This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
You should run away, apparently. Who knew?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/26/police-leaflets-advise-run-h...
Is this ramping up the tension needlessly? I could see more risk from a stampede on a busy tube station because someone dropped their christmas shopping
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/26/police-leaflets-advise-run-h...
Is this ramping up the tension needlessly? I could see more risk from a stampede on a busy tube station because someone dropped their christmas shopping
In reply to toad:
If you hear gunfire on the tube .. keep calm, it's probably just the police shooting an innocent guy 7 times in the head. Don't worry though, they won't be charged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
If you hear gunfire on the tube .. keep calm, it's probably just the police shooting an innocent guy 7 times in the head. Don't worry though, they won't be charged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
2
2
In reply to Removed User: And keep calm if you hear some explosions, it probably isn't some nutters killing 55 innocent people.
1
In reply to toad:
Thats the devolved English version. The Scots are going with the John Smeaton quote:
"If any more extremists are still wanting to rise up and start trouble, know this: We’ll rise right back up against you. New York, Madrid, London, Paisley … we’re all in this together and make no mistake, none of us will hold back from putting the boot in."
Thats the devolved English version. The Scots are going with the John Smeaton quote:
"If any more extremists are still wanting to rise up and start trouble, know this: We’ll rise right back up against you. New York, Madrid, London, Paisley … we’re all in this together and make no mistake, none of us will hold back from putting the boot in."
In reply to Removed User:
There's only one of me, perhaps you're addressing someone else.
> Hey guys, I found the police officer.
There's only one of me, perhaps you're addressing someone else.
In reply to Niall:
Agreed.
There current terrorist risk is Severe.
When people talk of scaremongering they just don't get it. The Security Services don't issue these alerts for the fun of it. There has been a big increase in foiled terrorist attacks in recent months, which surely must be telling us something? It's fantastic that the Security Services are foiling them, but it's also pretty inevitable that sooner or later there is going to be another horrific incident.
Most people don't have a clue what to do if they get caught up in a terrorist attack, so I'm glad that we are being given advice like this.
There is little point in issuing warnings unless they are backed up by educating people what to do.
Many years ago I was in Corsica during the height of the separatist campaign when bombs were fairly common. We were sitting at a cafe when there was an explosion. All the locals dived for the floor whereas the tourists continued sitting there looking around confused saying "What was that?" In the event it turned out to be a car backfiring but the reactions of the two groups locals v tourists was interesting.
Agreed.
There current terrorist risk is Severe.
When people talk of scaremongering they just don't get it. The Security Services don't issue these alerts for the fun of it. There has been a big increase in foiled terrorist attacks in recent months, which surely must be telling us something? It's fantastic that the Security Services are foiling them, but it's also pretty inevitable that sooner or later there is going to be another horrific incident.
Most people don't have a clue what to do if they get caught up in a terrorist attack, so I'm glad that we are being given advice like this.
There is little point in issuing warnings unless they are backed up by educating people what to do.
Many years ago I was in Corsica during the height of the separatist campaign when bombs were fairly common. We were sitting at a cafe when there was an explosion. All the locals dived for the floor whereas the tourists continued sitting there looking around confused saying "What was that?" In the event it turned out to be a car backfiring but the reactions of the two groups locals v tourists was interesting.
Post edited at 15:53
In reply to Trangia:
The home secretary says "The Security Service believes that since the attacks on 7th July 2005, around 40 terrorist plots have been disrupted".
At around 4 plots per year her oficial figures say that the UK threat is smaller than the threat of being hit by lightning (about 60 people hit and a few deaths in the UK annually).
The home secretary says "The Security Service believes that since the attacks on 7th July 2005, around 40 terrorist plots have been disrupted".
At around 4 plots per year her oficial figures say that the UK threat is smaller than the threat of being hit by lightning (about 60 people hit and a few deaths in the UK annually).
In reply to elsewhere:
That's right, and once again people are scared of something that very, very probably will not kill them - instead of the real dangers in this world: the things that actually kill us.
> At around 4 plots per year her oficial figures say that the UK threat is smaller than the threat of being hit by lightning (about 60 people hit and a few deaths in the UK annually).
That's right, and once again people are scared of something that very, very probably will not kill them - instead of the real dangers in this world: the things that actually kill us.
In reply to elsewhere:
But we know what to do in a lightning storm, don't stand under a tree or keep holding your umbrella up. Someone educated us.
But we know what to do in a lightning storm, don't stand under a tree or keep holding your umbrella up. Someone educated us.
In reply to elsewhere:
At the risk of getting sucked into a discussion about your knowledge of "the price of everything but the value of nothing" as well as highlighting that "everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted" - Do you genuinely believe that a plot to, for example blow up transatlantic planes, would kill less than 3 people?
Or is this the part of the discussion where you suggest that the only deaths that "count" are UK citizens, living in the UK.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/24/theresa-may-london-attacks-...
> The home secretary says "The Security Service believes that since the attacks on 7th July 2005, around 40 terrorist plots have been disrupted".
> At around 4 plots per year her oficial figures say that the UK threat is smaller than the threat of being hit by lightning (about 60 people hit and a few deaths in the UK annually).
At the risk of getting sucked into a discussion about your knowledge of "the price of everything but the value of nothing" as well as highlighting that "everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted" - Do you genuinely believe that a plot to, for example blow up transatlantic planes, would kill less than 3 people?
Or is this the part of the discussion where you suggest that the only deaths that "count" are UK citizens, living in the UK.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/24/theresa-may-london-attacks-...
In reply to elsewhere:
Don't you find that disturbing?
The difference between being struck by lightning and being caught up in a terrorist attack is that the former is a random act of nature, the latter is an evil calculated attack by human beings on other human beings chosen at random.
I find the thought of one attack a sickening enditement on human behaviour let alone 40.
I wonder how many more of the Mumbai or Nairobi victims would have survived had they known what to do when they first heard the shooting?
Don't you think we should be told what to do in the event of being caught up in an attack no matter how unlikely statistically?
> The home secretary says "The Security Service believes that since the attacks on 7th July 2005, around 40 terrorist plots have been disrupted".
Don't you find that disturbing?
The difference between being struck by lightning and being caught up in a terrorist attack is that the former is a random act of nature, the latter is an evil calculated attack by human beings on other human beings chosen at random.
I find the thought of one attack a sickening enditement on human behaviour let alone 40.
I wonder how many more of the Mumbai or Nairobi victims would have survived had they known what to do when they first heard the shooting?
Don't you think we should be told what to do in the event of being caught up in an attack no matter how unlikely statistically?
In reply to off-duty:
As I recall the last person to run away from a gunman on the tube was shot dead by, umm, the police, so the advice is perhaps questionable, even ignoring its banal nature.
As I recall the last person to run away from a gunman on the tube was shot dead by, umm, the police, so the advice is perhaps questionable, even ignoring its banal nature.
In reply to Trangia:
This affects approximately 60% of the population. When it gets to Very Severe then it rises to 65%, people climbing upwards of E5 need not worry for the foreseeable future
> Agreed.
> There current terrorist risk is Severe.
This affects approximately 60% of the population. When it gets to Very Severe then it rises to 65%, people climbing upwards of E5 need not worry for the foreseeable future
5
In reply to MG:
Other than the fact that De Menezes was not actually running away from anyone at the time I take your point.
It might be reasonable to suggest that if there is a heightened risk of attack at a transport hub, then it can't do any harm if members of the public are presented with this information on arriving at that location.
Common sense, or even banal it might be, but at least, hopefully, the threat will be at the forefront of people's minds as they look at the leaflet and walk into the station. It might, hopefully, mean that their first reaction is to respond as suggested, rather than mill around in confusion.
Have you a better suggestion?
> As I recall the last person to run away from a gunman on the tube was shot dead by, umm, the police, so the advice is perhaps questionable, even ignoring its banal nature.
Other than the fact that De Menezes was not actually running away from anyone at the time I take your point.
It might be reasonable to suggest that if there is a heightened risk of attack at a transport hub, then it can't do any harm if members of the public are presented with this information on arriving at that location.
Common sense, or even banal it might be, but at least, hopefully, the threat will be at the forefront of people's minds as they look at the leaflet and walk into the station. It might, hopefully, mean that their first reaction is to respond as suggested, rather than mill around in confusion.
Have you a better suggestion?
In reply to Trangia:
I work in a tall building in London with approx 7000 people in it. I have heard that it is a known idea that a Mumbai style attack on a large building where you can secure the ground floor and have 7000 hostages is a worry for the security services. Sounds plausable to me, however unlikely. As such I have figured out a couple of unconventional exits from the building (unused staircases, odd fire exits and the basement car park and where they come out). Call me paranoid, I will probably be struck by lightning on the way home...
I work in a tall building in London with approx 7000 people in it. I have heard that it is a known idea that a Mumbai style attack on a large building where you can secure the ground floor and have 7000 hostages is a worry for the security services. Sounds plausable to me, however unlikely. As such I have figured out a couple of unconventional exits from the building (unused staircases, odd fire exits and the basement car park and where they come out). Call me paranoid, I will probably be struck by lightning on the way home...
