It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BBC: UK govt files on Iraq and Al-Qaeda go missing

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Having watched BBC news last night, I find it highly telling that the story of the 'lost' file totally eclipsed any mention of the 42 day vote.

I am sorry but i don't buy it, no one left anything on a train. The security agencies wanted the file leaked, or perhaps to create a diversion from the obvious fact of the GUP 'buy off' in the 42 day vote. If that file wasn't intentionally handed to the BBC then I'm most likely a monkey's uncle. For a start off, 9.00am on a mid-week commuter route, where are all the witnesses to this little mishap. The whole thing is balderdash and poppycock.

Since all copies produced of this file were individually indexed and numbered, how about a name of the brainless wonder who left it on the train? In the very least, the guy should be publicly villified and sacked for gross incompetency. If not, then IMO that points to a collusive act, if it is just one guy, then incompetency of this level demands at the very least demotion.




posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 03:55 AM
link   
if it's some kind of 'fnord' to get the 42 days / 9 votes thing off the menu then it's a poor choice as this is yet further damage to a limping gov after whole slew of leaked / lost sets of data from the 20 million social security, bank, national insurance details and so many others that have occured since brown. (note apparently the black market price of that data per person is £200-400 ($400-800) - heck that almost makes it a viable party funding mechanism. Not that I am suggesting that of course, it's just an equivalance. but I don't mean to detract.

BBC are starting to mention there have been other leaks of top secret material that have not been publicised and that their security guy Frank Gardener is now hearing about.


CX

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flory
What the hell?

He's just carrying around an enveloipe with top secret information?

No locked briefcase, maybe secured with handcuffs.

just No, he sets it down on a train seat. He wasn't even carrying it in his coat pocket.



My thoughts exactly.

When i was serving, there were the odd occasion when we had to transport these sort of documents from one place to another.

They went in a locked security case, under armed guard, straight to the destination where upon you were almost treated like a terrorist suspect yourself and went through too much paperwork to mention, before handing them over to the recipient.

I remember doing this with the document that basicaly told our garrison commander that we were going to the first Gulf war. Anyone one would think that document had the plague attatched to it, no-one wanted to go near the damn thing.

No fannying about in public with them, no "accidentaly" leaving them for people to read.

If not a fishy tale going on, security surrounding these kinds of documents need to be totaly reviewed asap.

CX.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Brown has been accusing those opposing the legislation, including the media, as being weak on terrorism and not taking the matter seriously.

Which has back fired badly, some members in the press went wild in the conference when he said that.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   
I have to wonder what was in these documents. Maybe some very patriotic person out there decided they didn't like what was in the document and thought that they could leave it on the bus, hoping some person would make it public unconnected to them.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by frozen_snowman
Did anyone noticed the *Iraq and Al Qaeda* part ? = to bring both together in one line = justification for war


Yes - that suggests it wasn't serious intelligence work - probably some more war-on-terror spin in the making.

There was a dramatic change of tone from the BBC last night as they started selling the idea that the British public were predominantly in favour of the 42 days. To back up this claim they had an editor from the Sun Newspaper (a notorious Murdoch owned sex and scandal rag that the BBC usually treats with disdain). He reckoned the political resistance to this new measure was all a bit of a mystery, because the public and police were in favour.

This claim that it is popular and widely supported flies in the face of all the evidence - even that provided by the BBC. The Law Society is arguing against it and it has been very noticeable when the issue was raised in recent editions of Question Time, Any Questions, etc. that public opinion is vehemently against it.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   
it's reported the documents had yet to be distributed - which also makes a difference as it was unseen classified data.

not good.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
For the benefit of any readers not from the UK, I have to say I was watching the news the day before the vote and they were saying that our very, very unpopular prime minister HAD to win this vote and was rumoured to be getting party cheifs to offer any local mp's who "towed the party line" on this, that any problems in their constituencey (eg.bypass protesters,etc) would have their problem solved in return for their vote!!!

Seems like all those years of being second fiddle to Blair and wanting the premiership for so long have completely corrupted Brown to the extent that he is willing to do anything to stay in power for as long as he can?
This is a man, however, who while at university wrote a guide for students suggesting that they should put two house bricks in a plastic bag to simulate being full of bottles (they clink quite similarly,apparently?) when going to a student party. Clearly, he cannot be trusted.

Its a shame that the person who found these documents wasn't an ATS user-posting them up here would have been a real scoop-but then I guess he would have been locked up for 42 days?



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
as the way says 'Its a shame that the person who found these documents wasn't an ATS user-posting them up here would have been a real scoop-but then I guess he would have been locked up for 42 days?'

and here is a live issue. if the person that found it posted them up yes they would have been locked up under breaching the official secrets act along with a multitude of other charges.

However, the civil servant responsible will be suspended and return to work quietly within a short space of time - with no charges and no detention.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Brown has been accusing those opposing the legislation, including the media, as being weak on terrorism and not taking the matter seriously.

Which has back fired badly, some members in the press went wild in the conference when he said that.


