Is it too cynical to suggest that the government may have inspired tales of counter-terrorism plots, mass kidnapping and tethered goats?

Scare stories

Richard Norton-Taylor

February 8, 2007 04:36 PM

If we believed the media reports, the police and MI5 have thwarted a devastating plot to kidnap 25 targets, including a Muslim servicemen on leave. The Ministry of Defence had come up with a plan whereby soldiers would act as "tethered goats" to lure the kidnappers.

But the plot was nipped in the bud by what the Home Office described a "major counter-terrorism operation", leading to the highly-publicised dawn arrests of nine Muslims in Birmingham last week. The Maktabah Islamic bookshop was sealed. Other targets included the Blades Cyber Cafe, and the Khan General Store. The police described the arrests as "the foothills of a very major investigation". Yesterday, two of the nine men were released by order of a district judge.

Stories about mass kidnapping and tethered goats are not invented by journalists. They - we - are fed them by "sources" with an agenda and who, of course, remain anonymous. It is all very easy.

It is made easier because, officially, the security and intelligence agencies, the police, and the Home Office, make no comment about anti-terrorist operations, not least because of the danger of prejudicing the jury at any future trial. But the temptation to indulge in the dark art of black propaganda is too great.

Who inspired the lurid tales surrounding the Birmingham arrests will never be known. It is unlikely, however, to have been officers in MI5 or the police anti-terrorist branch in the forefront of the operation. Such stories can sabotage their investigations as well as the gathering of evidence. And it does not endear them to members of the Muslim community, on whose cooperation they say they rely.

Would the government be above inspiring such stories? Certainly, in the past, ministers, including Tony Blair, have played politics with security by praying MI5 and the police in aid of his demand, for example, that suspects should be held without charge for 90 days, as opposed to the present 28-day limit.

And if those arrested have to be released when the 28 days are up for lack of evidence, then the government can argue that this is further proof that 28 days are not enough. Maybe this is too cynical an observation. Whether it is or not, such scare stories are increasingly dangerous and, in the end, counter-productive.

Richard Norton-Taylor is the Guardian's security editor.