In reply to off-duty:
I genuinley believe the terrorists have bugger all capability because there are few acts of terrorism comparted to what we used to have and the court cases are mainly for people who have Tony Blair's address and the location of the London Eye rather than murder, possesion of semtex or aircraft crashing.
You're right, when judging the UK threat I look at what happens in the UK and the idea that we can police the world is not credible.
I genuinley believe the terrorists have bugger all capability because there are few acts of terrorism comparted to what we used to have and the court cases are mainly for people who have Tony Blair's address and the location of the London Eye rather than murder, possesion of semtex or aircraft crashing.
You're right, when judging the UK threat I look at what happens in the UK and the idea that we can police the world is not credible.
In reply to Trangia:
Not really, I'm much more likely to be stabbed by a drunken yob.
> Don't you find that disturbing?
Not really, I'm much more likely to be stabbed by a drunken yob.
In reply to off-duty:
Not really. But I do wonder about encouraging running in what will often be crowded places. The risk of panic, trampling etc is considerable and experience suggests bombs and so on are often placed in secondary places where people are likely to seek refuge.
Not really. But I do wonder about encouraging running in what will often be crowded places. The risk of panic, trampling etc is considerable and experience suggests bombs and so on are often placed in secondary places where people are likely to seek refuge.
In reply to elsewhere:
Maybe the advice is directed at people that frequent places that would possibly be alikely trophy target for terrorists. My friends on the North Norfolk coast are probably more frightened of being stabbed by a drunken yob than being bombed or shot by a terrorist and that makes complete sense.
Maybe the advice is directed at people that frequent places that would possibly be alikely trophy target for terrorists. My friends on the North Norfolk coast are probably more frightened of being stabbed by a drunken yob than being bombed or shot by a terrorist and that makes complete sense.
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Out of interest, have you had any briefings from your building's managers about what to do if your office is targeted?
Out of interest, have you had any briefings from your building's managers about what to do if your office is targeted?
In reply to toad:
My thoughts are primarily that this doesn't serve any useful purpose, other than to make people scared. There are plenty of warnings out there, and an extra instruction to run away from gunshot isn't needed. I'm more concerned by (for example) fuses blowing, builders using a nailgun or any one of a thousand clatters and bangs you get on a tube station triggering a panic- the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded nightclub.
It's also fair to say I don't trust Theresa May. I don't (and can't) know how credible these threats are, so I have to base my concern on the credibility of the source and TM has time and again played the authoritarian "mother knows best" card, rather than engaging in debate.
FWIW I had family in both the Manchester Arndale and Warrington and experienced the very real worry (justified or not) about big cities at Christmas.
My thoughts are primarily that this doesn't serve any useful purpose, other than to make people scared. There are plenty of warnings out there, and an extra instruction to run away from gunshot isn't needed. I'm more concerned by (for example) fuses blowing, builders using a nailgun or any one of a thousand clatters and bangs you get on a tube station triggering a panic- the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded nightclub.
It's also fair to say I don't trust Theresa May. I don't (and can't) know how credible these threats are, so I have to base my concern on the credibility of the source and TM has time and again played the authoritarian "mother knows best" card, rather than engaging in debate.
FWIW I had family in both the Manchester Arndale and Warrington and experienced the very real worry (justified or not) about big cities at Christmas.
In reply to MG:
no, nothing at all. I was listening to a security "expert" on Radio 4 a few months ago who said that it was a concern, especially after the Mumbai attacks, as this type is harder to contain due to it's randomness. Everything he said made sense as well. Incredibly easy to over run and secure a ground floor foyer with minimal fuss. This also effectively traps the bulk of occupents. He went on to say that it would be easy for the ground floor to be held against the police whilst a few gun men went floor to floor slaughtering office workers (my emphasis). In London this could be done easily to a US firm (in Canary Wharf) thus enjoying maximum impact
Anyway, I agree that it is highly unlikely but nevertheless, gave me food for thought
no, nothing at all. I was listening to a security "expert" on Radio 4 a few months ago who said that it was a concern, especially after the Mumbai attacks, as this type is harder to contain due to it's randomness. Everything he said made sense as well. Incredibly easy to over run and secure a ground floor foyer with minimal fuss. This also effectively traps the bulk of occupents. He went on to say that it would be easy for the ground floor to be held against the police whilst a few gun men went floor to floor slaughtering office workers (my emphasis). In London this could be done easily to a US firm (in Canary Wharf) thus enjoying maximum impact
Anyway, I agree that it is highly unlikely but nevertheless, gave me food for thought
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
It seems that this must be another scare tactic. Common sense says run away from gunmen. It ties in nicely with all the other media hype regarding facebook and the new security bill.
Lee Rigby wasn't murdered by gunmen. It was someone in a car. The same tactic has been used in Palestine recently. This lowers the entry requirements to a terrorist attack. Millions have cars. Even if 0.00001% of drivers hold extremist views that an awful lot of people with the means to do bad. Will people on watch lists be banned from driving, or even getting in a car?
If an <insert terrorist stereo type> person is involved in an accident with a pedestrian will they be charged with terrorism offences?
It seems that this must be another scare tactic. Common sense says run away from gunmen. It ties in nicely with all the other media hype regarding facebook and the new security bill.
Lee Rigby wasn't murdered by gunmen. It was someone in a car. The same tactic has been used in Palestine recently. This lowers the entry requirements to a terrorist attack. Millions have cars. Even if 0.00001% of drivers hold extremist views that an awful lot of people with the means to do bad. Will people on watch lists be banned from driving, or even getting in a car?
If an <insert terrorist stereo type> person is involved in an accident with a pedestrian will they be charged with terrorism offences?
In reply to Trangia:
There current terrorist risk is Severe.
When people talk of scaremongering they just don't get it. The Security Services don't issue these alerts for the fun of it. There has been a big increase in foiled terrorist attacks in recent months, which surely must be telling us something? It's fantastic that the Security Services are foiling them, but it's also pretty inevitable that sooner or later there is going to be another horrific incident.
Without wanting to get drawn into a prolonged debate on the comparative risks of various things I really think that a bit of perspective is needed here:
Yes there is increased risk of a plot by Islamic extremists, but that risk is still vanishingly small in comparison to the level of hyperbole. I'm more likely to be knifed to death by an atheist than a Muslim, most likely after 10pm. Your chances of getting beheaded by a member of ISIS is probably comparable to your chances of getting beheaded in an implausible slapstick glazing accident, but we haven't banned the playing of the Yakety Sax on building sites. I'm much more likely to get beheaded by a bit of barbed wire strung across a cycle path by an angry dog walker.
I'm not disagreeing that the security services are doing a lot of important work and could almost certainly do with a bit more cash (couldn't we all) but hyping up insignificant risks isn't the way to highlight this. In Britain, there were 188 deaths from murder or manslaughter for every fatality from a terrorist “spectacular” between 2000 and 2011*. I'd like 188 times more pleas for extra funding for "regular" policing rather than some rather nebulous claims about the potential for a new super terrorism legislation which will end up doing very little more than forcing GCHQ to hire another 100 people just to look at pictures of LoLCats in case they are radicalising some ones kids. http://i.imgur.com/PAcWyfj.jpg
*http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/terrorism-fuelled-by-state-violence...
There current terrorist risk is Severe.
When people talk of scaremongering they just don't get it. The Security Services don't issue these alerts for the fun of it. There has been a big increase in foiled terrorist attacks in recent months, which surely must be telling us something? It's fantastic that the Security Services are foiling them, but it's also pretty inevitable that sooner or later there is going to be another horrific incident.
Without wanting to get drawn into a prolonged debate on the comparative risks of various things I really think that a bit of perspective is needed here:
Yes there is increased risk of a plot by Islamic extremists, but that risk is still vanishingly small in comparison to the level of hyperbole. I'm more likely to be knifed to death by an atheist than a Muslim, most likely after 10pm. Your chances of getting beheaded by a member of ISIS is probably comparable to your chances of getting beheaded in an implausible slapstick glazing accident, but we haven't banned the playing of the Yakety Sax on building sites. I'm much more likely to get beheaded by a bit of barbed wire strung across a cycle path by an angry dog walker.
I'm not disagreeing that the security services are doing a lot of important work and could almost certainly do with a bit more cash (couldn't we all) but hyping up insignificant risks isn't the way to highlight this. In Britain, there were 188 deaths from murder or manslaughter for every fatality from a terrorist “spectacular” between 2000 and 2011*. I'd like 188 times more pleas for extra funding for "regular" policing rather than some rather nebulous claims about the potential for a new super terrorism legislation which will end up doing very little more than forcing GCHQ to hire another 100 people just to look at pictures of LoLCats in case they are radicalising some ones kids. http://i.imgur.com/PAcWyfj.jpg
*http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/terrorism-fuelled-by-state-violence...
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
>As such I have figured out a couple of unconventional exits from the building (unused staircases, odd fire exits and the basement car park and where they come out). Call me paranoid, I will probably be struck by lightning on the way home...
You're Bruce Willis, and I claim my 5 pounds
>As such I have figured out a couple of unconventional exits from the building (unused staircases, odd fire exits and the basement car park and where they come out). Call me paranoid, I will probably be struck by lightning on the way home...