Brown is a drowning man, I find it quite painful to watch to be quite honest. He does not know what the hell he is doing or seemingly why the hell he is doing it. It is like watching Ricky Gervais in the Office!

Personally I think something is kicking off again between MI5 and MI6 - but only time will tell. The poo-poo is certainly getting very close to the fan.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by kickoutthejams
and here is a live issue. if the person that found it posted them up yes they would have been locked up under breaching the official secrets act along with a multitude of other charges.



Erm as i understand it you have to have signed the act to breach it. So you'd probably be under some other law like treason for posting this online if you found it on a train.


KillgoreTrout
Personally I think something is kicking off again between MI5 and MI6 - but only time will tell. The poo-poo is certainly getting very close to the fan.


That's an interesting view. I often wonder if some of these intelligence leaks are to get their sister service in trouble.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Erm as i understand it you have to have signed the act to breach it. So you'd probably be under some other law like treason for posting this online if you found it on a train.


Nope. Everyone is subject to the Official Secrets Act. It's an Act of Parliament, just like every other law, so it applies to everyone regardless of whether they've signed it or not. Signing is just a 'reminder' really, but you could be prosecuted for breaching it even if you haven't signed it.

It makes sense really, because otherwise everyone in the UK would have to sign each Act of Parliament for it to apply to them.

[edit on 12/6/08 by Ste2652]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
The BBC is now reporting the resignation of shadow home secretary David Davies over the 42 days (sorry - a bit off topic).


He said the 42-day law was a "monstrosity" and part of the "government's slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms".

So he would leave Parliament to fight a noble battle in Haltemprice and Howden, his East Yorkshire constituency, against extending the amount of time terror suspects can be held without charge from 28 to 42 days.


news.bbc.co.uk...

Again the BBC's tone is one of bafflement as if the 42 days wasn't hugely contentious or a matter of fundamental principle.


Why would a politician like him, who may well have been home secretary in two years' time, resign when it seems he did not have to, on an issue that may well be defeated in the House of Lords anyway?


(It was assuring us only hours before that the House of Lords would succeed in delaying it a bit, at best).

It tries to characterize his decision as inexplicable political gameplay: "Well, who'd have thought - you just couldn't make it up."

They had a pundit on last night making the immortal argument "nobody's making a fuss about the 28 days - so why are they up in arms about 42 days?". Well now you put it that way - they're only days and numbers - why not make it 242 days!

Most striking is the way the BBC, who up until now reflected the weight of critical opinion against it, have suddenly done a Gordon Brown and are pretending everyone but a few loons support it.

I'm disgusted with the BBC (does it show?) but my faith in at least one politician is somewhat restored.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by EvilAxis]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilAxis
 


You should watch more 4 or channel 4 news, then. They are always a bit more journalistic and robust in reporting such events in my experience. It was there that I heard about mp's being bought off for their votes-not sure if this was reported on the other news channels?



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

KillgoreTrout
Personally I think something is kicking off again between MI5 and MI6 - but only time will tell. The poo-poo is certainly getting very close to the fan.


That's an interesting view. I often wonder if some of these intelligence leaks are to get their sister service in trouble.



The Peter Wright/Spy Catcher case was all about inter-agency rivalry - with Wright and James Jesus Angelton as pawns (see the Harold Wilson 'coup'). I am at present reading a book about Maurice Oldfield (former head of SIS/MI6), who was basically pushed to suicide by a viscious smear campaign by MI5, an eye-opening read. The two services do not get along at all. For example look at the press coverage earlier in the week, where MI5, out of the blue came out and stated that they did not ask for the 42 day holding period - in short stating that MI6 did, without actually saying it. How often have you come across MI5 making a statement like that unsolicited!!!???

I was also interested in how MI5 was mentioned in the recent Mosley Nazi sex scandal...something is definately being cooked up (IMO).



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Yes Channel 4 seems to have a tad more journalistic freedom than the state-controlled BBC but by watching the BBC you get a good idea of what the government - more precisely the real power behind the government - want us to be thinking.

MI5 don't want it, the shadow home secretary resigns in protest against it, the Director of Public Prosecutions doesn't want it, the head of counter-terrorism at the CPS doesn't want it, the House of Lords will vote against it but unelected Prime Minister Gordon Brown is expected to force it through.

State-controlled BBC? A topic for another thread.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
WTF!?!? It has happened again

More Secret Papers Found On Train



Secret Government documents which detail Britain's policies on fighting global terrorist funding, drugs trafficking and money laundering have been found on a London-bound train.

The papers were handed to the Independent on Sunday newspaper, which has since returned them


news.sky.com...

Someone trying to bring down the government or something? This is getting very weird now



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Heres the link data in full
news.sky.com...

I never heard of Sky news before.If i were a british citizen i would check with the BBC and see if they are covering the story.After all thats what they are claiming it originally came from?



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Justice11
 


Skynews is FOXNews sister station.

This quite alarming news, someone is out there with an agenda because secret files do not just leak and are left on a train.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Heres the BBC story
news.bbc.co.uk...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join