Recently in terrorism Category

Ooh, this is going to rattle a few cages.

CCTV images of one of the 21 July bomb suspects apparently fleeing London in a Muslim veil have been shown in court.

The jury at Woolwich Crown Court saw footage prosecutors say is Yassin Omar, 26, wearing a black full-length dress and burka with a handbag over his arm.

I predict the tomorrow's Mail or Express (maybe both) will be calling for the banning of burkas as they can be used to disguise terrorists.

They might even use the headline "Weapons of Mass Distraction".

They're just messing with us now. Having a laugh. Seeing how much they can get away with.

BBC correspondent Gordon Corera said the plot was thought to involve "some kind of kidnapping - possibly of an individual".

You don't say! Kidnapping an individual. As opposed to kidnapping, what, a hatstand?

Also:

Finding evidence to back up the suspicions was "key" to the inquiry now, he added.

Now, I'm no expert in criminal investigations, so bear with me if I've got this wrong. But surely you'd want evidence to back up your suspicions before arresting eight people.

Seems to have knocked Lord Levy's arrest off the top news slot though. Handy that.

Update: Bah. Both of those quotes have been removed from the story.

Dave Gorman has an interesting story that neatly illustrates the way that the world has changed in the last five years. Whilst taking this picture of Battersea Power Station just after midnight on Saturday night, he was stopped and questioned by police under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Just for taking a photgraph.

(via Bloggerheads)

Just don't bother

Whatever happened to not allowing terrorism to change our lifestyle?

Rachel has written an account of her meeting with Charles Clarke. Sounds like it was pretty productive all in all.

I got a reply to the email I sent to Charles Clarke on Tuesday. Here's what he said.

He said that he immediately regretted the exchange with Rachel's dad and wrote to him that afternoon inviting both him and Rachel to a meeting. He denies receiving any prior contact from Rachel's dad which is at odds with what Rachel says on her blog.

Regarding what actually happened last Friday, he says this:

As far as the incident itself was concerned, I consider that the Canon was both hectoring and insulting in that he did not permit even a word's response to his comments about a public enquiry. I did not actually use the words suggested on the website but it is the case that he was insulting without allowing any opportunity for discussion at all.

He closes by saying

Finally I well understand that many people believe that there ought to be a public enquiry, and I respect that view though I don't agree with it. I have of course considered the matter very carefully and I can tell you that the issues involved have nothing whatsoever to do with personal embarrassment or party-political matters.

Which really isn't very satisfactory. If he has "considered the matter very carefully" then surely he should be able to give the British public a reasonable reply when they ask why there hasn't been an enquiry. Hopefully Rachel and her dad will be able to get a better answer when they finally meet him.

Charles Clarke has agreed to meet with Rachel's dad. Rachel is invited too.

I wonder how many letters and emails he received on the matter?

Chicken Yoghurt suggests writing to Charles Clarke in an attempt to get him to answer Rachel's dad's question.

Why don't you write to the Home Secretary and ask him why he refuses to hold an public inquiry into the July 7 bombings? It's a game for all the family and couldn't be simpler. First you write to the Home Secretary and ask him why he refuses to hold an public inquiry into the July 7 bombings. Then, a month later, you write to the Home Secretary and ask him why he has failed to reply to your letter you sent to ask him why he refuses to hold an public inquiry into the July 7 bombings. Then, a month later...

I have Mr Clarke's email address as clarkec@parliament.uk. I've already sent my first email. Why don't you do the same.

Rachel from North London tells an appalling story of her father's attempt to ask a simple question of Charles Clarke (who, as well as being the Home Secretary, is also his MP). Clarke took umbrage at the question and accused Rachel's father of insulting him. Please read the full story as I can't do it justice here without cutting and pasting the whole thing.

It's clear that our current government see accountability to the electorate as nothing but an annoyance that they avoid whenever possible. How can they possibly justify treating the electorate this way?

Rachel from North London sums up what a lot of us are thinking and plugs the new Liberty Central web site.