John Reid: Evidence in UK terror plot substantial

[sabra]

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/uk/article_1192474.php/John_Reid_Evidence_in_UK_terror_plot_substantial

John Reid: Evidence in UK terror plot substantial

John Reid has insisted that ongoing police inquiries into the alleged terror plot involving ten transatlantic flights are based upon 'substantial material'.

In an interview with US news channel ABC, the home secretary also emphasised that the public should remember that it was still a 'suspected' plot at this stage.

Reports in the British press this morning had suggested that police were preparing to ask for extended time to question about half of the 23 people arrested in connection with the terror plan, but Mr Reid explained that owing to the 'ongoing judicial process' it was impossible to discuss specific details.

'But what I can say is that the police and the security authorities are content that their investigation is rewarding substantial material, which would allow them to take forward the judicial process,' he said.

[rodeodance]

1. maybe it was. But i hope it was not the 'Cheney type' intel.

....John Reid has insisted that ongoing police inquiries into the alleged terror plot involving ten transatlantic flights are based upon 'substantial material'.

[aquart]

2. TEN planes. Fine. Show me the plane tickets.

Oh, hell. Show me the reservations. Surely your evidence is substantial enough for that.

Flight numbers? Destinations? SOMETHING?

Okay, say they manage to get passports in, say, six weeks, and then buy the tickets...credit cards? Cash? Cash payments for plane tickets are instantly flagged, aren't they? And buying in advance.....booking seats for how many people? One to a plane? Five? One to carry each ingredient and then pass it to.....the master chef who will mix it up in the ........bathroom? So no one on any plane will notice people walking up to a toilet door and passing something into it? No? He'll collect the bottles in advance and carry a sloshing bag into the john? I'm trying to figure out how this brilliant, graceful plot will work. Especially if a child who needs to go NOW is banging on the door.

Maybe we should begin by defining "substantial."

[daleo]

3. I think he should have said "substantive", rather than substantial

To me, substantial just means "lots of", while substantive has connotations of "real and persuasive". Mind you, he may be lying with the truth.

sub·stan·tive (sŭb'stən-tĭv)
adj.
Substantial; considerable.
Independent in existence or function; not subordinate.
Not imaginary; actual; real.
Of or relating to the essence or substance; essential: substantive information.
Having a solid basis; firm.
Grammar. Expressing or designating existence; for example, the verb to be.
Grammar. Designating a noun or noun equivalent.

On edit - He just seems to be making "it is technically possible" claims:

"Speculation has been rife as to how exactly the supposed terrorists could have planned to detonate ten separate flights between Britain and the US, but Mr Reid reiterated that there was 'no question' that modern terrorists were capable of such actions.

'Not only are they unconstrained in intentions and actions, but unconstrained in terms of capability, as chemical and biological, radiological and modern technological forms of destruction are available in relatively simple formats,' the home secretary outlined.

Mr Reid said that it was 'relatively simple' for a would be terrorist to make an effective explosive device, and that the real challenge for terrorists was to overcome the anti-terror security restrictions in place around the world."

[leesa]

4. Backpeddling. They don't have enough evidence to charge anyone.

Booga. Booga everyone.

[BREMPRO]

5. right....make the evidence public NOW...show us...

or STFU!! and wouldn't be a shame if they did have a real plot but don't have enough evidence to charge them because chimpy and deadeye were impatient after the Loserman primary..humph