| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| British police will withhold true death toll in any major attack: report |
| 2004-10-03 |
| LONDON - The police, seeking to minimize public panic, would withhold the true death toll if there is a catastrophic attack on Britain by the Islamic militant group Al Qaeda, the Sunday Times newspaper claimed. Citing leaked secret Scotland Yard plans, the paper said officers should not disclose the "numbers or seriousness/nature of injuries" immediately after a "dirty bomb" attack, even if there are thousands of casualties. One of the confidential memos, titled Communications Strategy for Dealing with a Terrorist Attack, suggests that poor handling of an attack will have "political implications" that could damage the police and government, it said. The instruction to withhold information contrasts with assurances by Prime Minister Tony Blair and Home Secretary David Blunkett that the public will be told the truth about terrorism, it added. Circulated widely as police and home office experts prepare plans to deal with an Al Qaeda "spectacular" in the run-up to the general election, perhaps in May next year, the document reflects concern that a large-scale attack could turn voters against the Blair government, it said. The memo, and another "restricted" paper titled "Major Incident Contingency Plans," said that an Al Qaeda attack here is likely to be at least as serious as the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States when some 3,000 died. The memos say that a massive chemical or biological attack could endanger people for "weeks/months," it said. The documents warn that Al Qaeda terrorists may use aircraft, trucks and cars to carry out simultaneous strikes at several places, which would cause large numbers of casualties. Senior officials are especially concerned about the possibility of people learning that police had failed to act on prior intelligence about an attack. The memos also warn Britains 1.2 million Muslims not to retaliate in the face of the anticipated violent "backlash" from racist groups, according to the daily. They say that tensions between white people and Muslims will "increase sharply" and could get even worse if Britain or the United States takes punitive action abroad, the newspaper said. |
| Posted by:Mark Espinola |
| #13 Its a prototypical nanny state Sad to day, our 2nd best ally is hanging on to liberty as we know it by a thread. |
| Posted by: jdwill 2004-10-03 5:40:26 PM |
| #12 John is the BC Bud / Firearms trade covered under NAFTA? heh heh.... |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-10-03 3:17:02 PM |
| #11 Neville Chamberlain must have been reincarnated in GB. The Brits have no Constitutional right to bear arms. Law abiding citizens were disarmed a few years ago although thugs and criminals have firearms. In the U.S. there has been talk from the left (translated Democrats) about complying with the UN which would be a backdoor attempt to do in the U.S. what has been done in Australia and Great Britain. Similar situation in Canada. However, there is a somewhat thriving trade going on there. BC Bud (potent pot) is being smuggled to the U.S. and traded for firearms to take back to Canada in the Washington-Vancouver area. |
| Posted by: John 2004-10-03 2:42:33 PM |
| #10 The MSM will go into overdrive when this happens, digging up all manner of 'moderates' from the Muslim community as well as traitors from RESPECT etc. Note I said when, not if. Frankly, I don't think the government or anyone in Britain knows what the reaction of the 'white people' (how racist is that!) will be after this attack. I do think it will take more than one attack for that reaction to crystallise. What it might be then, is anyones guess. |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2004-10-03 10:58:43 AM |
| #9 British panic? Let's get pictures and mark the calendar. It's won't be like a brewery strike. |
| Posted by: Troon Snorong Shipman 2004-10-03 10:39:45 AM |
| #8 Personally, I'd prefer a simpler approach: throw anyone who tries to exploit the deaths of British civilians for domestic political advantage in the slammer, and bar them from standing in the elections. To be blunt, anyone who'd blame Blair for a terrorist attack on UK soil, and instead advocate an appeasing stance as regards the WoT, is engaged in treasonous behaviour. Bye bye Lib Dems, RESPECT etc. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-10-03 9:06:41 AM |
| #7 The memos also warn Britains 1.2 million Muslims not to retaliate in the face of the anticipated violent âbacklashâ from racist groups, according to the daily. They'll be too busy packing to retaliate. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-10-03 7:51:41 AM |
| #6 AC, disagree. My recollection is that it was in the 5,000 neighborhood pretty quickly, days. Leave this information secret and it will take a lot longer for the truth to come out and even then the tin foil crowd will have built up a wall of wackiness. The people can handle the truth. What this is is dhimmitude. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-10-03 7:39:40 AM |
| #5 AzCat yea isn't that corruption? Dishonesty is corruption. But it's also a total lack of balls. They should say regardless of what we do these people hate us and are going to do something very bad. We can't stop it. Be ready for it when it comes. They could say. It's not about our politics it's about us not being muslims. If you the public want to stop it you will have to take political action. We are just the police. Society needs to decide what to do. We just enforce the law you let us enforce. God know the cops are trying to stop what they can but they are opposed by wacked out moonbats and "human rights activists" at every turn. No being totally honest and as transperent as possible hurts everyone. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-03 3:15:37 AM |
| #4 This alleged policy is by and large a strawman. Judging from the quoted source, it seems to refer to a simple caution about giving out casualty figures in the chaotic atmosphere immediately after a major attack. This is probably wise in light of the confusion that can result from incomplete or contradictory figures. Historically, this has often happened in mass casualty attacks. Remember that on 9-11-01, early speculation, some of it from official sources, indicated that the death toll might be as high as 40,000. It took weeks of checking and correlation to reduce it below 5000 and months to arrive at the final figure of around 3000. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-10-03 3:05:35 AM |
| #3 The idea they can shows how corrupt the police must actually be. It's far more ominous than corrupt police, this is an indication that the UK government believes there's a real possibility of something that looks an awful lot like a Muslim / Infidel civil war on their turf and an admission that there's not really a damn thing they can do about it. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2004-10-03 2:39:17 AM |
| #2 This is the British stiff upper lip. Far better to understate casualties than to have panic, old chap, you understand? That really wouldn't do. |
| Posted by: Bryan 2004-10-03 2:32:34 AM |
| #1 " The memos also warn Britains 1.2 million Muslims not to retaliate in the face of the anticipated violent âbacklashâ from racist groups, according to the daily." If the UK is attacked who exactly do the police think will be behind it, circus clowns? Oh we can have the public acting in rightous anger. Who is going to act? The unarmed police? We see the police plan is to cover it up. "They say that tensions between white people and Muslims will âincrease sharplyâ and could get even worse if Britain or the United States takes punitive action abroad, the newspaper said." Do tell. Rocket science that. This is deception. The public has a right to know. The police have no right to withhold the truth. The idea they can shows how corupt the police must actually be. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-03 2:08:52 AM |