Past performance: Forest Gate

The press has been busy over the last few days telling us about beheadings, orange jumpsuits, execution houses in Tipton, hitlists and such. All their information is, of course, coming from unnamed sources. However, we’ve been here before. I remember reading about unnamed sources and their warnings about suicide vests and bomb factories six months ago…

The Metropolitan Police’s 2nd June 2006 raid on an address in Forest Gate, East London, provided the press with enough material with which to implant fear and suspicion in their readers just a day after the raid was launched.

The raid was carried out on the basis of "specific intelligence" from a sole untested source that the police said they wanted to "prove or disprove" (Telegraph 3/6/06 page 4). However, police were unwilling to talk about the specifics of the case but the Health Protection Agency provided assurances that the threat to the public was very low. The Independent pointed out that "no neighbours were evacuated" (3/6/06 page 5). Furthermore, police had found no "weapons, chemicals or evidence of a planned attack" (Daily Mail 3/6/06 page 4).

But the papers were unrepentant in warning the public of a "'suicide vest' which would pump out poisonous gas" (Mail page 1) and planting fears that "a bomb containing poisonous chemicals may be in the hands of Islamic fanatics elsewhere in the capital" (Daily Express 3/6/06 page 1). The Times went to the trouble of splashing an arty picture of a man in a suicide vest on its front page. Express readers were treated to a smaller picture of a "martyr's vest" on page 4.

On its front page the Guardian wrote that there were fears that "an attack on a British target using an unconventional weapon could be staged soon" (Guardian 3/6/06 page 1). It was only on the inside pages that it pointed out that, in fact, there was no intelligence on a specific target and that the threat level remained static (Guardian page 5). Other papers were more specific and less reserved in inciting fear. The tabloids expounded on possible targets where the, as yet not charged, men may have deployed their, as yet not found, chemical/gas bomb/vest. The Express predicted that it was "likely the plotters were aiming to attack a Tube train in a chilling repeat of the July 7 atrocities" (Express page 4). "A pub crowded for a World Cup game" (Mail page 1) and a "crowded shopping centre" (Express page 4) were also among the targets revealed by the Sun (quoting a "senior security source"), Mirror, Mail, Express and Times.

The Mirror and the Mail were careful to put quotation marks around their alarmist front page headlines: "HUNT FOR THE 'POISON BOMB'" (Mail), "HUNT FOR 'POISON BOMB'" (Mirror). But the Sun and Express convinced themselves, despite the evidence, that a bomb actually existed. An unnamed "senior security source" assured the Sun that it was "absolutely certain this device exists" (Sun 3/6/06 page 4). The Express, however, was unwilling to divulge why it was assured of the existence of a bomb. It remains to seen whether the Sun's unnamed "senior security source" is the same as the one who encouraged reporters to speculate on probable targets.

The Times and Express editorials expressed dismay that the Independent Police Complaints Commission was given access to the address after one of the occupants was shot.

The Independent asserted that suggestions that the raided house "was being used as a bomb-making factory were discounted" (Independent page 5). But the Times was adamant that it was a "suspected weapons factory" (Times 3/6/06 page 1), the Mirror called it a "suspected poison bomb factory" (Mirror 3/6/06 page 7) and the Express went with the less industrial "bombers lair" (Express page 4).

Despite the fact that police were not searching for anyone else in connection with the Landsdown Road raid and that the existence of a bomb or device was as yet unproven, the Sun's opening paragraph on its front page read, "cops were last night frantically hunting terrorists armed with a lethal chemical bomb" (Sun page 1). The Sun's "Security Advisor and SAS hero", Andy McNab, had two questions for the suspects which needed to be extracted from them "any way possible" (Sun page 5). "First, where is the device? Second, what did they plan to do with it?" Ominously absent was the question, "does the device exist?"

The Times reminded its readers that it had only been two weeks since that police in Manchester and Merseyside arrested eight men in connection with al-Qaeda activities. It failed to mention, however, that two of the three men arrested by Greater Manchester police had been released without charge and that the other man was being held under immigration laws (Guardian page 5). The Express' editorial wandered how many terrorist suspects could be deported (Express page 16).

The Sun revealed that one of the men, Kahar Kalam, regularly used a local internet café. Still more shocking was the Sun's revelation that he visited it "at least once a week, spending an hour at a time at a computer terminal" (Sun page 4).

Local residents were asked to describe the arrested men. A relative of the men told the Express that one of the men "works long shifts for Royal Mail" (Express page 4). The other man was described as a "straightforward guy" (Express page 4). The Telegraph was told by a friend of the men that "we are British born and we treat this country with respect" (Telegraph page 4). But the Times seemed to warn readers against taking these descriptions as evidence that the men were innocent until proven guilty: "Today's terrorists are suburban men who neighbours invariably describe as 'hard working, respectable and British to the core'" (Times page 7).

Neighbours' portrayals of the men as "deeply religious, praying five times a day" (Sun page 4) caused the Express to right a 'love it or leave it' editorial. Going off comments about the religious devoutness of the arrested men, the Express opined "those who feel blind loyalty to Islam and none whatever to Britain should go and live in an Islamic country and leave the rest of us in peace" (Express page 16).

The brothers were subsequently released without charge and completely vindicated on all allegations made against them in the press. However, the same speculation and misreporting is now being made about the men arrested in Birmingham.