I'm worried that the terror threat level system is going to be a permanent fixture. Being in a heightened state of alert indefinitely is wrong because the increased fear means that we risk poorly thought out legislation being passed. It also makes us less likely to react to genuine threats. If they cry wolf year upon year with this "substantial risk of an attack" nonsense, then the one time there might be a real threat, we'll be switched off because we're used to being lied[/U] to so often[/B].
Fortunately we don't have to react. That's what the security services are paid to do.
Another major bomb incident with many dead and maimed in London or similar and people will be looking to blame someone. It would be almost inevitable with the benefit of hindsight that some would blame the security services for not being at the right terror threat level even though circumstances should have made a level upgrade most obvious.
That would mean there is a guaranteed chance it would never happen which isn't what I said. I can't say with complete certainty there won't be a terrorist attack in the UK just like you can't say with complete certainty you won't get hit by lightning after winning the lottery. What we can do is talk about how likely something is to happen. If something is possible but the chances of it actually happening are very low (such as a terrorist attack or being hit by lightning after winning the lottery) we shouldn't really be talking about it in terms of an "ongoing threat". I accept the possibility is there for both of these things to happen but don't feel that we need to describe them as "ongoing threats" unless they actually become that. The fact that either of them might happen at some point does not make them an ongoing threat.
The threat is there, therefore it is ongoing. The lottery and lightning are nothing to do with it. You are just comparing odds there, which is a different thing.
We've not had more attacks, because our security services, and Police are pretty good at stopping them.
We've had enough arrests, and convictions over the past few years to show a threat is there. The fact arrests are still being made shows there is a threat and it is ongoing.
The threat is there, therefore it is ongoing. The lottery and lightning are nothing to do with it. You are just comparing odds there, which is a different thing.
We've not had more attacks, because our security services, and Police are pretty good at stopping them.
We've had enough arrests, and convictions over the past few years to show a threat is there. The fact arrests are still being made shows there is a threat and it is ongoing.
Just last week I heard on the radio there were three arrests made in London and one in Stoke on terrorism related offences (I can't remember specifically what it was they said) so that to me signifies an ongoing threat.
As you say, our security services are just good at catching them before they happen. Although not too long ago there were people accusing them of faking arrests on terror charges rather than congratulating them for stopping a terror plot.
No I've been quite clear I don't think there's an ongoing threat. I think there's a chance that it could happen as I think there's a chance that anything could happen. There is a big difference between saying there's a chance something could happen, and saying the chance of it happening is so great that it needs to be termed an ongoing threat.
No you think you've been clear. That's the difference.
You are trying to foist your definition of words on to me and it's not going to fly. You are quibbling about how you perceive the strength of this threat. That's all. And you seem to be quibbling about this threat by how effective or not the security services are on preventing this threat or not.
For example the security services could have prevented and foiled hundreds of plots in the last decade. However you would only class this as an ongoing threat of they failed to foil these plots. There a gap in logical thinking. The threat would be there - the only thing that would have changed is the effectiveness of the countermeasures. Yet according to your standpoint there is no ongoing threat.
The threat is there, therefore it is ongoing. The lottery and lightning are nothing to do with it. You are just comparing odds there, which is a different thing.
It's the same thing. The threat posed by lightning is also there so you must feel there is an ongoing threat of that too. Or can we just accept that while some things can possibly happen, the odds are so low that it's not worth seriously discussing it unless that changes.
The lightning example has everything to do with it. I am showing you how silly it is to talk about terrorism as an "ongoing threat" to the UK. There is just as much of an ongoing threat that lottery winners will be hit by lightning but we don't have threat levels for that. Probably because we have the common sense to know that while it is possible it's not really worth considering because the chances are so low of it happening. We simply are not going to agree over this DP. But there is no ongoing terrorist threat to the UK and there hasn't been since The Troubles. People who say otherwise I think are kidding themselves.
You have the strangest of philosophies, and understanding of what constitutes a threat.
It's been pointed out to you several times that it's only because the security services, intelligence, MI5 etc are aware of the threat and have acted upon it, that actual terrorist events are being kept to a minimum
If the security services ignored that threat, the terrorists would have a field day, or to use your terminology - they would win the lottery every week
It's the same thing. The threat posed by lightning is also there so you must feel there is an ongoing threat of that too. Or can we just accept that while some things can possibly happen, the odds are so low that it's not worth seriously discussing it unless that changes.
I do kind of get what you are trying to say but there is an ongoing threat to national security by terrorism and it would be wrong for the terror threat level to not represent that.
