism or academic dishonesty. The standard answer seems to be to commission a committee to do a study, publish the report, and then go on as before unless there is potential for a lawsuit. Then some changes may be made, but they'll be small and not impact major activities in any noticeable way.

Of course, this also varies depending on the university in question. Land grant schools tend to be somewhat less excitable (and less prone to open political stances) than their state and private university relations. There's a certain regional factor that comes into play in many cases and with many situations. At least based on what I've seen. YMMV, as always with these things.

[davidbfpo]

The arrests at Nottingham Univeristy, UK rolls on - after the university announces a new policy: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...ode=402844&c=2

Previous article: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...orycode=402125

An arcane dispute for some.

davidbfpo

[selil]

My own faculty has challenged my research and students reports we've written. As recently as last semester I was challenged as unpatriotic, evil, and supporting terrorism for posting a paper dealing with the US Navy Marine Corps Intranet Project. So far no black helicopters have shown up, and nobody with dark glasses following me.

[Jedburgh]

NIJ, 15 Jul 08: Interagency Coordination: A Case Study of the 2005 London Train Bombings

This article is based on our research regarding the multiagency response to the London attacks, including barriers and ways to overcome them. As part of that National Institute of Justice-funded study, we interviewed officials from law enforcement, fire and medical services, and public health agencies who were directly involved in the July 2005 London response. We asked about their role during the response, the strategies for coordination that facilitated it, the barriers they encountered and possible strategies for improving coordination among agencies responding to emergencies.

NIJ, 27 Oct 08: Interagency Coordination: Lessons Learned From the 2005 London Train Bombings (Part Two)

.....We found that although protocols followed by the multiple agencies that responded to the attacks largely minimized major problems, communication, leadership and legal difficulties did affect the coordination efforts.

The primary issues reported to us during our interviews related to communication and leadership.

[davidbfpo]

After much publicity and commentary beforehand the UK government has re-launched the national CT strategy, now called Operation Contest Two and states a far more detailed explanation of the threat is given. A rather bulky document and only part read so far: http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ne...df?view=Binary

One quick comment by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7961299.stm

I am not sure if the Pied Piper theory of counter-radicalisation appears.

davidbfpo

[jmm99]

Please take a look at this thread, post #32.

[davidbfpo]

The former Met Police national CT chief, Andy Hayman (2005 till December 2007), recently wrote a book on his experiences 'The Terrorist Hunters', that on 2nd July 2009 the day before public sale was hit by a civil injunction and banned (numerous newslinks, just one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8130520.stm ).

On 29th June 2009 he was interviewed by the BBC hardtalk programme and in just twenty four minutes talks widely. Civil liberties, public safety and much more discussed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...k_Andy_Hayman/ A shorter interview on Sky: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/vid...tegory=UK+News

His book was partly released in parts in The Times, with critical comments on the UK government stuctures: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6552590.ece and supporting a 7/7 inquiry http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6539369.ece

The book had been released for reviews and is commended in: http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle6619300.ece

The legal case is back in court today and the grounds for the ban have yet to be given. The book is likely to be on sale outside the UK, similar to the 'Spycatcher' affair many years ago and became a bestseller.

davidbfpo

[Majormarginal]

He fell out with the politicians. This will be interesting.

[davidbfpo]

MajorMarginal,

In a very odd way this case has fallen out of view, even Andy hayman's own website: http://andyhayman.com/index.html has little to say about what has happened to the injunction. Previously the website referred to a court hearing last Friday, earlier his week it reported the case had disappeared from the listing. Today's update suggests Scottish politicians (not Labour, but Scottish Nationalists) are upset at his comments.

As befits a modern society some of his books were sold publically, aside from numerous review copies in circulation.

Puzzling start to a legal case.

davidbfpo

[Majormarginal]

This should be good for sales when the book does come out. Could your courts silence him under libel laws or security procedures? This will be impossible now that some copies are out.

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

MajorMarginal,

In a very odd way this case has fallen out of view, even Andy hayman's own website: http://andyhayman.com/index.html has little to say about what has happened to the injunction. Previously the website referred to a court hearing last Friday, earlier his week it reported the case had disappeared from the listing. Today's update suggests Scottish politicians (not Labour, but Scottish Nationalists) are upset at his comments.

As befits a modern society some of his books were sold publically, aside from numerous review copies in circulation.

Puzzling start to a legal case.

davidbfpo

[Majormarginal]

Why are the Scottish nationalists upset?

[davidbfpo]

Originally Posted by Majormarginal

This should be good for sales when the book does come out. Could your courts silence him under libel laws or security procedures? This will be impossible now that some copies are out.

Better sales potential is expected, dependent on how long it takes the civil case to be resolved. I'm not a lawyer, libel laws are unlikely to be a factor in the government's injunction (the grounds for which are still, unusually, in public).

The author and assistant are very aware of the security procedures. Normally such publications are voluntarily submitted to interested parties for review, sometimes deletions are requested (there is another critical book currently where the author said no, as the information was in the public domain already and publication went ahead).

Andy Hayman worked in the Met and so the current Commissioner's views are of note: Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, complained last week that he had not been given a preview of the book’s contents. He questioned whether senior officers should be allowed to publish books of this kind about their period in service. Sir Paul said: “I find it surprising as commissioner that I have no right on this occasion to have access to the book before it is published. That surprises me. It is troublesome and it does not help good conduct.”

For some deeper reading I'd suggest this: http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.co...onspiracy.html

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

Originally Posted by Majormarginal

Why are the Scottish nationalists upset?

In The Terrorist Hunters, Mr Hayman claims politicians are guilty of “hissy fits” and “some amazing playground antics”. He told The Times: “Mr Salmond is no different.”

A spokesman for the First Minister denied the claims, saying that neither Mr Salmond nor Mr MacAskill had any contact or dealings with Mr Hayman and were not involved in any of the judicial proceedings.

He added: “The Scottish government is fully committed to the fight against terrorism and will work with jurisdictions, south of the Border and elsewhere, to ensure the safety and security of ordinary citizens and the prosecution of the perpetrators of terrorist acts wherever they may be.”

John Neilson, the Assistant Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, who headed the investigation into the attack, denied that politicians had influenced the inquiry. “I don't know of any political interference that impacted on the investigation,” he said.

A spokesman for the Crown Office also dismissed Mr Hayman's version of events, saying: “This bears absolutely no resemblance to events in Scotland that weekend.

“The Lord Advocate and her team worked tirelessly with the support of the Scottish ministers over the course of the weekend on June 29 and 30 to ensure that the complex legal issue of jurisdiction was considered quickly but authoritatively.”

These Scottish comments appear to have come after the injunction and Andy Hayman's views were published in The Times excerpts.

davidbfpo

[Ken White]

Can't tolerate any sassenach finger pointing...

[davidbfpo]

The injunction against the UK publication and sale of the book have recently been lifted, with almost no additional reporting and I only learnt talking to the co-author last week. The publishers now have to think whether to repeat the publicity.

Andy Hayman's website has a short comment: http://andyhayman.com/book.html

davidbfpo

[AdamG]

British police say they have arrested 12 men suspected of plotting a terrorist attack in Britain. The men were taken from different areas around the country as a result of counter-terrorism intelligence work. The country remains on high alert.

Police picked up the men in early morning raids in Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent in central England, Cardiff in Wales; and, in the capital, London. The men are between the ages of 17 and 24.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...112197989.html