You're Bruce Willis, and I claim my 5 pounds
In reply to elsewhere:
>
absolutely
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jun/10/deaths-in-northern-ire...
this is what a genuine murderously capable terrorist campaign looks like. 3568 deaths, of british citizens, in the UK. six consecutive years with a death toll of over 200. thankfully we seem to have put this behind us, but its recent enough that we can surely remember what it felt like.
not the sort of '4 lions' ineptitude which has, with a few appalling exceptions, characterised the home grown islamic terror threat
> I genuinley believe the terrorists have bugger all capability because there are few acts of terrorism comparted to what we used to have and the court cases are mainly for people who have Tony Blair's address and the location of the London Eye rather than murder, possesion of semtex or aircraft crashing.
>
absolutely
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jun/10/deaths-in-northern-ire...
this is what a genuine murderously capable terrorist campaign looks like. 3568 deaths, of british citizens, in the UK. six consecutive years with a death toll of over 200. thankfully we seem to have put this behind us, but its recent enough that we can surely remember what it felt like.
not the sort of '4 lions' ineptitude which has, with a few appalling exceptions, characterised the home grown islamic terror threat
In reply to toad:
You might want to pay attention to the judges statement in which he said there was no evidence that they intended to commit terrorist acts in the UK.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of what level of planning, reality , these 40 planned attacks were at ? Where they all this year, last year, spread out? The devil is in the statistics and I am sorry to say that it seems the security services seem very keen on new powers and will cook the data to get the result they want
##Has a post disappeared?##
You might want to pay attention to the judges statement in which he said there was no evidence that they intended to commit terrorist acts in the UK.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of what level of planning, reality , these 40 planned attacks were at ? Where they all this year, last year, spread out? The devil is in the statistics and I am sorry to say that it seems the security services seem very keen on new powers and will cook the data to get the result they want
##Has a post disappeared?##
Post edited at 20:47
In reply to wbo:
Theresa May was quoting 40 plots thwarted in the DECADE since 7/7 in 2005.
Compared to Northern Ireland where it might have peaked closer to 40 real attacks in a WEEK.
Theresa May was quoting 40 plots thwarted in the DECADE since 7/7 in 2005.
Compared to Northern Ireland where it might have peaked closer to 40 real attacks in a WEEK.
In reply to elsewhere:
Theresa May was quoting 40 plots thwarted in the DECADE since 7/7 in 2005.
Compared to Northern Ireland where it might have peaked closer to 40 real attacks in a WEEK.
Yes, but the NI incidents were generally confined to 'tit for tat' type attacks between Protestants and Catholics and on the whole, were small and/or parochial. When they moved to the mainland, they were mainly aimed at a particular type of target - Military (Barracks and squaddie pubs, etc.) and Government (Brighton, Airey Neave, etc.) . Even then, such attacks were rare.
The current threat is entirely different. The terrorists have no particular specified target apart from killing/maiming anyone in the UK (and Rest of World). In the USA, they flew planes into buildings and killed thousands. In the UK, they bombed the public transport system.
I don't think you can really compare Northern Ireland with what is happening now.
Theresa May was quoting 40 plots thwarted in the DECADE since 7/7 in 2005.
Compared to Northern Ireland where it might have peaked closer to 40 real attacks in a WEEK.
Yes, but the NI incidents were generally confined to 'tit for tat' type attacks between Protestants and Catholics and on the whole, were small and/or parochial. When they moved to the mainland, they were mainly aimed at a particular type of target - Military (Barracks and squaddie pubs, etc.) and Government (Brighton, Airey Neave, etc.) . Even then, such attacks were rare.
The current threat is entirely different. The terrorists have no particular specified target apart from killing/maiming anyone in the UK (and Rest of World). In the USA, they flew planes into buildings and killed thousands. In the UK, they bombed the public transport system.
I don't think you can really compare Northern Ireland with what is happening now.
In reply to abseil:
But, just but, if the probability runs against you, you're dead.
> That's right, and once again people are scared of something that very, very probably will not kill them - instead of the real dangers in this world: the things that actually kill us.
But, just but, if the probability runs against you, you're dead.
In reply to stroppygob:
Except that that's exactly the same FUD being spread by leaflets like this.
First, there's no guarantee that you'd die - many more lived on 7/7 than died. Same with Mumbai attacks. Second, you're more likely to die breaking your neck via tripping over a squirrel while thinking about how horrible it'd be to die in a terrorist attack. The odds are astronomical.
Except that that's exactly the same FUD being spread by leaflets like this.
First, there's no guarantee that you'd die - many more lived on 7/7 than died. Same with Mumbai attacks. Second, you're more likely to die breaking your neck via tripping over a squirrel while thinking about how horrible it'd be to die in a terrorist attack. The odds are astronomical.
Post edited at 00:58
In reply to Removed User:
So are the odds of winning the lottery, but people do win.
And dead is dead.
So are the odds of winning the lottery, but people do win.
And dead is dead.
In reply to factor XXX
You're right, you cant compare them. See my link in my previous post- when it came to killing people the IRA were in a different league of effectiveness.
Yes most of their targets were in northern Ireland, but why should that be any less serious? And when it came to killing members of the security forces rhe IRA were over 1000 times as deadly.
Not forgetting that they came very close to assassinating the entire cabinet in Brighton.
It is puzzling that people seek to downplay the severity of the threat Republican terrorism posed. The numbers of dead tell the story: it was orders of magnitude greater than what we face now, in actual capability
> I don't think you can really compare Northern Ireland with what is happening now.
You're right, you cant compare them. See my link in my previous post- when it came to killing people the IRA were in a different league of effectiveness.
Yes most of their targets were in northern Ireland, but why should that be any less serious? And when it came to killing members of the security forces rhe IRA were over 1000 times as deadly.
Not forgetting that they came very close to assassinating the entire cabinet in Brighton.
It is puzzling that people seek to downplay the severity of the threat Republican terrorism posed. The numbers of dead tell the story: it was orders of magnitude greater than what we face now, in actual capability
Some stats on death in the UK:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm...
For perspective.
The clue to how terrorism is intended to work is in the name.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm...
For perspective.
The clue to how terrorism is intended to work is in the name.
In reply to FactorXXX:
I do not disregard thousands of dead uk citizens as small and parochial to the uk.
I don't disregard those uk citizens because they were catholics, protestants, soldiers or policemen.
The first google hit for Omagh bombings is http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/omagh/dead.html .
You can see that indiscriminate and sectarian murder is not new.
The current terrorist threat is different because it is international, takes place outside of UK and is vastly reduced in the uk.
I do disregard terrorism in other countries as mostly irrelevant because the credible and capable terrorists in the uk who were in the news recently are not al quaeda or is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29996977
I do not disregard thousands of dead uk citizens as small and parochial to the uk.
I don't disregard those uk citizens because they were catholics, protestants, soldiers or policemen.
The first google hit for Omagh bombings is http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/omagh/dead.html .
You can see that indiscriminate and sectarian murder is not new.
The current terrorist threat is different because it is international, takes place outside of UK and is vastly reduced in the uk.
I do disregard terrorism in other countries as mostly irrelevant because the credible and capable terrorists in the uk who were in the news recently are not al quaeda or is.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29996977
Post edited at 08:42
In reply to stroppygob:
Then you should consider buying one of those big plastic bubbles and staying inside your house for the rest of your life, cause there's hundreds of thousands of things more likely to kill you of terrorism both inside and outside your house. At least you can mitigate some of them via the bubble.
You really can't expect us to believe you live in fear of death via terrorism, even after knowing what the odds are of it happening.
Then you should consider buying one of those big plastic bubbles and staying inside your house for the rest of your life, cause there's hundreds of thousands of things more likely to kill you of terrorism both inside and outside your house. At least you can mitigate some of them via the bubble.
You really can't expect us to believe you live in fear of death via terrorism, even after knowing what the odds are of it happening.
In reply to toad:
I'm generally in the camp that thinks we should keep the terrorist threat in perspective. If you're spending money getting the attention of the public on something urgent there are surely better candidates?
I do, however, think that more information about how to respond in disaster/safety-hazard situations would be quite helpful. In lots of countries there is far more emphasis on disaster awareness and planning, whether because of specific natural threats (eg earthquake risks on the American west coast) or because of a policy approach that includes regular civil contingency drills.
In the UK, I frequently see hazardous situations where the public response is to sit, gawp, finish a coffee, and then mill around for a bit to see if anything bad happens. I've seen it during road accidents, bomb scares, evacuations, violent incidents etc. You can often look around and clock the other 2-3 people out of dozens who are making clear decisions about safety.
I don't think there would be any harm in increasing awareness about how to respond if there is an alarm, evacuation or threat in a public area. This may well include suspected explosions, gunshots etc. I just don't see why this needs to be framed in terms of a 'terrorist threat' which is surely one of the least likely causes of such an incident?
I'm generally in the camp that thinks we should keep the terrorist threat in perspective. If you're spending money getting the attention of the public on something urgent there are surely better candidates?
