Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

(OT) UK not happy with US leaks

36 views
Skip to first unread message

Brian W Lawrence

unread,
May 24, 2017, 8:17:53 AM5/24/17
to
"Home Secretary Amber Rudd has said she is irritated with the US for
releasing information about the Manchester bomber before UK police would
have liked.

Ms Rudd said the British had wanted to control the flow of information
to "keep the element of surprise".

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme she had been very clear with
Washington "that it should not happen again".

"Information about the bomber's identity first emerged in the US - with
American TV networks CBS and NBC naming Abedi as the suspect.

Ms Rudd was asked whether she would be looking at how information
sharing may have resulted in the premature release of details the
British police and security services had not wanted in the public domain.

The home secretary told Today: "Yes, quite frankly.

"The British police have been very clear they want to control the flow
of information in order to protect operational integrity - the element
of surprise - so it is irritating if it gets released from other
sources, and I've been very clear with our friends that that should not
happen again."

Pressed on whether the Americans had compromised the investigation, she
said: "I wouldn't go that far, but I can say they are perfectly clear
about the situation and that it shouldn't happen again."

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40026413>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

TennisGuy

unread,
May 25, 2017, 4:36:47 PM5/25/17
to
On 5/24/2017 8:17 AM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:

>
> The home secretary told Today: "Yes, quite frankly.
>
> "The British police have been very clear they want to control the flow
> of information in order to protect operational integrity - the element
> of surprise - so it is irritating if it gets released from other
> sources, and I've been very clear with our friends that that should not
> happen again."
>
> Pressed on whether the Americans had compromised the investigation, she
> said: "I wouldn't go that far, but I can say they are perfectly clear
> about the situation and that it shouldn't happen again."
>


How is it possible in this friggin' day and age of super espionage and
NSA and CIA and blah blah blah, especially between the closest of
friends, that the pip-squeak mainstream news media can upstage all and
make a complete mockery of the entire state-controlled news propaganda?



stephenJ

unread,
May 25, 2017, 5:16:01 PM5/25/17
to

So? Why post to a tennis forum?
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

The Iceberg

unread,
May 25, 2017, 6:27:53 PM5/25/17
to
it's hilarious! dunno why they reckoned they could keep it quiet. The best was at least one paper mentioned apparently the same happened back with 7/7 too.

Brian W Lawrence

unread,
May 26, 2017, 2:05:16 AM5/26/17
to
On 25/05/2017 22:15, stephenJ wrote:
>
> So? Why post to a tennis forum?

PKB

Brian W Lawrence

unread,
May 26, 2017, 3:26:28 AM5/26/17
to
The President has many enemies - Democrats, media, intelligence
agencies, etc. - he has chosen to attack them all. In this environment
people will leak information, seemingly without necessarily realising
the potential effect of the release of sensitive info. Similarly the
media may choose to publish without proper consideration of the
consequences. The NYT's decision to publish crime scene photos from an
open investigation is truly astonishing.

TT

unread,
May 26, 2017, 4:36:29 AM5/26/17
to
Brian W Lawrence kirjoitti 26.5.2017 klo 10:26:
> The NYT's decision to publish crime scene photos from an open
> investigation is truly astonishing.

Why? How is that going to endanger investigation?

Brian W Lawrence

unread,
May 26, 2017, 5:23:33 AM5/26/17
to
Hopefully it won't hamper the investigation at all. However, law
enforcement needs to gather information and build a picture of
what happened, potentially to bring a case before the courts.
Crime scene photos are often (usually) presented to juries to
help explain what happened. Such photos should be kept out of
the public domain because they may predispose suspects, witnesses
or juries to a particular POV. If the Manchester police wanted
to publish those photos they would have done so, it's not up to
US intelligence sources or US media to decide to publish.

The early release of the bomber's name in the US was possibly
worse than the photos, since it may have alerted others that
the police were closing in on them.

stephenJ

unread,
May 26, 2017, 8:15:52 AM5/26/17
to
On 5/26/2017 1:05 AM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
> On 25/05/2017 22:15, stephenJ wrote:
>>
>> So? Why post to a tennis forum?
>
> PKB

Weird.


---

TennisGuy

unread,
May 26, 2017, 10:23:31 AM5/26/17
to
Bullocks. Total nonsense.
This is a terrorist attack, not a neighbourhood milk store robbery.

You have thousands of witnesses to the crime at the event, all with cell
phone cameras. Yet no one captured any photos of the carnage!

Don't you find that just a little strange?


The Iceberg

unread,
May 27, 2017, 5:46:59 AM5/27/17
to
totally agreed, it's just 'embarrassment' cos the idiots were too slow in releasing the bomber's name. Anyone with a brain knows any accomplices would be long or too stupid to leave. The crime scene photos and name are eventually going to get out cos people want and have a right to see them, the UK authorities just want to stop that happening. It like how long it took for the FBI to release the 911 Pentagon crash CCTV footage, it was delayed for years, simply because total idiots didn't want people to see it, there was literally no reason other than their pathetic "oh look I've got something you can't have" egos.

Brian W Lawrence

unread,
May 27, 2017, 7:41:48 AM5/27/17
to
On 26/05/2017 15:22, TennisGuy wrote:
> On 5/26/2017 5:23 AM, Brian W Lawrence wrote:
>> On 26/05/2017 09:36, TT wrote:
>>
>>> Brian W Lawrence kirjoitti 26.5.2017 klo 10:26:
>>>> The NYT's decision to publish crime scene photos from an open
>>>> investigation is truly astonishing.
>>>
>>> Why? How is that going to endanger investigation?
>>
>> Hopefully it won't hamper the investigation at all. However, law
>> enforcement needs to gather information and build a picture of
>> what happened, potentially to bring a case before the courts.
>> Crime scene photos are often (usually) presented to juries to
>> help explain what happened. Such photos should be kept out of
>> the public domain because they may predispose suspects, witnesses
>> or juries to a particular POV. If the Manchester police wanted
>> to publish those photos they would have done so, it's not up to
>> US intelligence sources or US media to decide to publish.
>>
>> The early release of the bomber's name in the US was possibly
>> worse than the photos, since it may have alerted others that
>> the police were closing in on them.
>>
>
>
> Bullocks. Total nonsense.

Oh, OK then.

> This is a terrorist attack, not a neighbourhood milk store robbery.

So?

> You have thousands of witnesses to the crime at the event, all with cell
> phone cameras. Yet no one captured any photos of the carnage!

Not that I'm aware. If they did the police would retain them as evidence
and would not release them.

> Don't you find that just a little strange?

Not in the least.

I'll also note that US Secretary of State has changed his travel plans
in order to visit the UK to apologise for the leaks in person, as Trump
did to Mrs May in Sicily.
0 new messages