Terror threat at an all time high
Discussion
We're ALL GOING TO DIEEEEE!
Jeez, talk about crying wolf.
The cost per head in monetary terms alone must be very high, then add in the loss of freedoms and liberties on top.
The terrorists have won already, and they win more and more every day idiot politicians like this push air past their vocal cords!
Dave
Jeez, talk about crying wolf.
The cost per head in monetary terms alone must be very high, then add in the loss of freedoms and liberties on top.
The terrorists have won already, and they win more and more every day idiot politicians like this push air past their vocal cords!
Dave
egor110 said:
The ira were not willing to be martyred though.
Were they ever as brazen as to kill and pretty much behead a soldier near as damm it next to his base?
They used to launch attacks on the bases themselves.Were they ever as brazen as to kill and pretty much behead a soldier near as damm it next to his base?
The IRA were essentially a professional paramilitary organization. I tend to think that they were more of threat than a loose collection of nutters who can't even reliably set fire to their own shoes.
What with CMD telling us last week that the economic warning lights were red on the dashboard, this week Theresa May invokes the highest terror level, what next? Will Hague warn of a critical shortage of St. George flags?
Please be panicked and be sure to keep tight hold of nanny's hand. Especially when voting.
Meanwhile Iran has another nine months to perfect their peaceful nuclear facility...
Please be panicked and be sure to keep tight hold of nanny's hand. Especially when voting.
Meanwhile Iran has another nine months to perfect their peaceful nuclear facility...
My initial reaction is that I'm not convicted new laws are needed, as oppose to further resources being needed.
Although, like everyone here, I'm not positioned within our intelligence services and do not actively work in counter-terrorism. So I don't really know if there are any reasonable gaps that need to be plugged through legislation.
In sustained terms, and in managing the threats, not as much as the moment.
No info as to what.
No info as to when.
No info as to where.
No info as to why.
No info as to who.
Nothing. Nil. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
This lack of information is part of the ongoing war against these unspecified threats. But please believe it, as they only have our safety in mind.There have been plenty of prosecutions and convictions for terrorism offences in those 9 years.
Since May 2010, there have been 753 arrests - resulting in 138 terrorists being jailed and 13 people being extradited. That's not even half the time since 7/7 where the number 40 is taken from.
It's not hard to find some of the "plots" / conspiracies on Google and see details and the convictions. Saying there is no information on them is totally wrong.
Although, like everyone here, I'm not positioned within our intelligence services and do not actively work in counter-terrorism. So I don't really know if there are any reasonable gaps that need to be plugged through legislation.
BoRED S2upid said:
There's a bit of the bit who cried wolf here.
I thought our all time high would have been after 9/11 or 7/7?
The longer were at an all time high with nothing happening the public aren't going to believe the warnings when the s
t properly hits the fan.
In terms of the scale (moderate, severe) etc, then yes, for a short period of time the threat was higher around 7/7. I thought our all time high would have been after 9/11 or 7/7?
The longer were at an all time high with nothing happening the public aren't going to believe the warnings when the s
t properly hits the fan. In sustained terms, and in managing the threats, not as much as the moment.
Rovinghawk said:
Hol said:
The security services have managed to intervene and stop 40 planned attacks since 7/7, according to reports in the papers tonight.
But no information on any of these alleged plots.No info as to what.
No info as to when.
No info as to where.
No info as to why.
No info as to who.
Nothing. Nil. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
This lack of information is part of the ongoing war against these unspecified threats. But please believe it, as they only have our safety in mind.
Since May 2010, there have been 753 arrests - resulting in 138 terrorists being jailed and 13 people being extradited. That's not even half the time since 7/7 where the number 40 is taken from.
It's not hard to find some of the "plots" / conspiracies on Google and see details and the convictions. Saying there is no information on them is totally wrong.
RobDickinson said:
Yeah I assume these all have documented prosecutions and people put away over these heinously planned crimes?
The tricky balance is invention and prevention vs controlled allowance and evidence gathering. The longer it is allowed to go on, the greater the risk, but the closer to reaching the relevant evidential burdens. LucreLout said:
smegmore said:
There was very little anti-Irish sentiment during the heyday of IRA attacks on the mainland
That's not true. Plenty of signs saying "no blacks, no dogs, no Irish" and that was only the start. One other point is that, in the 70s when the IRA bombing was at its height, my favourite watering hole was also frequented by many Irish guys from both sides of the divide and I never once saw any aggro between them, it was an unspoken rule that the subject was never discussed and if anyone else brought it up they were blanked and ignored.
DeanR32 said:
My father in law used to work as a contractor for one of the big utilities contractor at the time (Irish firm, drive green vans), and they had a collection for "the cause" weekly. It used to do very well for donations.
Of course the in law never ever put in.
I worked for the same company intermittently in the 70s and 80s, Murphy.Of course the in law never ever put in.