If there wasn't an ongoing threat, the terror level would be reduced.
It's the same thing. The threat posed by lightning is also there so you must feel there is an ongoing threat of that too. Or can we just accept that while some things can possibly happen, the odds are so low that it's not worth seriously discussing it unless that changes.
There is an ongoing threat of lightning, because it is there, but there is nothing we can do about it, and no one is actually planning to use lightning against us, so it is irrelevant.
There is a world wide terrorist group intent on causing atrocities on the western world, not to mention people from their own backgrounds that disagree with them, and that threat is growing.
You cant just say that because our individual threat level is low then we shouldn't be concerned about it. Maybe us as individuals can disregard, but as a nation we cant, and that's why our security services are so busy.
I do kind of get what you are trying to say but there is an ongoing threat to national security by terrorism and it would be wrong for the terror threat level to not represent that.
If there wasn't an ongoing threat, the terror level would be reduced.
There is also an ongoing threat to national security by the continued existence of the terrorist threat level system. It means that poorly thought out laws sometimes get passed because of the panic surrounding terrorism and that legislation ends up being used for trivial things. It also means that people become used to hearing about a serious terrorist all the time. So if there actually is a serious imminent threat no one will really think any different because it's lost it's meaning if we're always on alert. And it also allows for abuses in the system. Saying that there are terrorists always poised to attack us allows a government to have a lot more control than it normally would. It happened throughout the twentieth century where governments who wanted rid of opposition but still had to be seen to play by the rules branded opponents with a word that allowed their rights to be removed. That word could be outlaw, enemy of the state, or as we've seen recently "terrorist". If that only ever happened in the past we could discard it as a lesson learned from history but just this week we've seen the release off a report showing that the Americans tortured innocent civilians at Guantanamo Bay and were able to get away with it by branding the civilians "terrorists" which removed any need for a fair trial, or any proof of wrongdoing. I'm not saying this government would abuse the power they have but in the future an extreme party might.
There is certainly the possibility of an attack by terrorists on UK soil. I don't consider that to be an ongoing threat though simply because the chances of it happening are so low that we are talking in fractions of a percent. There has to be a point where it's a trade off in whether it's reasonable and practical. There's always a chance you'll get attacked walking to work and while you could take action to stop that by never going outside it's not a practical way to live. Living our lives in fear of terrorism that we have a permanent "threat level" seems like the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. I accept Deep Purples statement about there not being anything you can do to stop lightning so used another example.
But regardless of how low YOU believe the threat to be, the security services don't believe that to be the case. They believe it to be highly likely a terrorist attack will happen.
All I'm saying is, I'm going to go with what the security services say. Until there is no threat of terrorism, there will be an ongoing risk.
But regardless of how low YOU believe the threat to be, the security services don't believe that to be the case. They believe it to be highly likely a terrorist attack will happen.
All I'm saying is, I'm going to go with what the security services say. Until there is no threat of terrorism, there will be an ongoing risk.
If that's how you feel that's fine. I'm going by the odds though. I'm happy knowing that, even though an attack is possible, there is no ongoing threat of terrorism to the UK. One train of thought is that if we live life in fear we have already let them won.
Apparently a threat that Muslims are planning to attack police officers-a news twitter account reports. So Birmingham basically a crime free for all zone tonight. seriously sounds worrying.
If that's how you feel that's fine. I'm going by the odds though. I'm happy knowing that, even though an attack is possible, there is no ongoing threat of terrorism to the UK. One train of thought is that if we live life in fear we have already let them won.
Remarkable.
I will just echo what the other posters have said on here - try watching the news and read up about the thousands of home-grown extremists in our midst doing their very best to send us all to Hell.
I would class that as a very big threat personally.
If that's how you feel that's fine. I'm going by the odds though. I'm happy knowing that, even though an attack is possible, there is no ongoing threat of terrorism to the UK. One train of thought is that if we live life in fear we have already let them won.
One of the secrets to not living life in fear is to take measures to reduce the odds of something bad happening. That's why we live in houses and have locked doors. That's why we pay for relatively competent and coherent security services. That's one reason why this country isn't like one of those muddled middle eastern hell holes with peoples body parts being widely distributed all over the place on a daily basis.
One of the secrets to not living life in fear is to take measures to reduce the odds of something bad happening. That's why we live in houses and have locked doors. That's why we pay for relatively competent and coherent security services. That's one reason why this country isn't like one of those muddled middle eastern hell holes with peoples body parts being widely distributed all over the place on a daily basis.
