´óÏó´«Ã½

Lets hope then that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ starts admitting when it's wrong.
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is amazing, the one time you are proven to be correct you have to start a blog to mention it.
I imagine that as you have started to check the facts (first time for everything) you may also want to apologise to Muslims, Jews, Catholics & Car drivers for the amount of factually incorrect reports you keep producing which have no solid evidence?.
Also, could I suggest that the Guardian should not be your only source to gauge how the nation thinks the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is performing?.
I do read the Guardian, and I also read the Daily Mail, both these papers have agendas and both papers have plus and negative sides to them, why not take it in turns to debate a article from each paper on the HYS?.
If you did something like this you maybe in a postition to refute the charges of bias that seems to be the prevalant majority opinion about the ´óÏó´«Ã½.
Finally, may I thank the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for it's excellent Cricket coverage.

Once more ´óÏó´«Ã½ has "BEEBed" the truth. Anyone can be wrong. You can be wrong. ´óÏó´«Ã½ can be wrong. To be even handed, from now on I expect that everyone at ´óÏó´«Ã½ will say before every report, "what I am about to tell you can be wrong" and after each report "what I have just told you can be wrong." And lately NOBODY but NOBODY has been more wrong than ´óÏó´«Ã½...starting with right here with your Blog.

Mark (apropos #1),

Following the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes (in an 'intelligence-led operation') and the Forest Gate episode (another 'intelligence-led operation' with disastrous consequences) - not to mention the 'intelligence' that led us to war in Iraq - we have become aware both that intelligence can be wrong, and that the effects of such errors can be grave indeed.

Moreover, while arrests had been made, as we have seen some of those arrested (presumably on the basis of intelligence) have been released without charge, while others face charges. If this was an 'intelligence-led operation' quite clearly some of the intelligence was wrong here as well -hence the release of some suspects without charge.

We can take it as read that anyone and everyone can be wrong in anything and everything they say. With regard to 'intelligence-led operations', however, recent experience and the presumption of innocence suggest that including this caveat was justified.

Except this reasoning doesn't leave you much room for ´óÏó´«Ã½-bashing, does it?

"I find it astonishing that The Sun could run a bold print comment and get the quote so wrong. Good on you Peter."

That assumes of course that Peter has printed the correct quote this time. He hasn't provided any evidence to back his claim. While I don't believe he is lying I do feel that the quote is phrased rather oddly for a spoken quote.

keith fleming #3;
We all know intelligence services can be wrong and often are. This time all they did was make some arrests. Not everyone who gets arrested is guilty. That's what trials, evidence, and juries are for. The purpose of ´óÏó´«Ã½ BEEBing the news was to put an anti British spin on it as is frequently the case under the present government which it clearly doesn't like. I find it consistant that people of your point of view never consider the ultimate consequences of what would happen if they got their way. Should the authorities fail to act when they have enough evidence for an arrest or take decisive action when they feel a threat of an attack is imminent and is actually carried out, the backlash against Moslems may be enormous. Some people may have forgotten or may not know that after 9-11, it was all the American government could do to surpress it. Next time they won't be so effective. When it appears the authorities are no longer able to protect the public at large from danger, the public has a way of taking matters into their own hands and it can get very ugly. Once it happens on a mass scale, there is nothing the government can do about it either.

RE: MARK E'S COMMENT (POST 5)
HERE'S WHAT THE SUN PUBLISHED..

Beeb's shame;Sun says;Leading Article
From The Sun - 01/02/2007 (101 words)
Features

POLICE may have foiled a plot to kidnap, torture and behead a British Muslim squaddie.

This is the latest blood-curdling development in the battle between extremists and the liberal West.

Nothing is too horrific for those fanatics intent on punishing the "infidel".

And how does the ´óÏó´«Ã½ choose to report this raid by West Midlands police?

Their lunchtime TV bulletin warned: "We must remember this raid was intelligence-led...and, as we know, the intelligence services often get it wrong."

Just whose side are these guys on?

(C) The Sun, 2007

Mark (#s 2, 3, 6)

You seem to be conflating my critique of your ´óÏó´«Ã½-bashing with a much wider issue here.

Specificllly, I am afraid I have no earthly idea what you mean by 'people of my point of view' in the context you use. All I did, at #3, was to defend the use of a particular phrase - 'intelligence can be wrong' on the basis of recent events. From this, you seem to conclude that I am attempting to hamper or denigrate the work of the inteligence services and police - resulting in you essentially tarring me with a brush of working to compromise national security - apparently 'people like me' don't think of the 'ultimate consequences' if we 'got our way'. But here, 'my way' is to support a respectable news broadcaster reporting on the salient facts of a story, and linking this to salient facts of other, similar stories in recent months. I would have thought the consequences of this to be overwhelmingly positive.

Again, all I was trying to do was to defend the use of a very specific caveat in a ´óÏó´«Ã½ report. So, I was not at all saying that the intelligence services and police should not act upon intelligence; rather, and given the recent examples, Iwas defending the use of the phrase 'intelligence can be wrong'.

It seems to me that your argument belongs to a viewpoint typical of certain right-wing American patriots, for whom no suggestion of criticisim - or even caution, as in this case - in matters of national security is permitted, given the hysterical tenor of the times. Attempting to curtail legitimate criticisim - or, again, caution - in this regard leads us towards a dangerous acquiescence with regards to the security forces and police.

Of course, I understand that the protection of society depends upon the actions of the security services and police. On the other hand, the society they are defending is surely one where a television broadcaster can point out that 'intelligence can be wrong' without being accused of unpatriotic and dangerous behaviour?

I remain yours,

Keith

Thanks Bob. As I did not hear the original broadcast I would not like to take sides on this issue. However, I feel that the quote from the Sun

("We must remember this raid was intelligence-led...and, as we know, the intelligence services often get it wrong.")

seems more like something that was spoken. While the ´óÏó´«Ã½ statement

("This is an intelligence-led operation. Intelligence can be wrong")

seems more like a quote that was written.

The Sun "quote" flows better, while the ´óÏó´«Ã½ "quote" comes across as harder and as such seems less likely to have been spoken by an experienced broadcaster.