What's the point of an inquiry where you aren't talking to some of the most vital witnesses before you make a result announcement on such a grave matter? We're talking about whether or not the security forces repeatedly messed up and lost a young soldier his life!
It's quite clear at this point Rifkind can't be trusted so it was likely a whitewash from the beginning of course.
_________________ Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:
The ISC’s chair, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, defended the committee, saying people were free to write to the inquiry if they wished and it was their responsibility if they chose not to.
Isn't that a coincidence? An inquiry that would be funny if it hadn't been borne of twisted manipulation comes to the exact same conclusion as the people it's supposed to be investigating. Just at the same time May's doing their flag waving - what are the chances?
_________________ Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:
I love how the security agencies fcuked up in the extreme and the PM's blaming social media - it's worthy of Private Eye. Go and do the world a favour, Cameron
_________________ Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:
I love how the security agencies fcuked up in the extreme and the PM's blaming social media - it's worthy of Private Eye. Go and do the world a favour, Cameron
Yeah, one Facebook conversation six months before the event, that was the vital clue the security services didn't have that would have made all the difference to the enormous teetering mound of evidence they did have that the two guys were a bit nuts and might go off on one.
That bit. That was the bit. Right There. Not all those other bits, there's nothing to see there. Look, a squirrel!
Exactly, 5 months before the attack he says he wants to kill a soldier.
They would have followed him intensively for a week or 2, nothing would happen, they'd scale back, nothing would happen, they'd scale back further, nothing would happen, he'd be on a list of potential terrorists somewhere, then, when no one was looking... It probably wouldn't have changed much. If they wanted to do surveillance on every whacko on social media that says that they want to kill someone, they'd need a hundred times the manpower they currently have...
_________________ "Do you know what this is? Hmm? No, I can see you do not. You have that vacant look in your eyes, which says hold my head to your ear, you will hear the sea!" - Londo Molari
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum