Choose Your Poison

By Wilby, Peter | New Statesman (1996), June 12, 2006 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Choose Your Poison

Wilby, Peter, New Statesman (1996)

Here is what we learned from our newspapers about the police raid on a house in Forest Gate, east London, early on the morning of Friday 2 June.

The brothers who lived there were planning a terrorist attack using cyanide, sarin, anthrax, or bubonic plague germs. The noxious substance would be released from a vest or a canister. It would be a suicide attack or a remote-controlled explosion. The "bomb" was inside the house or "out there". Its use was imminent or it was nowhere near completion. The information came from an MI5 informant or a police informant. The police operation was code-named Volga or Volgo.

Officers entered the house by smashing a window or battering down the front door. One brother was shot by the police (either after a warning or not after a warning, and either after a scuffle or not after a scuffle), or he was shot by the other brother. The shot came from a Glock pistol or a Heckler & Koch sub-machine gun. Both brothers had criminal records or they didn't.

Conflicting briefings

The raid may or may not show flaws in police and intelligence practice, but it certainly suggests flaws in journalism. Two things were evident from the start. First, the police had not found any evidence of the device they were apparently seeking. Most papers translated this into "a desperate hunt"; the existence of the device was a given. Second, the operation involved both the police and MI5. These services, with a history of rivalry, were giving briefings to journalists which conflicted in important respects, not least because each wanted to pin the blame on the other if anything went wrong.

Almost inevitably, anti-terrorist operations depend on intelligence of questionable value. There is nothing new in this. Journalists of all people should know there is no such thing as a reliable source; the best you can get is a "usually reliable" one.


What makes anti-terrorist work different is the supreme importance of pre-emption. In most criminal investigations we accept a certain level of police failure; in anti-terrorism work, because of the potentially hugely damaging consequences, we cannot tolerate it.

The media have no register for this degree of uncertainty and contingency. Newspapers deal in facts (though not necessarily accurate ones) and narratives. Reporters ask the classic questions about who, what, why, when and where. If they don't get answers, they go and ask someone else and, if that fails, cry "Cover-up!

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Choose Your Poison


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?