I do, however, think that more information about how to respond in disaster/safety-hazard situations would be quite helpful. In lots of countries there is far more emphasis on disaster awareness and planning, whether because of specific natural threats (eg earthquake risks on the American west coast) or because of a policy approach that includes regular civil contingency drills.
In the UK, I frequently see hazardous situations where the public response is to sit, gawp, finish a coffee, and then mill around for a bit to see if anything bad happens. I've seen it during road accidents, bomb scares, evacuations, violent incidents etc. You can often look around and clock the other 2-3 people out of dozens who are making clear decisions about safety.
I don't think there would be any harm in increasing awareness about how to respond if there is an alarm, evacuation or threat in a public area. This may well include suspected explosions, gunshots etc. I just don't see why this needs to be framed in terms of a 'terrorist threat' which is surely one of the least likely causes of such an incident?
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Correct, it probably isn't.
There are lots of loud bangs and odd noises from construction and relatively normal operation. Stampedes are dangerous, stampedes on 30m escalators and around open trenches containing trains and 600V power rails would be calamitous.
jk
> And keep calm if you hear some explosions, it probably isn't some nutters killing 55 innocent people.
Correct, it probably isn't.
There are lots of loud bangs and odd noises from construction and relatively normal operation. Stampedes are dangerous, stampedes on 30m escalators and around open trenches containing trains and 600V power rails would be calamitous.
jk
Post edited at 10:15
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I know its correct too, did I do well for agreeing too?
> I know it's correct, but well done for agreeing.
I know its correct too, did I do well for agreeing too?
In reply to Trangia:
Have there, really? How would we know this, do we take it on trust from organisations with a clear agenda, operating in the shadows beyond significant public oversight but facing potential budget cuts like the rest of public service? Or from a government intent on grabbing more powers of surveillance and diminishing the traditional legal protections we've hard won. I'll take the current scaremongering with a pinch of salt if you don't mind.
I don't doubt there will be a lot of angry, damaged young men trickling back from wars abroad but whether they constitute a severe threat to me... If we're being objective about this tax breaks for diesel or cuts to mental health services and pavement maintenance are probably more dangerous.
I'm sure evolution has equipped us pretty well for conflict. We tend to run if we can, fight if we can't, it's hard wired and the odd poster in a railway station isn't going to change much.
There's little point in the warnings full stop. Do they seriously alter your behavior in any meaningful way or do they just contribute to a climate of fear where we're increasingly willing to give up hard won freedoms and protections for little if any real additional safety or even much of an illusion of safety.
Says more about living in a climate of fear than a sensible reaction to one off bombings unless there was a pattern of double bombings, one to draw emergency services and another to kill them. I know which of the two groups I'd prefer to be in given the number of harmless loud bangs I hear each year vs the number of bombings and shootings I'm caught up in.
jk
> There current terrorist risk is Severe.
> When people talk of scaremongering they just don't get it. The Security Services don't issue these alerts for the fun of it. There has been a big increase in foiled terrorist attacks in recent months, which surely must be telling us something?
> When people talk of scaremongering they just don't get it. The Security Services don't issue these alerts for the fun of it. There has been a big increase in foiled terrorist attacks in recent months, which surely must be telling us something?
Have there, really? How would we know this, do we take it on trust from organisations with a clear agenda, operating in the shadows beyond significant public oversight but facing potential budget cuts like the rest of public service? Or from a government intent on grabbing more powers of surveillance and diminishing the traditional legal protections we've hard won. I'll take the current scaremongering with a pinch of salt if you don't mind.
I don't doubt there will be a lot of angry, damaged young men trickling back from wars abroad but whether they constitute a severe threat to me... If we're being objective about this tax breaks for diesel or cuts to mental health services and pavement maintenance are probably more dangerous.
> Most people don't have a clue what to do if they get caught up in a terrorist attack, so I'm glad that we are being given advice like this.
I'm sure evolution has equipped us pretty well for conflict. We tend to run if we can, fight if we can't, it's hard wired and the odd poster in a railway station isn't going to change much.
> There is little point in issuing warnings unless they are backed up by educating people what to do.
There's little point in the warnings full stop. Do they seriously alter your behavior in any meaningful way or do they just contribute to a climate of fear where we're increasingly willing to give up hard won freedoms and protections for little if any real additional safety or even much of an illusion of safety.
> Many years ago I was in Corsica during the height of the separatist campaign when bombs were fairly common. We were sitting at a cafe when there was an explosion. All the locals dived for the floor whereas the tourists continued sitting there looking around confused saying "What was that?" In the event it turned out to be a car backfiring but the reactions of the two groups locals v tourists was interesting.
Says more about living in a climate of fear than a sensible reaction to one off bombings unless there was a pattern of double bombings, one to draw emergency services and another to kill them. I know which of the two groups I'd prefer to be in given the number of harmless loud bangs I hear each year vs the number of bombings and shootings I'm caught up in.
jk
Post edited at 10:38
1
In reply to petellis:
Not really, even with prompting you missed the apostrophe.
> I know its correct too, did I do well for agreeing too?
Not really, even with prompting you missed the apostrophe.
In reply to jkarran: I've never burnt to death in a hotel fire, very few people have, but I still check out where the exits are.
In reply to toad:
Is it actually good advice tactically or just stating what people will do naturally?
If someone in a crowded area with many people close by pulls a gun and looks like they are going to start shooting then my guess is there would be fewer casualties if everyone ran towards them, threw whatever came to hand at them and generally attacked them in the most violent manner possible.
With many people running at them some starting only a few metres away and stuff flying through the air towards them the gunman has seconds to fire at multiple moving targets before they are overpowered and given a serious beating. If people run away they can calmly aim and shoot folk one at a time and reload as necessary. In the school shootings in the US - people ran and tried to hide and the gunman strolled about for a relatively long time shooting folk one by one before the cops arrived in sufficient numbers. Compare the attempted firebomb in Glasgow Airport where, when the car crashed, the terrorists had no chance to try and get their bomb working or do anything else because they were immediately set upon.
> You should run away, apparently. Who knew?
Is it actually good advice tactically or just stating what people will do naturally?
If someone in a crowded area with many people close by pulls a gun and looks like they are going to start shooting then my guess is there would be fewer casualties if everyone ran towards them, threw whatever came to hand at them and generally attacked them in the most violent manner possible.
With many people running at them some starting only a few metres away and stuff flying through the air towards them the gunman has seconds to fire at multiple moving targets before they are overpowered and given a serious beating. If people run away they can calmly aim and shoot folk one at a time and reload as necessary. In the school shootings in the US - people ran and tried to hide and the gunman strolled about for a relatively long time shooting folk one by one before the cops arrived in sufficient numbers. Compare the attempted firebomb in Glasgow Airport where, when the car crashed, the terrorists had no chance to try and get their bomb working or do anything else because they were immediately set upon.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Well done, so do I because it's sensible, proportionate and harmless to glance at the exit signs and the floor plan, to know your options. Creating a culture of fear which could trigger a stampede in an overcrowded hazardous environment is none of those things.
To be honest I can't think of a much better way of easily inflicting mass casualties and terror than to drive a huge rush hour stampede toward a dead end, steep escalator or an electrified rail line. All you need is lots of people on edge and a trigger. Our government is providing the one part of that equation that can't be bought cheaply.
jk
> I've never burnt to death in a hotel fire, very few people have, but I still check out where the exits are.
Well done, so do I because it's sensible, proportionate and harmless to glance at the exit signs and the floor plan, to know your options. Creating a culture of fear which could trigger a stampede in an overcrowded hazardous environment is none of those things.
To be honest I can't think of a much better way of easily inflicting mass casualties and terror than to drive a huge rush hour stampede toward a dead end, steep escalator or an electrified rail line. All you need is lots of people on edge and a trigger. Our government is providing the one part of that equation that can't be bought cheaply.
jk
In reply to jkarran:
Buy some bird scarers (banger type variant) or just some bangers.
Possibly a smoke grenade as well.
Light them and drop in crowded station.
Start screaming.
Watch results.
The train fire in charing cross a few days back could have been unpleasant if the station was busy when the panic set in.
> All you need is lots of people on edge and a trigger.
Buy some bird scarers (banger type variant) or just some bangers.
Possibly a smoke grenade as well.
Light them and drop in crowded station.
Start screaming.
Watch results.
The train fire in charing cross a few days back could have been unpleasant if the station was busy when the panic set in.
In reply to jkarran: Really? Nobody I've talked to has been made afraid by a little leaflet. The only people talking about a "culture of fear" are those worried a leaflet may create "a culture of fear", they can't point towards anyone who has been made afraid (obviously it isn't them, it's "other" people).
I'm not a particular fan of the leaflets, not because I think they'll create a climate of fear, that's silly, but because they're useless, if people hear what they perceive to be gunshots or explosions they will react instinctively.
I'm not a particular fan of the leaflets, not because I think they'll create a climate of fear, that's silly, but because they're useless, if people hear what they perceive to be gunshots or explosions they will react instinctively.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Statistically, I'm sure you're right. Sadly, and selfishly, if I happened to be close by to someone who started waving a gun around I'm not sure I'd be thinking statistically. Also, even if I did, this would only work if everyone else did too. Rather than hanging back hoping that perhaps their personal self-sacrifice might not be necessary on this occasion!
