Labour's war on terror is failing, says leaked report

[datestamp]

Money but that does mean a massive amount of cocaine s being imported into the country, but hold on, arent we increasing spending on the War on Terror to stop anthrax WMDs etc being imported , makes a bit of a mockery of the Government doesnt it ?

I wonder what would happen if they imported a crate load of anthrax dressed up as cocaine. That's a thought not to be sniffed at.

[TwoWolves]

Fighting a war on terror is like trying to build an IT system based on the mission statement as a specification. Ultimately there is no way of solving the problem and no way of measuring any success. All efforts so far have made things worse.

You cannot make a world without dissent, especially not using war.

This whole thing is the worst kind of madness and I simply despair of our politicians.

[AlfredJPruffock]

by weight or by money value ?

Money but that does mean a massive amount of cocaine s being imported into the country, but hold on, arent we increasing spending on the War on Terror to stop anthrax WMDs etc being imported , makes a bit of a mockery of the Government doesnt it ?

Makes you wonder where exactly that proposed 2.1 billion on anti terror expenditure s going ?

And how come 2.1 billion of cocaine can be smuggled under the Governments nose ...no pun intended !

[EternalOptimist]

by weight or by money value ?

[AlfredJPruffock]

The paper is particularly embarrassing for Tony Blair and Clarke because vast resources have been spent on counterterrorism since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Overall spending on security will rise from £1.5 billion in 2004-5 to £2.1 billion by 2007-8.

Oddly enough the figure of 2.1 Billion pounds is the same as the amount of cocaine sold in the UK annualy.

[OwlHoot]

Along with the introduction of the sofa as a means of developing policy.

What a complete tosspot this man is.

Probably a lot of the confusion is caused by their compulsive habit of "radical" reform, to make it look like they're being decisive.

For example I recently read they planned to disband Special Branch, supposedly because it spends too much time fighting turf wars with MI5, but probably in reality for some other reason, for example as yet another concession to the IRA (RUC Special Branch was abolished several years ago for that reason) or as part of some scheme to get an integrated EU security service off the ground. Who knows?

(Actually, I must admit, it may have been the Flying Squad that was being disbanded, in which case please ignore the preceding para. But the point remains - If you kick a wood ants' nest all over the place with a large hobnail boot, how can you expect the ants to go on doing whatever they normally do in an orderly and efficient fashion?)

[wendigo100]

mired in confusion
little effective co-ordination
little confidence
immature
disjointed
weak
vague
not connected or coherent

There you have it in a nutshell - Tony Blair's place in history.

[Lucifer Box]

Raise taxes and create new laws. The NL answer to everything.

[stackpole]

In The Times:

THE government’s counter-terrorism strategy is failing, according to a leaked paper by the prime minister’s delivery unit, which was set up to ensure policies work effectively.

The document says the policy is mired in confusion, with “little effective co-ordination” and no clear leadership. It adds that there is “little confidence” in the ability of the security apparatus to tackle the problem and that “it is very difficult to demonstrate that progress has been made”.

In its conclusions, the 11- page review states: “The strategy is immature. Forward planning is disjointed or has yet to occur. Accountability for delivery is weak. Real world impact is seldom measured.” The plan’s objectives are dismissed as “vague”.

The findings are based on interviews with dozens of officials in Whitehall charged with protecting the country from terrorist attack. Quoting a litany of their criticisms, the memo says: “Activity is not connected or coherent. Who’s in charge? We measure meetings and reports, not real world impact.”

The paper is particularly embarrassing for Tony Blair and Clarke because vast resources have been spent on counterterrorism since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Overall spending on security will rise from £1.5 billion in 2004-5 to £2.1 billion by 2007-8.

Why doesn't this surprise me? Mind you, the answer is obvious - raise taxes and hose more money at the problem.

Remember - your safety is in their hands.