UK terror threat level raised to 'Severe'

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Ah yes, funny isn't it how the papers start broadcasting terror levels immediately after the Home Secretary wants to revive the Snooper's charters under a new disguise

Looking at the other side of the coin, it is in the interest of any terrorist group to foster the belief that it is just a right-wing newspaper plot to add controls on the use of personal IT matters, to divert attention away from them should they be considering nefarious matters.

Just a thought.

 

[NSEFAN]

That's what I'm meaning, the government want ISPs to identify the device (and yes I know that MACs are editable) - ISPs are resisting, see also the Will somebody think of the Children stories when the Goverment wanted undesirable websites filtered.

Presumably they'd want ISPs to add firmware to their routers to log all MAC addresses and report them back to the ISP? How about they instead give us multicast and IPv6 support? That would do a lot more good for the nation than some poxy MAC logger.

 

[Oswyntail]

Ah yes, funny isn't it how the papers start broadcasting terror levels immediately after the Home Secretary wants to revive the Snooper's charters under a new disguise

Of course, it could possibly be that there is a threat, and the authorities are taking what they consider appropriate action, such as taking new powers and publicising the security level. Unlikely, I know, when everything anyone else does is prompted by self-serving corruption.

 

[starrymarkb]

Looking at the other side of the coin, it is in the interest of any terrorist group to foster the belief that it is just a right-wing newspaper plot to add controls on the use of personal IT matters, to divert attention away from them should they be considering nefarious matters.

Just a thought.

Nope, the papers just done their job for them. The point of terrorism is to create fear in the population, hence "Acts of Terror"

I'm not saying there is no threat, but I suspect the reasons behind the sudden publicity are not unconnected to laws that the current government want to get through the commons.

 

[ainsworth74]

Of course, it could possibly be that there is a threat, and the authorities are taking what they consider appropriate action, such as taking new powers and publicising the security level. Unlikely, I know, when everything anyone else does is prompted by self-serving corruption.

I am reminded of an old Russian proverb: 'Trust, but verify'.

I have no issue in trusting that the security services believe there is a threat and that this threat has caused the Government to seek extra powers to combat it. But equally I think it is wise to express caution and want to debate the extent of those powers and if their need is absolutely necessary.

 

[Oswyntail]

... But equally I think it is wise to express caution and want to debate the extent of those powers and if their need is absolutely necessary.

Absolutely. I just despair at the automatic cynicism in some quarters, which is as damaging to society as unquestioning acceptance.

 

[Greenback]

I agree, we need a balance between unquestioning obedience and automatic cynicism. I'm also wary of disbelieving something just because it emanates for a particular source. However, I'd like to see some sort of corroboration too, it's a stronger argument when it isn't restricted to one particular newspaper, for example.

.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Absolutely. I just despair at the automatic cynicism in some quarters, which is as damaging to society as unquestioning acceptance.

I'd agree with this, but I'm always skeptical of any briefing where people are not prepared to put their name to it.

I think that there are certainly people in this world who are looking to blow us up for political reasons. I also think there are people in this world who think the general public have too much freedom and that things would be better with a tighter leash.

The secrecy is what makes me wary. I'm always wary of anyone who is trying to frighten me. If they're going to hide in the shadows whilst they do it then I'll generally assume they're up to no good, and that doesn't matter which side they're on.

The government always try and tell us that if we have nothing to hide then we have nothing to fear. Yet they hide. It makes me wonder why.

 

[Busaholic]

I doubt Richard Desmond is short of a few bob as he sold Channel 5 for about £450 Million earlier this year after having purchased it for £104 Million 4 years ago. Seems like quite an astute businessman to me.

If astute businessman = one entirely without scruples, then I'm wholly in agreement with you.

 

[Butts]

If astute businessman = one entirely without scruples, then I'm wholly in agreement with you.

Is there any other sort ?

 

[fowler9]

I find it hard to believe that the government have our best interests at heart. Given the almighty balls up the security services made of keeping track of the chaps who killed Lee Rigby how am I meant to believe that the constant surveillance has actually stopped far more nefarious plots? Actually based on the Lee Rigby incident maybe we shouldn't worry about surveillance since the security forces are obviously useless.

 

[Oswyntail]

I find it hard to believe that the government have our best interests at heart. Given the almighty balls up the security services made of keeping track of the chaps who killed Lee Rigby how am I meant to believe that the constant surveillance has actually stopped far more nefarious plots? Actually based on the Lee Rigby incident maybe we shouldn't worry about surveillance since the security forces are obviously useless.

Single incidents, however horrific, do not prove anything. A train crash does not prove the railways are unsafe; a death under anaesthetic does not prove that the NHS is failing. Any incident may well suggest areas for improvement, but is generally atypical.

 

[fowler9]

Single incidents, however horrific, do not prove anything. A train crash does not prove the railways are unsafe; a death under anaesthetic does not prove that the NHS is failing. Any incident may well suggest areas for improvement, but is generally atypical.

Well this incident does seem to prove that the security forces were following him, then they weren't, then they were then they weren't then they tried to turn him then they didn't. Then they tracked him then they didn't. Then he killed someone. If this makes you think that this proves the security services need to know everything you do online and off then fair enough. It makes me think they don't even read their own e-mails let alone everyone elses.

 

[ainsworth74]

It makes me think that in an open society where they aren't allowed to haul any old sod in for any old reason it's actually very hard to work out who is and who isn't a threat. And of those who is actually going to act on their beliefs and who enjoys just ranting and raving about it online.

I'm not expert but it strikes me that it is a very fine line to tread between hauling in everyone for questioning and missing people who should have been hauled in.

Lessons should be learned (and I'm concerned that they're seemingly trying to say that they did everything they could) but as above one mistake does not prove endemic failure (nor does it prove the need for more stringent security measures).

 

[Greenback]

It's a fine line, and my opinion is that we need to err on the side of protecting freedoms, otherwise, the very things we hold dear and are supposed to be defending or standing up for will be lost without us even realising it.

 

[fowler9]

It makes me think that in an open society where they aren't allowed to haul any old sod in for any old reason it's actually very hard to work out who is and who isn't a threat. And of those who is actually going to act on their beliefs and who enjoys just ranting and raving about it online.

I'm not expert but it strikes me that it is a very fine line to tread between hauling in everyone for questioning and missing people who should have been hauled in.

Lessons should be learned (and I'm concerned that they're seemingly trying to say that they did everything they could) but as above one mistake does not prove endemic failure (nor does it prove the need for more stringent security measures).

I think my above example does prove that when they have very obvious evidence that someone could be an issue the security forces do not act. How are we meant to believe there are many more subtle examples where we have been saved from disaster.

 

[Oswyntail]

I think my above example does prove that when they have very obvious evidence that someone could be an issue the security forces do not act....

Your personal assessment, using hindsight, makes you think the evidence is "obvious"; to others, the evidence might look like typical "green ink brigade" stuff. Unless you arrest everyone who types "jihad" in a thread, there will always be times when the wrong assessment is made.
[Excuse me, there has just been a knock at the door..... ]

 

[fowler9]

Your personal assessment, using hindsight, makes you think the evidence is "obvious"; to others, the evidence might look like typical "green ink brigade" stuff. Unless you arrest everyone who types "jihad" in a thread, there will always be times when the wrong assessment is made.
[Excuse me, there has just been a knock at the door..... ]

Ha ha. Fair play mate. It still looks to me that the security services are guilty of some pretty big and obvious failures. One of the guys who killed Lee Rigby was under pretty close surveillance and we still managed to miss it. Let's not forget De Menezes either. These aren't minor cock ups. They are things I would expect to not just be sacked for but to do jail time for.

 

[ainsworth74]

Surely that has the danger of forcing them to either become even more cautious or going the opposite and becoming to gung-ho if the threat of them getting it wrong is jail time?

 

[fowler9]

In my view some people got it so massively wrong with De Menezes and Lee Rigby they should be publicly strung up rather than having Theresa May telling us everything we do will be monitored to sto it happening again, the people monitoring currently look like they couldn't organise a Christmas do in a brewery.

 

[jon0844]

Well this incident does seem to prove that the security forces were following him, then they weren't, then they were then they weren't then they tried to turn him then they didn't. Then they tracked him then they didn't. Then he killed someone. If this makes you think that this proves the security services need to know everything you do online and off then fair enough. It makes me think they don't even read their own e-mails let alone everyone elses.

I assume they're trying to monitor an awful lot of people, and so mistakes will be made - especially when there's no way to know who will or won't carry out something, and when/where etc.

Sure, sometimes you might get lucky and be able to find out the entire plot with times and dates, but I doubt that it's always as easy as that.

I'm sure that if we decided to invest billions more to increase the staffing levels to keep just about every possible terrorist under surveillance, people would have a few words to say about the waste of money.

Especially as, like revenue protection, if they were highly effective and stopped all incidents you'd get people arguing that they weren't needed as nobody got killed!

One of the guys who killed Lee Rigby was under pretty close surveillance and we still managed to miss it. Let's not forget De Menezes either. These aren't minor cock ups.

That was, to me, a totally different situation. Still a cock up, yes, but in this case they were following the wrong person and allowed themselves to get so caught up with what was happening (or they thought was happening) that they completely failed to establish that Charles WAS the correct person. And as time went on, they all assumed that it simply must be the right person even though it still hadn't been confirmed (and can't have ever been as the person observing hadn't been observing at that moment).

Anyway, the attempted cover up and lying afterwards was shocking, but sadly not the first or last time.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The killing of de Menezes was a huge screw-up and, yeah, I'd agree that Cressida Dick should have been given prison rather than a big fat promotion. The problem was in the surveillance, they didn't do it properly and followed the wrong person, and the blame needed to rest with her. The lying afterwards really stuck in my throat, but then the police generally have a long and vibrant history of lying, cheating and lying some more to protect themselves from scrutiny. Just ask the families of the 96 or the family of Ian Tomlinson. Or the Guildford Four. Or Barry George...

I still feel sorry for the copper who actually killed him, doing something I'd not be brave enough to do (i.e. follow a suicide bombing terrorist into a train to stop him) and then getting vilified when it turns out he was given duff information.

The murder of Rigby, like most of the other mistakes, was different. I think it is easy to see mistakes in hindsight, with a desire to string up the security personnel who make the mistakes. Really there needs to be an acceptance that not every terrorist will be stopped if we have a free society. I'd rather have the free society with the occasional risk of a bombing than have the security services have carte-blanche to do what they want.

 

[Flamingo]

Really there needs to be an acceptance that not every terrorist will be stopped if we have a free society. I'd rather have the free society with the occasional risk of a bombing than have the security services have carte-blanche to do what they want.

Fair enough, you are entited to your opinion. I wonder will your next of kin have the same opinion if you are one of the casualties of a terrorist attack (or is the correct term "collateral damage" for having a free society?), as that is ultimatly what it could come down to.

I have had occasion to meet with and talk to suvivors of the 7/7 bombings. I might be wrong, but don't think they would share your view.

 

[muz379]

Jean Charles de Menezes was only shot because everybody was on edge following 7/7 and the attempted attacks the day before his death . Its easy with the benefit of hindsight for us to say those involved in that operation at a command level should be strung up for it . However at the time they had the information they did available to them and made the call they did .I dont think any of us could imagine being in that situation for one minute and having to make a split second decision between killing someone who could be innocent , and letting someone who could be a suicide bomber board a train full of people .

The lying afterwards yes that is a problem , but not one isolated to this case

The murder of Rigby, like most of the other mistakes, was different. I think it is easy to see mistakes in hindsight, with a desire to string up the security personnel who make the mistakes. Really there needs to be an acceptance that not every terrorist will be stopped if we have a free society. I'd rather have the free society with the occasional risk of a bombing than have the security services have carte-blanche to do what they want.

Id Even argue that in a society where the security services can do what they want there will still be terror attacks . I mean look at 7/7 and the failed attacks on 21/7 , they occurred years after 9/11 and the raft of counter terrorism powers that the police where given as a response to the emerging threat from Islamic extremists . Regardless of how many powers they have there will always be terrorists one step ahead and eventually that is going to catch up with us .

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't want to get into one-upmanship about who's had the worst terrorist experience, because it isn't really relevant.

We could prevent far more terrorism by having gun-toting police on every street corner, police checkpoints, curfews, detention without trial, Stasi-style secret surveillance and KGB-style "correctional facilities". The question is: is that a society that we'd really want? We'd probably still have terrorism even then.

If we have a free society where people are free to go about their business, then there will always be people who use that freedom for ill. It doesn't matter if they're IRA or al Qaeda, ETA or the KKK, some will use freedom for bad. I'd rather take the freedom with the miniscule risk of a terrorist than see us end up in a police state.

Stuff like the 7/7 bombings were shocking and the 52 deaths were distressing, but to put that in perspective 211 people were killed and 3,267 were seriously injured on London's roads that year alone.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However at the time they had the information they did available to them and made the call they did .I dont think any of us could imagine being in that situation for one minute and having to make a split second decision between killing someone who could be innocent , and letting someone who could be a suicide bomber board a train full of people

I don't blame anyone involved in his death on the train at Stockwell. I genuinely feel for the copper who killed him. I can't imagine how frightening it must be to follow a suicide bomber into a tube train.

There were major operational failures though, involving the surveillance teams being fundamentally incompetent. That's what bothered me about that case, the fact that they were so inept they let him travel for miles before stopping him. And then tried to blacken his name rather than admit they ballsed up. That's why I think the senior copper in charge should have been "strung up", she was fundamentally incompetent and her ineptitude killed de Menezes and put Londoners at huge risk.

 

[NSEFAN]

We could prevent far more terrorism by having gun-toting police on every street corner, police checkpoints, curfews, detention without trial, Stasi-style secret surveillance and KGB-style "correctional facilities".

I think that would actually increase the chance of an attack happening, as it normalises the use offensive weapons / violence in public and lowers everyone's expectations of humanity even further. Perhaps if we took a more attitude and trusted people, rather than assume that they've got a bomb in their bag, that would be conducive to a more positive society?

 

[muz379]

I don't blame anyone involved in his death on the train at Stockwell. I genuinely feel for the copper who killed him. I can't imagine how frightening it must be to follow a suicide bomber into a tube train.

There were major operational failures though, involving the surveillance teams being fundamentally incompetent. That's what bothered me about that case, the fact that they were so inept they let him travel for miles before stopping him. And then tried to blacken his name rather than admit they ballsed up. That's why I think the senior copper in charge should have been "strung up", she was fundamentally incompetent and her ineptitude killed de Menezes and put Londoners at huge risk.

Oh I dont blame the officers who shot him , they where acting under orders ,

The surveliance team did balls their job up and they should be held to account for the operational failures stemming from that .

The commander in charge would have been in a control room somewhere relying on the ID from the surveillance team , if as I believe the case the surveillance officers confirmed that they believed they had the right man she had to take that at face value from the surveillance teams on the ground .She had no way to second guess or verify that information from another source and with seconds ticking would have had a very difficult call to make . She didn't even order him to be killed she ordered that he be detained what then transpired afterwards nobody will truly know apart from the officers on the ground .

The lying and deceit and attempts to blacken the victims name afterwards is standard met policy(we could look at numerous incidents to demonstrate this) and would have been completely out of her hands . she would have no doubt been sent home for some extended leave after being debriefed .

 

[fowler9]

Lets get one thing straight. Adebolajo wasn't just a case of someone who slipped through the net because so many people are being surveilled. He was big on the radar, he had been arrested abroad using our special forces and the security forces thought he was significant enough for them to try and turn him as an agent. This wasn't just a random fella who made the odd threat on the internet.

 

[SS4]

Fair enough, you are entited to your opinion. I wonder will your next of kin have the same opinion if you are one of the casualties of a terrorist attack (or is the correct term "collateral damage" for having a free society?), as that is ultimatly what it could come down to.

I wonder what the next of kin of the Birmingham Six have to say about the rush to abandon justice and lock innocent men up?

I have had occasion to meet with and talk to suvivors of the 7/7 bombings. I might be wrong, but don't think they would share your view.

Very unlikely that they'd share views but do their experiences make their opinion more valid? Certainly this is not the case at the polling station.

Are sweeping powers necessary to catch a terrorist - putting aside the wisdom that always comes with hindsight would these laws have been able to catch the 7/7 attackers?

 

[radamfi]

If the only way to sustain life is to kill, then what kind of life is that? The guy who murdered at Stockwell in 2005 would have applied for that job in full knowledge that he would be paid to kill. Therefore he is not blameless.