> (In reply to toad)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
> If someone in a crowded area with many people close by pulls a gun and looks like they are going to start shooting then my guess is there would be fewer casualties if everyone ran towards them, threw whatever came to hand at them and generally attacked them in the most violent manner possible.
>
>
Statistically, I'm sure you're right. Sadly, and selfishly, if I happened to be close by to someone who started waving a gun around I'm not sure I'd be thinking statistically. Also, even if I did, this would only work if everyone else did too. Rather than hanging back hoping that perhaps their personal self-sacrifice might not be necessary on this occasion!
Post edited at 11:24
In reply to dissonance:
So with this new advice, it's probably possible now to provoke the results of a terrorist attack without committing a terrorist offence. e.g. making a few big noises.
So with this new advice, it's probably possible now to provoke the results of a terrorist attack without committing a terrorist offence. e.g. making a few big noises.
In reply to dissonance:
You could try that little routine in Madrid rail station, but don't complain if you end up with half a dozen bullets to in your brain?
> Buy some bird scarers (banger type variant) or just some bangers.
> Possibly a smoke grenade as well.
> Light them and drop in crowded station.
> Start screaming.
> Watch results.
> The train fire in charing cross a few days back could have been unpleasant if the station was busy when the panic set in.
You could try that little routine in Madrid rail station, but don't complain if you end up with half a dozen bullets to in your brain?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
It isn't one little thing though is it, it's years of constant calculated drip drip drip. I'm no more immune to it than the next person.
jk
> Really? Nobody I've talked to has been made afraid by a little leaflet. The only people talking about a "culture of fear" are those worried a leaflet may create "a culture of fear", they can't point towards anyone who has been made afraid (obviously it isn't them, it's "other" people).
It isn't one little thing though is it, it's years of constant calculated drip drip drip. I'm no more immune to it than the next person.
jk
In reply to dek:
Strangely enough I am not really thinking of trying it anywhere. However as a way of causing havoc it is one available to muppets who cant get their hands on more dangerous items.
That said I suspect proper bombs would be the preference. Since if caught before setting them off then the sentence probably wouldnt be much lighter anyway.
> You could try that little routine in Madrid rail station, but don't complain if you end up with half a dozen bullets to in your brain?
Strangely enough I am not really thinking of trying it anywhere. However as a way of causing havoc it is one available to muppets who cant get their hands on more dangerous items.
That said I suspect proper bombs would be the preference. Since if caught before setting them off then the sentence probably wouldnt be much lighter anyway.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
That reminds me of quite a 'hardcore' guy who I met in his 60's, who I heard that while out cyclo-cross riding with 20 riding buddies a few decades ago, they were stopped by a ranger, and through being at the back of the group he threatened to shoot him with a shot gun, and the guy called his bluff by saying he could shoot him if he wanted, and then asking what he was going to do about the 20 other people in the group.
> Is it actually good advice tactically or just stating what people will do naturally?
> If someone in a crowded area with many people close by pulls a gun and looks like they are going to start shooting then my guess is there would be fewer casualties if everyone ran towards them, threw whatever came to hand at them and generally attacked them in the most violent manner possible.
That reminds me of quite a 'hardcore' guy who I met in his 60's, who I heard that while out cyclo-cross riding with 20 riding buddies a few decades ago, they were stopped by a ranger, and through being at the back of the group he threatened to shoot him with a shot gun, and the guy called his bluff by saying he could shoot him if he wanted, and then asking what he was going to do about the 20 other people in the group.
Post edited at 14:40
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
You're right, you cant compare them. See my link in my previous post- when it came to killing people the IRA were in a different league of effectiveness.
It took four decades for the various factions to kill about 3500 people, the 911 attacks killed almost that many people in a mere few minutes and caused about $10 billion damage in property, etc. I think the latter is rather more efficient...
Yes most of their targets were in northern Ireland, but why should that be any less serious? And when it came to killing members of the security forces rhe IRA were over 1000 times as deadly.
Obviously deaths wherever they are, are equally serious to the people concerned locally.
Not sure why you think killing members of the security forces is important. The intended target is now anyone who happens to be in the vicinity and not deliberately selected.
It is puzzling that people seek to downplay the severity of the threat Republican terrorism posed. The numbers of dead tell the story: it was orders of magnitude greater than what we face now, in actual capability
3500 dead in the troubles, about 3000 on 911 alone.
What the security services fear is another 911 type attack. I very much doubt that they are overly concerned about isolated and relatively ad hoc organised attacks.
Just because it's felt that this isn't likely at present due to practicalities of funding/organising, etc., doesn't mean that is ultimately what these particular terrorists would hope to conduct. What makes it worse, is that they are willing to die doing it, which makes it far harder to prevent once any such attack is under way.
I personally don't fear such an attack, as if it does happen, it will undoubtedly happen to someone else...
However, neither do I resent/oppose the security services carrying out more stringent investigations to prevent any attacks.
You're right, you cant compare them. See my link in my previous post- when it came to killing people the IRA were in a different league of effectiveness.
It took four decades for the various factions to kill about 3500 people, the 911 attacks killed almost that many people in a mere few minutes and caused about $10 billion damage in property, etc. I think the latter is rather more efficient...
Yes most of their targets were in northern Ireland, but why should that be any less serious? And when it came to killing members of the security forces rhe IRA were over 1000 times as deadly.
Obviously deaths wherever they are, are equally serious to the people concerned locally.
Not sure why you think killing members of the security forces is important. The intended target is now anyone who happens to be in the vicinity and not deliberately selected.
It is puzzling that people seek to downplay the severity of the threat Republican terrorism posed. The numbers of dead tell the story: it was orders of magnitude greater than what we face now, in actual capability
3500 dead in the troubles, about 3000 on 911 alone.
What the security services fear is another 911 type attack. I very much doubt that they are overly concerned about isolated and relatively ad hoc organised attacks.
Just because it's felt that this isn't likely at present due to practicalities of funding/organising, etc., doesn't mean that is ultimately what these particular terrorists would hope to conduct. What makes it worse, is that they are willing to die doing it, which makes it far harder to prevent once any such attack is under way.
I personally don't fear such an attack, as if it does happen, it will undoubtedly happen to someone else...
However, neither do I resent/oppose the security services carrying out more stringent investigations to prevent any attacks.
In reply to jkarran:
And a terrorist putting his counter in dropzone one.
> To be honest I can't think of a much better way of easily inflicting mass casualties and terror than to drive a huge rush hour stampede toward a dead end, steep escalator or an electrified rail line. All you need is lots of people on edge ...........
> jk
And a terrorist putting his counter in dropzone one.
In reply to John Workman:
I am embarrassed to get your reference. Daytime TV?
> And a terrorist putting his counter in dropzone one.
I am embarrassed to get your reference. Daytime TV?
In reply to jkarran:
It could be some dastardly, ongoing, year on year, plot to keep you in perpetual fear. But it could be the security services/government being aware of threats (statistically insignificant to individuals possibly) and attempting to educate the public. I don't know which, and neither do you.
> It isn't one little thing though is it, it's years of constant calculated drip drip drip.
It could be some dastardly, ongoing, year on year, plot to keep you in perpetual fear. But it could be the security services/government being aware of threats (statistically insignificant to individuals possibly) and attempting to educate the public. I don't know which, and neither do you.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
UK terrorism is not just statistically insignificant to individuals it is statistically insignificant to the UK.
UK deaths and injuries on the roads far exceed terrorism deaths and injuries.
I think the political significance of terrorism should be closer its statistical significance.
UK terrorism is not just statistically insignificant to individuals it is statistically insignificant to the UK.
UK deaths and injuries on the roads far exceed terrorism deaths and injuries.
I think the political significance of terrorism should be closer its statistical significance.
In reply to toad:
It seems the fearmongering propaganda is beginning to sow. In the last couple of days a bus was overrun by armed police after a passenger called because of a fellow passenger having a gun (which turned up to be a bogstandard cigarette lighter), pretty much the same thing at Holborn station which was sealed off by armed police, and same again at Baker St station, which was being evacuated just as i got on the train.
I suspect armed police will be mightily busy for the next few weeks
It seems the fearmongering propaganda is beginning to sow. In the last couple of days a bus was overrun by armed police after a passenger called because of a fellow passenger having a gun (which turned up to be a bogstandard cigarette lighter), pretty much the same thing at Holborn station which was sealed off by armed police, and same again at Baker St station, which was being evacuated just as i got on the train.
I suspect armed police will be mightily busy for the next few weeks
In reply to Removed User:
Of course not, being aware is not being afraid. And as I say, you can minimise the odds all you like, but it doesn't make death not possible.
What were the odds on Lee Rigby being hacked to death by murderous Muslims? Pretty tiny one would imagine. Is he dead or not?
What are the odds of being blown up ina tube station, tiny tiny tiny, but there are still 77 people dead from it within recent history.
> You really can't expect us to believe you live in fear of death via terrorism, even after knowing what the odds are of it happening.
