Jonti said:
The BBC is reporting
here concerns that political pressure may have been applied to the police to oblige them to carry out the raid ...
I think there are a number of issues all mixed up in the phrase "political pressure", some of which are more concerning than others.
The police have operational independence from all other agencies, politicians, etc. That is a constitutional fact. They could say no, regardless of what anyone else says. They could say yes. If they say yes then their independence means that they must stand behind their decision. In the circumstances of this case, that could best be done by a very senior officer (probably the Commissioner) standing in front of the cameras and saying "We did what we did, this is why (so far as it can be shared). It was our decision. With the benefit of hindsight clearly it was mistaken and we will be doing whatever we need to do to compensate." I fear some of the shilly-shallying now is a symptom of not being prepared to do that, although several other officers have done it to a certain extent.
If the source was a police source then they are answerable for the quality of the intelligence as well. If it wasn't, then they may or may not have had any way of verifying it's reliability. I'd be surprised if they didn't get told details of the source so they could research them themselves, but it is possible they were not (the security servces are notoriously protective of sources, it was one of the key problems underlying the issues which arose in Northern Ireland). Even if they were, I would not have expected them automatically to have had the opportunity to interview the source themselves, in fact I'd be surprised if they did. If the source belonged to some other agency then they would be responsible for judging reliability and, quite rightly, the police would have to take their views into account. As has been noted though, they may have a variety of reasons for bigging up their source.
No matter what, a situation was arrived at in which there was certain information, judged to be (by whoever) of a certain reliability, which COULD justify an arrest / search operation. Whether or not to then mount that operation is the key issue (and if so, how). It is the police's decision but, bearing in mind the possible consequences of getting it wrong (in either way), it is inevitable (and I think quite right) that they would seek other views. I think the first reports told how the PM (or at least the Home Secretary) were advised in advance.
I don't think there would be anything wrong with the police asking something like "Look, we've got this situation. We're thinking of going in, but if it turns out to be wrong we're going to wind up the muslim community a bit more. If we don't, and something does goes bang and people die, we will be criticised for sitting on our hands. We're planning to do it, cos that is the least worst option. What do you reckon?" And view expressed could (and I think should) be taken into account in the final decision, but it would be wrong if the police wanted to do it and allowed themselves to be talked out of it for political or other non-operational reasons. Likewise if they didn't want to do it and were talked into it. But I would be surprised if that were the case. In effect, running it past the politicians is the nearest thing to asking the people that exists in such a situation.
Ultimately there appears to have been sufficient grounds to suspect to merit the granting of a search warrant and to justify the arrests. If the people arrested wish to challenge either aspect, then legal recourse does exist (and Gareth Pierce will not be slow to make thousands out of doing so).
Once a decision to carry out the operation was made, HOW to do it comes into play. Although armed rapid entries are inherently risky, hundreds take place every year without anyone getting hurt. Being prepared for the worst "What if ..." by having CBRN suits, scientists and enough officers in reserve to mount an evacuation or containment seems to make sense doesn't it? For the sake of a few quid (in the big scheme of things) and the chance that people may allege overkill it's got to be the most sensible approach - identifying a risk and putting in place reasonable control measures that, in themselves, have no massive downside (the fact 250 officers were involved made absolutely no difference to how the operation went - it would have turned out the same whether 20 or 2000 were). And the arrangements would definitely be the decision of the police - No10 and the security services wouldn't know where to start planning something like that in a policing context.
.