I never saw that though, probably because I'm a Brit with no Irish connections. The only time any animosity was directed at me personally was in the brew cabin and that was only a bit of banter, anything more and I would have had them run off.
I had the shout.
smegmore said:
DeanR32 said:
My father in law used to work as a contractor for one of the big utilities contractor at the time (Irish firm, drive green vans), and they had a collection for "the cause" weekly. It used to do very well for donations.
Of course the in law never ever put in.
I worked for the same company intermittently in the 70s and 80s, Murphy.Of course the in law never ever put in.
I never saw that though, probably because I'm a Brit with no Irish connections. The only time any animosity was directed at me personally was in the brew cabin and that was only a bit of banter, anything more and I would have had them run off.
I had the shout.
He's a Brit too, but I think he went for the Irish breakfast over the English with the chops and cabbage etc.
New laws about to be announced.
Oh thank god, I feel safer already.
Lets just hope, shock horror, that terrorists don't just start using pen, paper and letters again... or discussing their ideas in private rather than on the interwebs!
fking moronic.
£5 that May will have shares, or a comfy arm-chair job at GCHQ or something along those lines, once her term as Home Secretary muppet is over.
How they're even getting away with it I have no idea, I thought the LibDems were totally against this.
Ah well, another reason not to vote for Cons. I actually think a Labour vote would be better at this stage. Ruin and rebuild seems preferable to perpetuating the same decade old bullst story of fear and greed and political indifference.
Dave
Oh thank god, I feel safer already.
Lets just hope, shock horror, that terrorists don't just start using pen, paper and letters again... or discussing their ideas in private rather than on the interwebs!
f
king moronic.£5 that May will have shares, or a comfy arm-chair job at GCHQ or something along those lines, once her term as Home Secretary muppet is over.
How they're even getting away with it I have no idea, I thought the LibDems were totally against this.
Ah well, another reason not to vote for Cons. I actually think a Labour vote would be better at this stage. Ruin and rebuild seems preferable to perpetuating the same decade old bulls
t story of fear and greed and political indifference.Dave
Mr Whippy said:
Lets just hope, shock horror, that terrorists don't just start using pen, paper and letters again... or discussing their ideas in private rather than on the interwebs!
They won't use pen and paper. Physical meeting is risky and provides the security services ample opportunity to evidence gather and build a networking picture. The world changes, technology changes, methods of crime change. Legislation which governs the technology naturally needs to adapt and keep up.
Mr Whippy said:
£5 that May will have shares, or a comfy arm-chair job at GCHQ or something along those lines, once her term as Home Secretary muppet is over.
Shares in what? I assume you don't mean GCHQ. Mr Whippy said:
Ah well, another reason not to vote for Cons. I actually think a Labour vote would be better at this stage.
Labour brought in the most draconian terrorism laws we have. These are light compared to those. DeanR32 said:
Gas? I take it you were ganger then? He was out of Kentish town. Massive yard!
He's a Brit too, but I think he went for the Irish breakfast over the English with the chops and cabbage etc.
Not gas, I was on the pipeline construction side many years ago.He's a Brit too, but I think he went for the Irish breakfast over the English with the chops and cabbage etc.
I remember the breakfast too, the frying pans were cut down 40 gal oil drums, you name it and it was in there.
La Liga said:
Mr Whippy said:
Lets just hope, shock horror, that terrorists don't just start using pen, paper and letters again... or discussing their ideas in private rather than on the interwebs!
They won't use pen and paper. Physical meeting is risky and provides the security services ample opportunity to evidence gather and build a networking picture. The world changes, technology changes, methods of crime change. Legislation which governs the technology naturally needs to adapt and keep up.
Mr Whippy said:
£5 that May will have shares, or a comfy arm-chair job at GCHQ or something along those lines, once her term as Home Secretary muppet is over.
Shares in what? I assume you don't mean GCHQ. Mr Whippy said:
Ah well, another reason not to vote for Cons. I actually think a Labour vote would be better at this stage.
Labour brought in the most draconian terrorism laws we have. These are light compared to those. Any way, it all sounds lovely, but all it's going to do is force everyone to encrypt their traffic now, which means encrypted bad stuff will be mixed in with encrypted sensitive stuff, or encrypted harmless stuff, making it HARDER for them to find what they want.
I don't know what she might have shares in or not. But I wouldn't bet against her not having some interests in this system outside of government. Didn't a home secretary a few terms back who was pushing for the ID cards, own shares in the ID card company?
It seems feathering your own nest is a core part of the job while also providing policy for the populace.
Yes Labour screwed us over, and now the Conservatives are continuing the process. They've lost my vote. It's as simple as that.
They've LET the terrorists win by doing what they're doing.
If they could do this without cost then fine, but it's costing us all our freedom and privacy.
I'd rather run the risk of being blown up, a 1 in a billion chance no doubt, than see *everyone's* freedom and liberty given up forever in the name of safety which isn't even guaranteed any way.