One of the secrets to not living life in fear is to take measures to reduce the odds of something bad happening. That's why we live in houses and have locked doors. That's why we pay for relatively competent and coherent security services. That's one reason why this country isn't like one of those muddled middle eastern hell holes with peoples body parts being widely distributed all over the place on a daily basis.
Excellent post,
You only have to look at what happens on the odd occasion when law and order breaks down even in this country, like the London riots and see all the scum that come out of the woodwork to destroy and loot and mug people.
One of the secrets to not living life in fear is to take measures to reduce the odds of something bad happening. That's why we live in houses and have locked doors. That's why we pay for relatively competent and coherent security services. That's one reason why this country isn't like one of those muddled middle eastern hell holes with peoples body parts being widely distributed all over the place on a daily basis.
I fully agree with what you're saying and I feel it's about finding the right balance and not going to unreasonable lengths.
Three men, including a police officer, have been arrested following a hoax terror plot to kidnap an officer.
The West Midlands officer and two other men are being questioned on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Police said they were given "false and malicious information" suggesting an officer was to "be kidnapped as part of a terrorist plot".
West Midlands police were put on high alert because of the hoax.
The three Birmingham men are questioned by anti-terrorism and anti-corruption teams.
The 28-year-old officer at Birmingham West & Central Local Policing Unit has also been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in a public office and misuse of police systems.
The other men, aged 25 and 31, are also being questioned on suspicion of conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office.
I think the issue is that there was, and indeed still is, a terror threat. These idiots took advantage of that, all for a "laugh"?
Sorry removed that bit of my post literally just before you posted this, as I felt it wasn't really the right place to put it. I'm currently in a different thread discussing the fact that just because people say someone is a terrorist, it isn't necessarily true that they are a terrorist and felt this was a good example.
Reports came in that there was a specific terrorist threat to West Midlands Police, and later it turned out that there wasn't, and it was just a hoax. But probably this isn't the place for me to be saying that, which is why I was going to remove it. At any rate doing this as a hoax is a completely moron thing to do and hope they get the book flung at them for the waste of time, the scare, and the inconvenience this caused everyone.
Sorry removed that bit of my post literally just before you posted this, as I felt it wasn't really the right place to put it. I'm currently in a different thread discussing the fact that just because people say someone is a terrorist, it isn't necessarily true that they are a terrorist and felt this was a good example.
Reports came in that there was a specific terrorist threat to West Midlands Police, and later it turned out that there wasn't, and it was just a hoax. But probably this isn't the place for me to be saying that, which is why I was going to remove it. At any rate doing this as a hoax is a completely moron thing to do and hope they get the book flung at them for the waste of time, the scare, and the inconvenience this caused everyone.
Comments
Fortunately we don't have to react. That's what the security services are paid to do.
Another major bomb incident with many dead and maimed in London or similar and people will be looking to blame someone. It would be almost inevitable with the benefit of hindsight that some would blame the security services for not being at the right terror threat level even though circumstances should have made a level upgrade most obvious.
The threat is there, therefore it is ongoing. The lottery and lightning are nothing to do with it. You are just comparing odds there, which is a different thing.
We've not had more attacks, because our security services, and Police are pretty good at stopping them.
We've had enough arrests, and convictions over the past few years to show a threat is there. The fact arrests are still being made shows there is a threat and it is ongoing.
Just last week I heard on the radio there were three arrests made in London and one in Stoke on terrorism related offences (I can't remember specifically what it was they said) so that to me signifies an ongoing threat.
As you say, our security services are just good at catching them before they happen. Although not too long ago there were people accusing them of faking arrests on terror charges rather than congratulating them for stopping a terror plot.
No you think you've been clear. That's the difference.
You are trying to foist your definition of words on to me and it's not going to fly. You are quibbling about how you perceive the strength of this threat. That's all. And you seem to be quibbling about this threat by how effective or not the security services are on preventing this threat or not.
For example the security services could have prevented and foiled hundreds of plots in the last decade. However you would only class this as an ongoing threat of they failed to foil these plots. There a gap in logical thinking. The threat would be there - the only thing that would have changed is the effectiveness of the countermeasures. Yet according to your standpoint there is no ongoing threat.
It's the same thing. The threat posed by lightning is also there so you must feel there is an ongoing threat of that too. Or can we just accept that while some things can possibly happen, the odds are so low that it's not worth seriously discussing it unless that changes.
It's been pointed out to you several times that it's only because the security services, intelligence, MI5 etc are aware of the threat and have acted upon it, that actual terrorist events are being kept to a minimum
If the security services ignored that threat, the terrorists would have a field day, or to use your terminology - they would win the lottery every week
I do kind of get what you are trying to say but there is an ongoing threat to national security by terrorism and it would be wrong for the terror threat level to not represent that.
If there wasn't an ongoing threat, the terror level would be reduced.
There is an ongoing threat of lightning, because it is there, but there is nothing we can do about it, and no one is actually planning to use lightning against us, so it is irrelevant.
There is a world wide terrorist group intent on causing atrocities on the western world, not to mention people from their own backgrounds that disagree with them, and that threat is growing.
You cant just say that because our individual threat level is low then we shouldn't be concerned about it. Maybe us as individuals can disregard, but as a nation we cant, and that's why our security services are so busy.
There is also an ongoing threat to national security by the continued existence of the terrorist threat level system. It means that poorly thought out laws sometimes get passed because of the panic surrounding terrorism and that legislation ends up being used for trivial things. It also means that people become used to hearing about a serious terrorist all the time. So if there actually is a serious imminent threat no one will really think any different because it's lost it's meaning if we're always on alert. And it also allows for abuses in the system. Saying that there are terrorists always poised to attack us allows a government to have a lot more control than it normally would. It happened throughout the twentieth century where governments who wanted rid of opposition but still had to be seen to play by the rules branded opponents with a word that allowed their rights to be removed. That word could be outlaw, enemy of the state, or as we've seen recently "terrorist". If that only ever happened in the past we could discard it as a lesson learned from history but just this week we've seen the release off a report showing that the Americans tortured innocent civilians at Guantanamo Bay and were able to get away with it by branding the civilians "terrorists" which removed any need for a fair trial, or any proof of wrongdoing. I'm not saying this government would abuse the power they have but in the future an extreme party might.
There is certainly the possibility of an attack by terrorists on UK soil. I don't consider that to be an ongoing threat though simply because the chances of it happening are so low that we are talking in fractions of a percent. There has to be a point where it's a trade off in whether it's reasonable and practical. There's always a chance you'll get attacked walking to work and while you could take action to stop that by never going outside it's not a practical way to live. Living our lives in fear of terrorism that we have a permanent "threat level" seems like the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. I accept Deep Purples statement about there not being anything you can do to stop lightning so used another example.
All I'm saying is, I'm going to go with what the security services say. Until there is no threat of terrorism, there will be an ongoing risk.
If that's how you feel that's fine. I'm going by the odds though. I'm happy knowing that, even though an attack is possible, there is no ongoing threat of terrorism to the UK. One train of thought is that if we live life in fear we have already let them won.
In other words, business as usual then.
Remarkable.
I will just echo what the other posters have said on here - try watching the news and read up about the thousands of home-grown extremists in our midst doing their very best to send us all to Hell.
I would class that as a very big threat personally.
One of the secrets to not living life in fear is to take measures to reduce the odds of something bad happening. That's why we live in houses and have locked doors. That's why we pay for relatively competent and coherent security services. That's one reason why this country isn't like one of those muddled middle eastern hell holes with peoples body parts being widely distributed all over the place on a daily basis.
I totally agree.
Well said.
Excellent post,
You only have to look at what happens on the odd occasion when law and order breaks down even in this country, like the London riots and see all the scum that come out of the woodwork to destroy and loot and mug people.
I fully agree with what you're saying and I feel it's about finding the right balance and not going to unreasonable lengths.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34185474
What a bunch of absolute morons, if this is proved, and if so, they will all hopefully receive the most severe of sentences.
Idiots. Having been directly affected by this it caused a lot of what now appears to be unnecessary concern, and a fair bit of inconvenience too.
Sorry removed that bit of my post literally just before you posted this, as I felt it wasn't really the right place to put it. I'm currently in a different thread discussing the fact that just because people say someone is a terrorist, it isn't necessarily true that they are a terrorist and felt this was a good example.
Reports came in that there was a specific terrorist threat to West Midlands Police, and later it turned out that there wasn't, and it was just a hoax. But probably this isn't the place for me to be saying that, which is why I was going to remove it. At any rate doing this as a hoax is a completely moron thing to do and hope they get the book flung at them for the waste of time, the scare, and the inconvenience this caused everyone.
Fair point - deleted.
What would be the right balance according to someone who insists that there is no ongoing threat of terrorist attacks?