I am not sure that arresting people suspected of planning terrorism would have helped in that instance, because I don't believe that the perpetrators were under suspicion.
It is reported that there was suspicion about possible terrorism that was not acted on, but to the best of my memory the actual people involved were not not the ones suspected. If you had some faith in the authorities, you might think that perhaps there ws so much speculation that it was not easy to distinguish wild rumours from genuine informatino.
If the right people could have been found, even if a number of completely irrelevant people were also arrested, that would have been a good thing. Better still if it had been possible to identify the real terrorists and release the irrelevant people quickly, but for any of that to have happened it would have been necessary to have had better information about who might be planning something.
Why I don't trust any of it is that the police in the UK have been seen to try to make the evidence fit whoever they have available, at least some times. In a case of a mother being convicted of killing her own child, evidence showing that the most likely cause of death was a medical problem unconnected with any actions of the mother, was simply buried (to the best of my memory - I can't remember the details). The evidence came to light - I think that one possible witness was surprised not to have been called and eventually asked questions about it. Of course, that was not proof that murder had not been committed, it simply showed that on the balance of probability it probably had not. We shall never know for sure...
I can't help thinking that the temptation to do this kind of thing would become stronger the longer someone had been in custody, whether or not the facts really supported the case they wanted to make.
no subject
It is reported that there was suspicion about possible terrorism that was not acted on, but to the best of my memory the actual people involved were not not the ones suspected. If you had some faith in the authorities, you might think that perhaps there ws so much speculation that it was not easy to distinguish wild rumours from genuine informatino.
If the right people could have been found, even if a number of completely irrelevant people were also arrested, that would have been a good thing. Better still if it had been possible to identify the real terrorists and release the irrelevant people quickly, but for any of that to have happened it would have been necessary to have had better information about who might be planning something.
Why I don't trust any of it is that the police in the UK have been seen to try to make the evidence fit whoever they have available, at least some times. In a case of a mother being convicted of killing her own child, evidence showing that the most likely cause of death was a medical problem unconnected with any actions of the mother, was simply buried (to the best of my memory - I can't remember the details). The evidence came to light - I think that one possible witness was surprised not to have been called and eventually asked questions about it. Of course, that was not proof that murder had not been committed, it simply showed that on the balance of probability it probably had not. We shall never know for sure...
I can't help thinking that the temptation to do this kind of thing would become stronger the longer someone had been in custody, whether or not the facts really supported the case they wanted to make.