Dave
Pen and paper isn't very effective at radicalising people or allowing people to network. An established group could of course do so, but how attractive and effective this is in the modern world makes it appear improbable. It's very slow. Group risk hasn't really got people as worried (as they usually leave a trace and are on the radar), it's people acting alone which is harder to detect and manage.
I can't find the draft statute, but non of the 'headline' measures appear that sweeping or intrusive, or will result in what you're suggesting. Which specific change are you referring to? I'm not sure which businesses will benefit from this, and would suggest it's a little far fetched to think the Home Sec is drafting legislation for some speculative gain in whoever she may be invested in.
The suggestion social media needs to be able to monitor all its traffic seems a little unfair, given the volume of content they process on a daily basis. Obviously there reaches a threshold where the risk society needs and wants to accept is offset by the encroachment on freedoms.
I can't find the draft statute, but non of the 'headline' measures appear that sweeping or intrusive, or will result in what you're suggesting. Which specific change are you referring to? I'm not sure which businesses will benefit from this, and would suggest it's a little far fetched to think the Home Sec is drafting legislation for some speculative gain in whoever she may be invested in.
The suggestion social media needs to be able to monitor all its traffic seems a little unfair, given the volume of content they process on a daily basis. Obviously there reaches a threshold where the risk society needs and wants to accept is offset by the encroachment on freedoms.
La Liga said:
Pen and paper isn't very effective at radicalising people or allowing people to network. An established group could of course do so, but how attractive and effective this is in the modern world makes it appear improbable. It's very slow. Group risk hasn't really got people as worried (as they usually leave a trace and are on the radar), it's people acting alone which is harder to detect and manage.
I can't find the draft statute, but non of the 'headline' measures appear that sweeping or intrusive, or will result in what you're suggesting. Which specific change are you referring to? I'm not sure which businesses will benefit from this, and would suggest it's a little far fetched to think the Home Sec is drafting legislation for some speculative gain in whoever she may be invested in.
The suggestion social media needs to be able to monitor all its traffic seems a little unfair, given the volume of content they process on a daily basis. Obviously there reaches a threshold where the risk society needs and wants to accept is offset by the encroachment on freedoms.
I suppose if you fear home-brew radicals doing bad things then the internet is indeed a source of dodgy goings on. But I'm assuming those with the means and desire to do bad things will always find a way to find martyrs. Be it in social gatherings in person (remember that form of social activity), and I'm certain there are not spies at every social location I can't find the draft statute, but non of the 'headline' measures appear that sweeping or intrusive, or will result in what you're suggesting. Which specific change are you referring to? I'm not sure which businesses will benefit from this, and would suggest it's a little far fetched to think the Home Sec is drafting legislation for some speculative gain in whoever she may be invested in.
The suggestion social media needs to be able to monitor all its traffic seems a little unfair, given the volume of content they process on a daily basis. Obviously there reaches a threshold where the risk society needs and wants to accept is offset by the encroachment on freedoms.
And given the recent revelations it appears a lot of useful information is already there freely available any way. Don't the NSA collect UK users data and store it for a few days. Anything with potentially interesting content is stored longer, and a cascade system of storage is used to keep actually useful data indefinitely? GCHQ appear to do the same for the USA.
I do wonder what further powers they need, given they can get warrants to tap phones, investigate properties, and record IT type data if required.
I agree with the social media issue. If a guy walks into a pub and says these things at a table out of earshot, it's not up to the pub owner to inform the police after recording all activity in the place.
It'd be up to police to suspect those people of possible wrong doing, or getting public tip-offs etc.
If we start to go down the path of interrogating everything anyone says on-line then we'll just end up with police sitting sifting through false negatives all day long. Facebook certainly aren't gonna pay to do it.
And if we run for automated systems then it'll just harm the users in the end. Getting a visit from Plod because Facebook ticked a box beside your name because you wrote a few key words in the wrong order.
People acting along are impossible to detect really, the only way to detect them is to analyse EVERYONE, and then find the appropriate trends that might suggest a dodgy person.
But once that system is in place it'll be a dangerous tool. Dissent, discontent, peaceful protest, how far away is one mans terrorist from another mans peaceful protest over something important to them?
These tools are just as likely to be leveraged against honest people exercising their democrat freedoms.
You only need to read the leaked Snowden documents to begin to wonder what the real motivations behind these tools are. Terror avoidance is one use, but it certainly isn't an exclusive use by any means.
La Liga said:
The suggestion social media needs to be able to monitor all its traffic seems a little unfair, given the volume of content they process on a daily basis. Obviously there reaches a threshold where the risk society needs and wants to accept is offset by the encroachment on freedoms.
I saw on the news tonight that Lee Rigby's family are blaming Facebook because of a post one of the killers made. Facebook have over a billion users, all posting endless inane drivel day in, day out, how is anyone realistically meant to monitor all of that?How much (more) time and resources would be wasted if the police / security services had to investigate every questionable post some idiot makes?
It's absurd for them to suggest this is Facebooks fault.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff