posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:42 PM
The suspects in the latest UK terror plot had been under surveillance for a year apparently. How much does that cost? Alot I would imagine. We have
been told that the police and MI5 are stretched to breaking point and tracking (depending on which news you read) dozens and dozens or over 70
different plots. Each one of these has surveillance teams presumably working around the clock.
It's come to light that the surveillance of the suspects in last weeks 'foiled' alleged plot had not turned up the pertinent fact they were going
to bomb planes. (This came out through interrogation in Pakistan of another suspect). You'd have hoped after a year of surveillance including a mole
within the organisation that they would have come up with the bombs on planes part right?
Then there is Forest Gate where two brothers were arrested (and one shot accidentlally) recently and no evidence of anything untoward being
discovered. These two had been under surveillance for quite some time so much so the local residents told reporters it was well known in the street
that surveillance was going on as the police although staking out in an unmarked vehicle, continued to wear their uniforms. Nice one guys!
So my question is wouldn't it be far better saving all that money and man hours on surveillance operations which seem to be, well, a bit rubbish
really and instead once you get a sniff of a plot then call the people in, tell them straight 'we know you're up to something so you can stop it
now' and then put them on a kind of parole or something similar where their movements are more visible and as they have been 'flagged' will show up
far more easily in the system if they try anything funny.