Of course not, being aware is not being afraid. And as I say, you can minimise the odds all you like, but it doesn't make death not possible.
What were the odds on Lee Rigby being hacked to death by murderous Muslims? Pretty tiny one would imagine. Is he dead or not?
What are the odds of being blown up ina tube station, tiny tiny tiny, but there are still 77 people dead from it within recent history.
In reply to FactorXXX:
9/11 was carried out by saudi nationals on another continent, not 'home grown' terrorists on british soil. the closest equivalent was 7/7- and there is no doubt that was a devastating attack and showed the potential seriousness of the threat. but that was nearly 10 years ago now, and there has been nothing like it since
not so- the lee rigby murder shows that members of the british security forces are being specifically targetted by uk resident jihadis. that is the story that has dominated the news agenda. the ulster death toll shows that islamic terrorism has a long way to go before it can be seen as a threat to serving police or soldiers of a similar magnitude
yet it is just that sort of attack that dominates the news. the security services may not be that concerned about them (i think they are) but the government certainly gives the impression of being so.
and this is the point i'm making. it is almost impossible to stop small scale ad hoc attacks such as on lee rigby. when the weapons of choice are vehicles and bladed weapons, and the conspiracy is between only 2 people, i dont see how this sort of thing can be stopped. yet in the nearly 10 years since 7/7, not only has there been nothing of a similar scale and complexity to it, but the attempted attacks that have come to attention have mostly been either impressively inept or the products of fantastists that never looked likely to get off the drawing board.
the only conclusion i can draw, given how hard a 7/7 type attack would be to stop, never mind a lee rigby type one, is that there really arent a pool of highly competent, motivated and active terrorists out there trying to harm us. this contrasts with the troubles, when there was a highly effective, well trained force with sophisticated weapons and explosives willing to use them to strike anywhere, including at the heart of the government and royal family.
...and this is the nub. at the height of the troubles, the death toll ran at over 200 for 6 years. thats a 7/7 every 3 months from now till 2020. they also came within a whisker of killing the cabinet. we are just not in that sort of situation, and as a result i do resent and oppose the government telling us this is worse than anything we've ever experiences, and expecting communications companies to act as a branch of GCHQ.
best wishes
gregor
> It took four decades for the various factions to kill about 3500 people, the 911 attacks killed almost that many people in a mere few minutes and caused about $10 billion damage in property, etc. I think the latter is rather more efficient...
9/11 was carried out by saudi nationals on another continent, not 'home grown' terrorists on british soil. the closest equivalent was 7/7- and there is no doubt that was a devastating attack and showed the potential seriousness of the threat. but that was nearly 10 years ago now, and there has been nothing like it since
> Not sure why you think killing members of the security forces is important. The intended target is now anyone who happens to be in the vicinity and not deliberately selected.
not so- the lee rigby murder shows that members of the british security forces are being specifically targetted by uk resident jihadis. that is the story that has dominated the news agenda. the ulster death toll shows that islamic terrorism has a long way to go before it can be seen as a threat to serving police or soldiers of a similar magnitude
> What the security services fear is another 911 type attack. I very much doubt that they are overly concerned about isolated and relatively ad hoc organised attacks.
yet it is just that sort of attack that dominates the news. the security services may not be that concerned about them (i think they are) but the government certainly gives the impression of being so.
> Just because it's felt that this isn't likely at present due to practicalities of funding/organising, etc., doesn't mean that is ultimately what these particular terrorists would hope to conduct. What makes it worse, is that they are willing to die doing it, which makes it far harder to prevent once any such attack is under way.
and this is the point i'm making. it is almost impossible to stop small scale ad hoc attacks such as on lee rigby. when the weapons of choice are vehicles and bladed weapons, and the conspiracy is between only 2 people, i dont see how this sort of thing can be stopped. yet in the nearly 10 years since 7/7, not only has there been nothing of a similar scale and complexity to it, but the attempted attacks that have come to attention have mostly been either impressively inept or the products of fantastists that never looked likely to get off the drawing board.
the only conclusion i can draw, given how hard a 7/7 type attack would be to stop, never mind a lee rigby type one, is that there really arent a pool of highly competent, motivated and active terrorists out there trying to harm us. this contrasts with the troubles, when there was a highly effective, well trained force with sophisticated weapons and explosives willing to use them to strike anywhere, including at the heart of the government and royal family.
> However, neither do I resent/oppose the security services carrying out more stringent investigations to prevent any attacks.
...and this is the nub. at the height of the troubles, the death toll ran at over 200 for 6 years. thats a 7/7 every 3 months from now till 2020. they also came within a whisker of killing the cabinet. we are just not in that sort of situation, and as a result i do resent and oppose the government telling us this is worse than anything we've ever experiences, and expecting communications companies to act as a branch of GCHQ.
best wishes
gregor
Post edited at 20:51
In reply to elsewhere:
Yes, I'm getting sick and tired of the courts being clogged up with all these terrorist trials not to mention buldging prisons because of the tsunumi of terrorist convictions...... errr NOT.
Yes, I'm getting sick and tired of the courts being clogged up with all these terrorist trials not to mention buldging prisons because of the tsunumi of terrorist convictions...... errr NOT.
In reply to toad:
Needless? Oh you poor innocent thing you its obvious that the govt. needs to pass some Stasi/KGB laws and we need to be put in the errrr right frame of mind!
Watch "The Power Of Nightmares" for more info
> You should run away, apparently. Who knew?
> Is this ramping up the tension needlessly?
Needless? Oh you poor innocent thing you its obvious that the govt. needs to pass some Stasi/KGB laws and we need to be put in the errrr right frame of mind!
Watch "The Power Of Nightmares" for more info
Post edited at 20:57
In reply to toad:
Keep clear of Tony Bliar
Keep clear of Tony Bliar
> A “secret trial” in which a law student is accused of targeting Tony and Cherie Blair and plotting a Mumbai-style attack is an “exceptional case” the prosecution has said. Closing his case, Richard Whittam QC said that both the prosecution and defence agreed there was a “real plot” unfolding, but not the defendant’s role in it. Erol Incedal, 26, from South London, was found with bomb-making plans, labelled “Good Stuff” on an SD memory card hidden in the cover of his mobile phone but claims he had a “reasonable excuse” for possessing them.
> Police had stopped Incedal’s car on September 20 and place a listening device inside and afterwards he could be heard talking of switching to “Plan B.” “Made a big mistake, there was some important stuff in the car, if they found it … effed,” Incedal said. “’Effed,’ colloquially is ‘f**ked,’ Mr Whittam said. Incedal was the front seat passenger in a Black Mercedes when the car was stopped at gunpoint in Aldgate, central London on October 13 2013. Detectives found his phone and the bomb-making plans in the front passenger footwell of the car and further searches at his home revealed a white Versace glasses case with a piece of paper which had an address for a property owned by the Tony and Cherie Blair.
In reply to stroppygob:
Now you're drifting off topic, that's just generally good advice.
> Keep clear of Tony Bliar
Now you're drifting off topic, that's just generally good advice.
In reply to Trangia:
But is considered a VS if you don't use the bolt
> Agreed.
> There current terrorist risk is Severe.
But is considered a VS if you don't use the bolt
In reply to elsewhere:
Maybe because we aren't being complacent about it.
> (In reply to Trangia)
> The home secretary says "The Security Service believes that since the attacks on 7th July 2005, around 40 terrorist plots have been disrupted".
>
> At around 4 plots per year her oficial figures say that the UK threat is smaller than the threat of being hit by lightning (about 60 people hit and a few deaths in the UK annually).
> The home secretary says "The Security Service believes that since the attacks on 7th July 2005, around 40 terrorist plots have been disrupted".
>
> At around 4 plots per year her oficial figures say that the UK threat is smaller than the threat of being hit by lightning (about 60 people hit and a few deaths in the UK annually).
Maybe because we aren't being complacent about it.
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
So even with a lack of complacency they are claiming 4 plots per year compared to thousands of attacks per year causing hundreds of deaths per year in the past.
Not very scarey.
So even with a lack of complacency they are claiming 4 plots per year compared to thousands of attacks per year causing hundreds of deaths per year in the past.
Not very scarey.
In reply to elsewhere:
But each plot stopped is a group of plotters who would repeat the activity and, perhaps, inspire others to greater feats, form networks and so on.
'Not very scarey' sounds like complacency to me.
But each plot stopped is a group of plotters who would repeat the activity and, perhaps, inspire others to greater feats, form networks and so on.
'Not very scarey' sounds like complacency to me.
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
So why hasn't that happened?
Are you claiming it is because the threat is high but the security services are 100% effective for years at a time?
That is just not plausible compared to the interpretation that the threat is low (eg theresa may's 4 plots per year by wannabe terrorists with no access to weapons).
When we go years without an attack then complacency is a very good light hearted characterisation of the sensible policy.
> But each plot stopped is a group of plotters who would repeat the activity and, perhaps, inspire others to greater feats, form networks and so on.
So why hasn't that happened?
Are you claiming it is because the threat is high but the security services are 100% effective for years at a time?
That is just not plausible compared to the interpretation that the threat is low (eg theresa may's 4 plots per year by wannabe terrorists with no access to weapons).
When we go years without an attack then complacency is a very good light hearted characterisation of the sensible policy.
Post edited at 09:01
In reply to elsewhere:
? I'm saying it might very well happen if the plots weren't stopped ie if we were complacent, which we are not.
So we should just go along merrily until another 7/7 and then over react?
> (In reply to DubyaJamesDubya)
> [...]
>
> So why hasn't that happened?
> [...]
>
> So why hasn't that happened?
? I'm saying it might very well happen if the plots weren't stopped ie if we were complacent, which we are not.
>
> Are you claiming it is because the threat is high but the security services are 100% effective for years at a time?
>
> That is just not plausible compared to the interpretation that the threat is low (eg theresa may's 4 plots per year by wannabe terrorists with no access to weapons).
>
> When we go years without an attack then complacency is a very good light hearted characterisation of the sensible policy.
> Are you claiming it is because the threat is high but the security services are 100% effective for years at a time?
>
> That is just not plausible compared to the interpretation that the threat is low (eg theresa may's 4 plots per year by wannabe terrorists with no access to weapons).
>
> When we go years without an attack then complacency is a very good light hearted characterisation of the sensible policy.
So we should just go along merrily until another 7/7 and then over react?
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
I'm saying that there are historically few or no terrorists (certainly none with much capability) because there are historically few or no acts of terrorism most years.
Vigilence did not eliminiate terrorism in NI and I don't see why I should believe vigilence can now achieve 100% effectiveness in a typical year.
We should just go merrily along knowing that there are bad people in the world who have little significance.
The correct response to the current terrorists is "F**k you and your insignificance, we'll carry on as before".
> ? I'm saying it might very well happen if the plots weren't stopped ie if we were complacent, which we are not.
I'm saying that there are historically few or no terrorists (certainly none with much capability) because there are historically few or no acts of terrorism most years.
Vigilence did not eliminiate terrorism in NI and I don't see why I should believe vigilence can now achieve 100% effectiveness in a typical year.
> So we should just go along merrily until another 7/7 and then over react?
We should just go merrily along knowing that there are bad people in the world who have little significance.
The correct response to the current terrorists is "F**k you and your insignificance, we'll carry on as before".
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
That's the problem. Whilst people are right that their chances of being topped by a terrorist are incredibly small at present, that doesn't mean the threat isn't real, or that the situation won't worsen if we ignore it.
I can just see the execs at TEPCO a couple of years back: "We've had earthquakes and tsunamis before, no big deal. You're far more at risk from a dodgy sushi than a wave getting over that big wall..."
Just because todays Jihadi tends to be a f*ckwit doesn't mean the lads coming back from a holiday with ISIS won't be a lot more switched on, plus it's not exactly completely impossible to get significant quantities of weapons past our less than stellar border security.
I'm not living in fear, neither are the vast majority of the population, despite what some posters up the thread seem to think. I'm also aware that theres a lot of cash that the likes of Group 4 and SERCO are salivating over when it comes to selling their dubious expertise.
That said, the threat certainly isn't negligible.
> So we should just go along merrily until another 7/7 and then over react?
That's the problem. Whilst people are right that their chances of being topped by a terrorist are incredibly small at present, that doesn't mean the threat isn't real, or that the situation won't worsen if we ignore it.
I can just see the execs at TEPCO a couple of years back: "We've had earthquakes and tsunamis before, no big deal. You're far more at risk from a dodgy sushi than a wave getting over that big wall..."
Just because todays Jihadi tends to be a f*ckwit doesn't mean the lads coming back from a holiday with ISIS won't be a lot more switched on, plus it's not exactly completely impossible to get significant quantities of weapons past our less than stellar border security.
I'm not living in fear, neither are the vast majority of the population, despite what some posters up the thread seem to think. I'm also aware that theres a lot of cash that the likes of Group 4 and SERCO are salivating over when it comes to selling their dubious expertise.
That said, the threat certainly isn't negligible.
In reply to toad:
Welcome to the Club. [I blame the wife].
> I am embarrassed to get your reference. Daytime TV?
Welcome to the Club. [I blame the wife].
In reply to elsewhere: How are people being asked to change what they do? I don't think I've changed my behaviour, have you? Or do you mean the security services should stop looking for terrorists because the number of people they're likely to kill will be very small?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
We're being told to accept eveasdropping of our ordinary conversations.
Those conversations are digital but I still don't like eavesdropping.
We're being told to accept eveasdropping of our ordinary conversations.
Those conversations are digital but I still don't like eavesdropping.
In reply to elsewhere:
That isn't an answer to any of my questions.
> We're being told to accept eveasdropping of our ordinary conversations.
> Those conversations are digital but I still don't like eavesdropping.
That isn't an answer to any of my questions.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
accept is a verb or "a doing word" when I was at school so fits into "what they do"
accept is a verb or "a doing word" when I was at school so fits into "what they do"
In reply to elsewhere: I see, you thought your inane facebook waffling was private. How endearingly naive.
Don't get me wrong, I think getting facebook to try and filter for terrorism related matters would be pointless at best and possibly counter productive, facebook would be so "cautious" that the amount of material they would send to MI5 "just to be on the safe side" would be unfeasibly huge.
Don't get me wrong, I think getting facebook to try and filter for terrorism related matters would be pointless at best and possibly counter productive, facebook would be so "cautious" that the amount of material they would send to MI5 "just to be on the safe side" would be unfeasibly huge.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Good point. Another reason why I think it is implausible to achieve years without terrorism by vigilence and that it is more likely that the threat of terrorism is bugger all and miniscule compared to what it was.
> Don't get me wrong, I think getting facebook to try and filter for terrorism related matters would be pointless at best and possibly counter productive, facebook would be so "cautious" that the amount of material they would send to MI5 "just to be on the safe side" would be unfeasibly huge.
Good point. Another reason why I think it is implausible to achieve years without terrorism by vigilence and that it is more likely that the threat of terrorism is bugger all and miniscule compared to what it was.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
We're being asked to accept our day to day communications are no longer private. To accept the implication that should we desire for them to remain so then we must automatically be up to no good. We're being asked to accept secret trials. We're being asked to accept punishment by exile without trial or conviction. We're being asked to support the revocation of British nationality on the word of one minister without trial or conviction. We're being asked to fund security services to the detriment of others in dire need. And lets be clear we're not being asked, we don't have alternative options, both electable parties have been at it. We're being told.
Would you have supported or even quietly accepted those things a decade ago?
Perhaps we should prioritise our spending less emotionally, more rationally. Perhaps we should accept good is good enough, perfection is impossible and far far too expensive to strive for.
jk
> How are people being asked to change what they do?
We're being asked to accept our day to day communications are no longer private. To accept the implication that should we desire for them to remain so then we must automatically be up to no good. We're being asked to accept secret trials. We're being asked to accept punishment by exile without trial or conviction. We're being asked to support the revocation of British nationality on the word of one minister without trial or conviction. We're being asked to fund security services to the detriment of others in dire need. And lets be clear we're not being asked, we don't have alternative options, both electable parties have been at it. We're being told.
> I don't think I've changed my behaviour, have you?
Would you have supported or even quietly accepted those things a decade ago?
> Or do you mean the security services should stop looking for terrorists because the number of people they're likely to kill will be very small?
Perhaps we should prioritise our spending less emotionally, more rationally. Perhaps we should accept good is good enough, perfection is impossible and far far too expensive to strive for.
jk
Post edited at 13:48
In reply to jkarran: I never thought my email traffic was private, so I'm hardly upset to find out it indeed isn't private.
As I understand it the CoA rejected the application for a wholly secret trial.
It's only a short term exile, 30 days, they wanted to holiday in sunny Syria anyway.
I don't understand the nationality issue, I don't really see how it works.
I don't accept that my acceptance or otherwise constitutes my "behaviour".
How do you decide how good is good enough? Because there probably will be a terrorist attack at some point and some people will inevitably say that the security services didn't do enough.
As I understand it the CoA rejected the application for a wholly secret trial.
It's only a short term exile, 30 days, they wanted to holiday in sunny Syria anyway.
I don't understand the nationality issue, I don't really see how it works.
I don't accept that my acceptance or otherwise constitutes my "behaviour".
How do you decide how good is good enough? Because there probably will be a terrorist attack at some point and some people will inevitably say that the security services didn't do enough.
In reply to toad:
Here’s the best article I know on how we should react to terrorism. I think it’s worth reading. And the last 2 paragraphs are excellent:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/25/opinion/25FRIE.html
Quotation, “There is no such thing as perfect security in today's world. All rational precautions need to be taken. But once you take them, then you basically have to decide: Am I going to sit home and hide in the basement forever, or am I … [going to] just go on with my life? … Unable to actually imprison us, these terrorists want us to imprison ourselves. Sorry, but no way. It breaks my heart to think about the people who lost loved ones on Sept. 11, but I will not let it break my spirit.”
Here’s the best article I know on how we should react to terrorism. I think it’s worth reading. And the last 2 paragraphs are excellent:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/25/opinion/25FRIE.html
Quotation, “There is no such thing as perfect security in today's world. All rational precautions need to be taken. But once you take them, then you basically have to decide: Am I going to sit home and hide in the basement forever, or am I … [going to] just go on with my life? … Unable to actually imprison us, these terrorists want us to imprison ourselves. Sorry, but no way. It breaks my heart to think about the people who lost loved ones on Sept. 11, but I will not let it break my spirit.”
In reply to Sir Chasm:
We need to accept that terrorism will happen if there is a significant threat.
We need to accept that mistakes within the security services will happen.
We need to accept that with hindsight we will almost certainly find something that might have prevented the terrorist act.
We need to accept that those clues are probably not recognisable amongst the chaff in advance.
We need to tell the people who say the security services didn't do enough to grow up and accept that sh*t happens but it is a personal tragedy not very important to a nation unless we get our knickers in a twist.
> How do you decide how good is good enough? Because there probably will be a terrorist attack at some point and some people will inevitably say that the security services didn't do enough.
We need to accept that terrorism will happen if there is a significant threat.
We need to accept that mistakes within the security services will happen.
We need to accept that with hindsight we will almost certainly find something that might have prevented the terrorist act.
We need to accept that those clues are probably not recognisable amongst the chaff in advance.
We need to tell the people who say the security services didn't do enough to grow up and accept that sh*t happens but it is a personal tragedy not very important to a nation unless we get our knickers in a twist.
Post edited at 14:47
In reply to elsewhere:
That seems to be saying do nothing - you failed to answer before when I asked if the security services should stop looking for terrorists.
And you fail to answer the question here too.
That seems to be saying do nothing - you failed to answer before when I asked if the security services should stop looking for terrorists.
And you fail to answer the question here too.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Do nothing is a very good rough summary for a sensible policy in response to a historically very low threat.
I think do nothing beyond normal policing & security services appropriate to the modest threat.
Not many people die and not much economic damage is good enough for me.
Balance the costs against other many other needs that cause far many more deaths and economic damage.
Do nothing is a very good rough summary for a sensible policy in response to a historically very low threat.
I think do nothing beyond normal policing & security services appropriate to the modest threat.
> How do you decide how good is good enough?
Not many people die and not much economic damage is good enough for me.
Balance the costs against other many other needs that cause far many more deaths and economic damage.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> How do you decide what is "appropriate"?
Give me your answer.> How many deaths are acceptable?
Give me your answer.In reply to jkarran:
Very well put.
This is another example of the inability of people to do rational risk analysis. Instead they take one incident and spend disproportionate amounts of effort & money to prevent a similar incident ever happening again, regardless of how unlikely that event was. And yet they ignore far greater risks that surround them, risks they have come to accept as 'normal' (road deaths, for instance). Too many people conflate 'risk' and 'outcome', missing the important part of risk analysis: 'likelihood'.
For another example: tragic as the death of Philip Hughes is, there's a good chance that his freak accident may change the game of cricket quite considerably. I'm sure the next time a 25-yr-old dies in a car crash, it will be worldwide news, and there will be much analysis of what can be done to prevent it ever happening again. Oh; you think not...?
Another example: obesity, which costs the country £47bn a year. Or smoking £57bn. Given those costs, and the effects those have on people's lives, are we spending enough effort and money to prevent them? Yesterday's announcement on countering diabetes seems to be a step in the right, rational direction to me:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/20/obesity-bigger-cost-than-war...
> We're being asked to accept...
Very well put.
This is another example of the inability of people to do rational risk analysis. Instead they take one incident and spend disproportionate amounts of effort & money to prevent a similar incident ever happening again, regardless of how unlikely that event was. And yet they ignore far greater risks that surround them, risks they have come to accept as 'normal' (road deaths, for instance). Too many people conflate 'risk' and 'outcome', missing the important part of risk analysis: 'likelihood'.
For another example: tragic as the death of Philip Hughes is, there's a good chance that his freak accident may change the game of cricket quite considerably. I'm sure the next time a 25-yr-old dies in a car crash, it will be worldwide news, and there will be much analysis of what can be done to prevent it ever happening again. Oh; you think not...?
Another example: obesity, which costs the country £47bn a year. Or smoking £57bn. Given those costs, and the effects those have on people's lives, are we spending enough effort and money to prevent them? Yesterday's announcement on countering diabetes seems to be a step in the right, rational direction to me:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/20/obesity-bigger-cost-than-war...
In reply to elsewhere: The terms you used were "appropriate" and "not many people die". Your terms, you explain what you mean by them. But you won't.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
One rather pragmatic way is to look at the number of untimely deaths, from all causes, and work out how much money and effort you're going to spend on preventing those deaths from occurring. Then try to make to costs on each about the same.
This approach is widely used in safety critical systems such as transport. We even have the concepts of weighting fatalities, serious and minor injuries (100:10:1) encapsulated in RIDDOR:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporting_of_Injuries,_Diseases_and_Dangerous_...
We also have the concept of ALARP, As Low As Reasonably Practicable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARP
which is a pragmatic counter to the "won't someone think of the children" thinking.
> How do you decide what is "appropriate"?
> How many deaths are acceptable?
> How many deaths are acceptable?
One rather pragmatic way is to look at the number of untimely deaths, from all causes, and work out how much money and effort you're going to spend on preventing those deaths from occurring. Then try to make to costs on each about the same.
This approach is widely used in safety critical systems such as transport. We even have the concepts of weighting fatalities, serious and minor injuries (100:10:1) encapsulated in RIDDOR:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporting_of_Injuries,_Diseases_and_Dangerous_...
We also have the concept of ALARP, As Low As Reasonably Practicable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARP
which is a pragmatic counter to the "won't someone think of the children" thinking.
Post edited at 15:19
In reply to captain paranoia:
To be fair, confusing risk with outcome is exactly what some people are doing in this thread. There are very few corpses lying about, therefore the threat is insignificant.
In reality the threat may be significant, as claimed by the government. However due to the measures currently in place, the residual risk is low, hence the lack of bodies.
I agree completely about poor societal understanding of risk and disproportionate spending. However the mindset that “This plant has operated for 20 years without an accident, therefore it is safe" is usually the precursor to something very unpleasant happening. The Haddon-Cave report into Nimrod makes interesting reading. The perception was a safe aircraft operated safely for years, therefore thats what the safety case was written to reflect. The reality was an aging airframe, a lot of uncontrolled modications involving fuel and jet exhaust systems and fuel pissing out at various points in the fuselage.
Back on topic, do we know enough about the actual situation to make an actual ALARP argument?
> Very well put.
> This is another example of the inability of people to do rational risk analysis. Instead they take one incident and spend disproportionate amounts of effort & money to prevent a similar incident ever happening again, regardless of how unlikely that event was. And yet they ignore far greater risks that surround them, risks they have come to accept as 'normal' (road deaths, for instance). Too many people conflate 'risk' and 'outcome', missing the important part of risk analysis: 'likelihood'.
To be fair, confusing risk with outcome is exactly what some people are doing in this thread. There are very few corpses lying about, therefore the threat is insignificant.
In reality the threat may be significant, as claimed by the government. However due to the measures currently in place, the residual risk is low, hence the lack of bodies.
I agree completely about poor societal understanding of risk and disproportionate spending. However the mindset that “This plant has operated for 20 years without an accident, therefore it is safe" is usually the precursor to something very unpleasant happening. The Haddon-Cave report into Nimrod makes interesting reading. The perception was a safe aircraft operated safely for years, therefore thats what the safety case was written to reflect. The reality was an aging airframe, a lot of uncontrolled modications involving fuel and jet exhaust systems and fuel pissing out at various points in the fuselage.
Back on topic, do we know enough about the actual situation to make an actual ALARP argument?
1
In reply to Timmd:
The good old days, when men were men and the National Trust were armed.
> That reminds me of quite a 'hardcore' guy who I met in his 60's, who I heard that while out cyclo-cross riding with 20 riding buddies a few decades ago, they were stopped by a ranger, and through being at the back of the group he threatened to shoot him with a shot gun, and the guy called his bluff by saying he could shoot him if he wanted, and then asking what he was going to do about the 20 other people in the group.
The good old days, when men were men and the National Trust were armed.
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Maybe. ()
What surprised me was that he only had one eye, and another bloke with only one eye in his 60's I know of is pretty 'hardcore' too.
It makes me want to looking into what psychological effects losing an eye might have, if any.
Maybe. ()
What surprised me was that he only had one eye, and another bloke with only one eye in his 60's I know of is pretty 'hardcore' too.
It makes me want to looking into what psychological effects losing an eye might have, if any.
Post edited at 17:49
In reply to Ridge:
I'd thought of that too. My mildly obsessive side is putting me at risk of being bugged by this, by not knowing.
I'd thought of that too. My mildly obsessive side is putting me at risk of being bugged by this, by not knowing.
Post edited at 18:44
In reply to elsewhere:
You won't get any from Sir. A master of the passive aggressive non-committal smarty pants reply.
> I'm asking the questions now. What's your answers?
You won't get any from Sir. A master of the passive aggressive non-committal smarty pants reply.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...