EDL founder says his life has been threatened; police are stationed outside his home

There’s something odd and wrong about the way this story, which comes from the Guardian, is written. See my comments following the article.

The founder of the English Defence League claims he has been warned that his life is in danger if he leads a protest in Luton.

Stephen Lennon, 28, said senior police officers were urging him to leave his home town ahead of the anticipated arrival of thousands of EDL supporters.

The militant anti-Islamist campaigner said he was under police protection. He claimed Bedfordshire police had issued him with an “Osman warning”, which are given by the police to advise individuals that they are at serious risk of being killed by someone who appears to have the capability to make good their threat.

Lennon, who routinely wears a bulletproof vest, said the warning followed a text message threatening to kill his children.

He said a written warning given to him by police states the Islamic community are “agitated” by tomorrow’s EDL demonstration.

The message added: “There is a threat to the life of leader Stephen Lennon. This is likely to be aggravated by the visit to Luton. You would be advised it would more appropriate if you leave the area for the foreseeable future.”

Bedfordshire police, which has been preparing for the demonstration for weeks, declined to comment on Lennon’s claim.

It is understood that an unarmed police officer has been stationed outside Lennon’s home.

[end of article]

It’s odd that the police won’t confirm the threat, leaving the Guardian to write the entire story under the rubric that Lennon “said” he had been threatened, that Lennon “claims” he has received a note, and so on, rather than that the police said he had been threatened, which would give the story more authority and more urgency. Normally, wouldn’t the police officially confirm the existence of such a threat, assuming it was true?

It seems to me that there are two logical possibilities.

1. There is no death threat, and Lennon is making it up.

But that’s impossible, since if there was no death threat, and Lennon was making it up, the police would surely have said so when the Guardian asked them about it.

2. There is a death threat, but the police decline to confirm it, leaving Lennon himself to be the media’s source on the threat rather than the police, which makes his story seem less credible or at least less important.

That appears to be what has happened here.

The Guardian further contributes to this downplaying of the truth, by saying “It is understood that an unarmed police officer has been stationed outside Lennon’s home.” That’s odd wording for a newspaper article. Surely he Guardian would not have reported, “It is understood” that an police guard had been stationed outside Lennon’s home, unless the police had actually told them so. But instead of saying outright, “An unarmed police officer has been stationed outside Lennon’s home,” which would make it definite, they use the weasily phrase, “It is understood.”

These are some the subtle, subliminal techniques by which the leftist police and the leftist media work together to slant public consciousness against right-wing figures.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 05, 2011 08:50 AM | Send