Downing Street Says » London bombings

Put to the PMOS that the report from the Oldham Riots last year made clear that there was an indication of two parallel societies, and what had the Government done about it since, and also why was the Government not going to bring into legislation a ruling against preachers preaching about racial hatred, the PMOS said the Prime Minister would deal with some of these matters in today’s PMQs. However, as we had been saying consistently since Thursday, first and foremost, anti-terrorist legislation had already been introduced in the terrorism Acts of 2000 and 2001. Secondly, the Government in its manifesto said that it would bring in further counter-terrorism measures in the autumn, and would concentrate on two particular areas, which were introducing offences for the preparation for acts of terrorism and encouraging acts of terrorism. The PMOS said we had let the police and the authorities get on with their tasks in the investigation, and we had seen the very professional way in which the police acted yesterday. If, however, the advice from the police was that we needed to move in a certain direction and move at a faster pace, then we would consider that advice very seriously. The PMOS said we had to allow the police to deal with the immediate aftermath and then hold discussions, which would begin very shortly. What the Prime Minister said when he spoke in the House earlier this week was that we would like to move with a broad consensus within the House, as well as within the community. The PMOS said it could be taken that we would also talk to others as well once there was a consensus about what we could do. The important thing was that we took measures not just for sake of taking them, but rather ones that the police and the authorities recognised were needed and were effective. With regards to what could be done within communities, the overall position was that the reporting this week had shown that there was already a lot of work going on at community level, both within and between communities. Clearly, we were going to have to step up that work and also help the Muslim community, especially as the overwhelming view of the majority of the Muslim community was that they wanted nothing to do with this kind of extremism. How we did that was precisely the point of the Prime Minister agreeing to the initial meeting with the MPs today, but we needed to take that further forward. The Prime Minister recognised it was an issue, but more importantly at this stage, the Muslim leadership itself recognised it was an issue, as did the MPs.

Asked what the Prime Minister’s reaction was to the news that the bombers were "home-grown", the PMOS replied the Prime Minister, like everyone else, was shocked by the bombs and by the fact that there were people who within this country believed that in their terms this was "the right thing to do". The Prime Minister was determined that we should take on this extremism, not just by having the right kind of security, and whatever we needed to do, we would do on that front – but also by harnessing the views of the rest of the community, including the Muslim community, in putting forward that not only has this kind of extremism no place in this country, but also worldwide. It was the Prime Minister’s view that this was not just a problem that was limited to this country, but it was a symptom of a much bigger problem, and this was something we needed to think about too. The Prime Minister’s approach was that not only were the security measures that were needed taken, but also the root cause of the problem was addressed as well, which was not something that was limited either to this country, but rather one that went much beyond it.

Asked if there were any plans to change extradition requests, the PMOS said the Government’s view on the death penalty remained and was not going to change. In this situation, discussions with the police and the security services had to be done with an open mind as to what it was that would help them.

Asked how the Government approached the problem of the "disillusioned young Muslims" who had been fed information through website, television, etc, and how was it to be stopped at its core, the PMOS replied that whilst the Government could certainly help, it was the Muslim community that could do things itself and had recognized through its MPs that it should do something. The important thing was that in spite of the shock of yesterday’s news, the community had recognized that it needed to act now.

Asked to comment on some American opinions that the openness in the UK had made it a "breeding ground" for terrorism, and was he aware of any official representation, the PMOS said he was not aware of any such representation of that kind of view at all. In fact, he was aware of the reverse which was certainly expressed at the G8 meeting as there was widespread admiration of the way in which this country responded to the immediate news, and also in the way it remained united. There was also admiration for the way in which we handled a diverse community. The PMOS said it was the wrong end of the telescope, as this problem did not start in this country, but rather beyond our shores. Therefore, the issue was not only how the problem was addressed in this country, but also how it was addressed back in a wider context.

Put to the PMOS that the American opinions appeared to be that we had been "far too tolerant", the PMOS said that each country had to take action according to its own traditions and what was necessary in terms of keeping a society united. Equally, however, that must include, if there was an additional threat, additional measures taken to meet it. That was why we would take a "two pronged" approach to this; on the one hand, whatever measures that police and security services decided we had to have, then we give them serious consideration, and we had already been doing that. We had taken action to the limit on what the process deemed to be acceptable, but we had to keep pushing to see what more we had to do. At the same time, we also had to build on the acceptance that there was an issue that the Muslim community had to address, and was starting to address.

Put to the PMOS that that House rose until October next week, was there any chance it might reconvene to push through legislation over the summer, the PMOS said it would be better to consider what the police said to us, and then work out what, if anything, we needed to do. AT this stage, it was premature to begin speculating about what form it would take and what would be necessary.

Asked what the latest estimate of the scale of future attacks was, the PMOS replied that we were now moving from the immediate aftermath to an assessment of what needed to be done. There was more work to be done regarding the investigation, as it was far from over, but it was better to do that properly instead of rushing into anything.

Asked whether it was thought that the Muslim Council of Great Britain (MCGB) was "out of touch", the PMOS replied that the Prime Minister did value the work of the council very much. The Muslim community, like any other community was not a monolithic community and therefore there were lots of different voices from within it. The important thing was that we were in touch with as wide a variety of opinion within the community as possible, and that came through direct contact between the Government and various representatives, but also from MPs and others. The PMOS said PMQs would give people a better idea, but over the next few days, we would try and touch base with as many people from the Muslim community as possible.

Asked what the Prime Minister’s reaction was to Charles Kennedy’s suggestion regarding the way we went to war with Iraq and the way we handled the aftermath, the PMOS said that he did not want to get into comments about what the Opposition was saying about Iraq, nor should anything the PMOS said be read as such. Equally, however, the Prime Minister’s view was very firmly that it was misplaced to think this problem arose out of Iraq. This problem was there before Iraq – 9/11 was in 2001, not 2003. As the Foreign Secretary said in a recent interview that the problems in Afghanistan were there before the Iraq War, and the attacks that took place in Kenya and elsewhere were also before the Iraq War. It was therefore in the Prime Minister’s view a mistake to say that this was a problem which had arisen out of the Iraq War. The reality was that each of these events was a symptom of a wider problem.

Asked whether he was saying it was the police who would take the lead on legislation, and should it not be ministers who took the lead instead, the PMOS replied: no. Ministers decided after acting on advice from the police and the authorities, and that was a discussion that was not only perfectly normal, but also perfectly right. The police and security services were the ones who had the experience of actually dealing with the issues and they were the people who could best identify any gaps in the legislative process. We had always acted in consultation with ACPO and the other police authorities.

Asked whether the talks regarding the Terrorism legislation would contain any other measures, the PMOS replied that in terms of the overall consideration, it was best to keep an open mind. That did not mean that people went back to a blank page, as we had already taken through the House three major pieces of anti-terrorism legislation. Equally, the problems needed to be identified, and, acting on the advice given by the police and security services, consider whether further legislation needed to be taken and how quickly it had to be taken. That was the approach we would take.

Put to the PMOS that part of the Labour Party Manifesto said they would help stop "preachers preaching what they preached", and also why was it only now that the Muslim community accepted that there was a problem after the bombs last week, the PMOS said the police and the authorities had to be consulted to ensure any legislation was effective and legally watertight and had as wide a consensus as possible behind it. We would be guided by advice regarding timing and content, and that was important to remember.
With regards to the Muslim community, there was a far wider dialogue since 9/11 than there was beforehand. There was far greater conversation between the Government and the Muslim community than there was before 9/11. The PMOS asked whether we needed to change gear, with the answer being "yes". There was a recognition on both sides, but most importantly, within the Muslim community.

Asked what the Prime Minister thought had been the catalyst responsible for the timings of the bombings last week, the PMOS replied it would take more time for people to consider, and again, it was a truism that was in danger of being lost. The people who carried out these terrible atrocities were the only ones who knew why they had done it. What the rest of society had to do was to say with a loud and united voice that, first of all, such atrocities had no place in this society, but furthermore, we were united in doing everything we could to stop them, both in terms of adopting the correct security measure and also in taking action in communities to convince people that this kind of activity had no place in this country.

Asked if there had been any further consultation with the Opposition leaders, the PMOS said we remained in contact with a wide variety of people, but the Prime Minister as always would answer whatever questions were put to him in the House. It was up to the Speaker to decide what questions were answered.

Put to the PMOS that Lord Carlisle had said yesterday that the bombs had proved to people that there were extremist terrorists based in this country prepared to carry out these acts, and if there was a consensus, action could be taken "swiftly" to get the legislation onto the Statute books, the PMOS said the important thing was to make sure that whatever legislation we had was watertight. There was always a balance to be struck between the need to respond and the need for that response to be effective.

10 Comments »

"it was misplaced to think this problem arose out of Iraq"?! "police take the lead on legislation"?! Oh, come on… get a grip and take the helm, please – there is some indication here of joined-up thinking, but it’s too embryonic: we have a desperate need now for INCISIVE leadership based on a much better understanding of the historical perspective which gives rise to such extremist fanatical behaviour. Get out the history books!
Comment by auntyq — 13 Jul 2005 on 5:52 pm | Link
"The Prime Minister was determined that we should take on this extremism, not just by having the right kind of security, and whatever we needed to do, we would do on that front – but also by harnessing the views of the rest of the community, including the Muslim community, in putting forward that not only has this kind of extremism no place in this country, but also worldwide."

Sorry Tony, but it exists. Regardless of how abhorrent you find it, or how alien, it exists. And it exists because people like YOU allow it to; it’s YOUR foreign policy which breeds this kind of hate. Wishing it were not so and paying lipservice to solving the problem is not going to make it go away. Unfortunately for all of us.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 13 Jul 2005 on 8:33 pm | Link
"Sorry Tony, but it exists. Regardless of how abhorrent you find it, or how alien, it exists. And it exists because people like YOU allow it to; it’s YOUR foreign policy which breeds this kind of hate. Wishing it were not so and paying lipservice to solving the problem is not going to make it go away. Unfortunately for all of us."

THAT sums it up! Well said!
May we quote you on our website?
Comment by jk5 — 14 Jul 2005 on 2:31 am | Link
Feel free…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 14 Jul 2005 on 3:48 am | Link
Let’s be realistic here. What would it take to make YOU commit these kinds of acts? Could it be years of hypocrisy and oppression by a Government that screams over a death toll in London of 55 on one terrible day, but ignores the simple fact that on the same day over 100 Iraqi people – innocent children, men and women – have died at the hands of US troops and their "insurgent" enemies? Until it is recognised that it is the foreign policy of the UK Government that causes these attacks, they will continue. There is much talk of "defiance" and "standing up to" the attackers. Isn’t that what the "insurgents" are doing in Iraq? in Palestine? in countless other countries where Western powers have shamelessly installed puppet regimes? I can’t forgive whoever attacked London, but we must recognize that for every action, there is a reaction. It’s us in the West who have all the power.
And concerning new anti-terrorist legislation, didn’t we have enough before? From years of dealing with the IRA? The measures rushed in after 9/11 didn’t protect us, and there is no reason to think that further curtailing of civil liberties (for example, the right to protest, which has just been illegalized) would help us. Tony Blair is the person who should take responsibility for taking us to a war that NOBODY here wanted. You hear that , Blair? You work for US, it’s about time you STARTED LISTENING. We, the people, know what’s best for us, not you and your spin doctors, focus groups, and influence peddlers.
Comment by JC — 20 Jul 2005 on 2:32 pm | Link
Indeed JC – not so far from our very first comment on this topic:

"We ask thinking people to consider: "What would be your reaction if a foreign power had invaded your country and murdered 100,000 of you compatriots?"

http://www.downingstreetsays.org/archives/001737.html#comment3236

We (the five of us at http://www.jk5.net) discussed this at length. If a foreign regime invaded our land (no matter how much we might detest Bliar) we would defend Britain with the most ruthless violence we could muster. We would even defend Bliar (and anyone who has read our site knows how much THAT cuts against the grain).

There are MANY peoples of the world who have a most legitimate grievance against the USA and its "coalition of the arrogant" (http://www.jk5.net/spages/CotA.asp) for the most egregious crimes against humanity – random murder, theft (of whole country’s natural resources), rape and torture. We (the UK, the USA and others) have invaded their lands and committed these crimes.

Seeing this and admitting it is not "condoning terrorism" it is simply observing the events of history. Pretending that it has not happened and that "we" have only ever tried to "help" other nations is such an obvious lie that it only makes matters worse – far worse.

Yes – if a foreign power had invaded our land and murdered our children we ask "who would NOT commit these kinds of acts".
Comment by jk5 — 20 Jul 2005 on 3:57 pm | Link
JK5 – you say ‘our’ land and ‘our’ children, but those who attacked London were not Iraqis, and nor is there any evidence that they had ever been to Iraq.

What many find questionable is that whilst these groups and these people are outraged by Western interference in Iraq, where on earth were they when Saddam Hussien and his cohorts were murdering fellow Muslims? Why were they so able to abide with a dictator who murdered and buthered his own, and for all intents purposes was a Muslim only in name? This strange contradiction it seems is hard to explain.

If the Iraqi people were unable to help themselves, and the rest of the Muslim world were either not inclined or unable to help them (because lets be honest, most Muslim states live under similar dictatorial conditions) who was going to help them?

The reason perhaps that military interference was needed in Iraq, why such dictators can seemingly exist with relatively little challenge amongst the Islamic world, and why indeed perhaps Islamic terrorism itself exists, is because the Islamic nations have been too slow to begin political reforms, and give some power to the hands of the ordinary people.

Those who suffer most in this, those innocents in Iraq caught up in the conflict, those angry young men turned extremists, and the millions who live in poverty and under repressives states, are those that most need a voice, the moderates and the ordinary people, who simply want work, safety, homes, a chance to prosper in their lives and bring up their families. Ideology is promoted only by political elites and extremes on all sides who use the suffering, the frustration and the anger of the masses to promote their vision of the world, and to ultimately have political power.
Comment by Lee Butcher — 20 Jul 2005 on 11:16 pm | Link
"…but those who attacked London were not Iraqis, and nor is there any evidence that they had ever been to Iraq…"

Please forgive us, but we do not recall making any statement that the London bombers came from any particular place. Looking back through our posts we cannot find such a reference either. If we DID make such a reference it was not intended since we had no such assumptions.

The historical record is incontravertible in respect of the USA (and UK) support for Saddam’s brutal regime (and the Taliban in Afghanistan) while it suited [us]. Repression in Iraq (under Saddam) was as much the direct responsibility of the "West" as is the ongoing repression, brutality, torture etc in other client states fully supported by the USA. They are permitted (no doubt encouraged) to continue such brutality so long as US "interests" are secure. If they become less subservient they will be carpet bombed into oblivion.
Comment by jk5 — 21 Jul 2005 on 10:40 am | Link
Whilst there is indeed something to be said about Western influence in Middle Eastern and other Islamic nations, some could argue that that falls into the region of international relations. Interference kept a minimum unless a nation or nations believes it is worth the cost, and relations are dependant both on policy towards the region as a whole, the economics of the situation, and how much, both in monetary, diplomatic and military terms, any one nation can spend on a country.

However, my arguement is different, despite the role that Western nations have to play in these matters, what about the role that the Islamic faith, both nations and communities within secular countries, and their role in this? There seems to be very little outspoken criticism of dictatorial regimes that operate under the banner of Islam, and their seems from Islam as a whole, a kind of passive acceptance that this is the case, and has always been the case. In a sense, my arguement is rather more bottom up, where are the people and their outcries about what happens in the name of their faith?

Is it a fear to turn inwards and to some extent turn against fellow members of the Ummah? Is it because those in dictatorial countries are so repressed that they cannot form an effective opposition to repressive Governments? (which is highly likely in my opinion)

Whilst the history of Western nations can be questioned, and their motives in the present contested, Islam cannot escape the fact that it to has a role to play, to some extent, in keeping its own house in order, and where it lies in its near acceptance of brutal, unjust and wholly un-Islamic Governments ruling in their name.
Comment by Lee Butcher — 21 Jul 2005 on 8:58 pm | Link
Whilst there is indeed something to be said about Western influence in Middle Eastern and other Islamic nations, some could argue that that falls into the region of international relations. Interference kept a minimum unless a nation or nations believes it is worth the cost, and relations are dependant both on policy towards the region as a whole, the economics of the situation, and how much, both in monetary, diplomatic and military terms, any one nation can spend on a country.

However, my arguement is different, despite the role that Western nations have to play in these matters, what about the role that the Islamic faith, both nations and communities within secular countries, and their role in this? There seems to be very little outspoken criticism of dictatorial regimes that operate under the banner of Islam, and their seems from Islam as a whole, a kind of passive acceptance that this is the case, and has always been the case. In a sense, my arguement is rather more bottom up, where are the people and their outcries about what happens in the name of their faith?

Is it a fear to turn inwards and to some extent turn against fellow members of the Ummah? Is it because those in dictatorial countries are so repressed that they cannot form an effective opposition to repressive Governments? (which is highly likely in my opinion)

Whilst the history of Western nations can be questioned, and their motives in the present contested, Islam cannot escape the fact that it to has a role to play, to some extent, in keeping its own house in order, and where it lies in its near acceptance of brutal, unjust and wholly un-Islamic Governments ruling in their name.
Comment by Lee Butcher — 21 Jul 2005 on 9:02 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, July 13, 2005

London bombings

10 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries