"See it, say it, sorted"

[hooverboy]

"Run, hide, tell" was used to some extent during the London Bridge attack and also by some organisations on Oxford Street following the false alarm there. We don't really know how successful it will be as a defensive strategy as it hasn't been truly tested by a Paris/Mumbai style attack in the UK.

Terrorists thinking that we are all living in fear isn't a bad thing as they won't feel the need to do things to scare us if we are already scared

i beg to differ.

run,hide,tell teacher ,etc is EXACTLY the culture of fear the terrorist seek...especially if the people actually able to deal with it are:
1)not around to deal with it for several minutes
2)not allowed to deal with it instantly.

why should we be scared???
..the problem is the "government" solution,is always costly,done very badly,and exists to increase their own "control" of a situation,rather than actually dealing with it in the first place.

the best solution is actually to have a cadre of screened joe public with concealed carry and pistols....the yanks and the isrealis have sky marshalls on most planes these days...you just don't see them,but they are there.
If the terrorist suspected the bloke next to them on the tube reading the financial times might be packing,they might think twice about going for whatever they have in their backpack.

..and FWIW vis a vis mad mullah style terrorism,they will not be sporting moeen ali beards....the jihadis are required to shave before committing such atrocities.

this is one point I think trump..whatever you may think of the guy,has nailed.

 

[EM2]

If the terrorist suspected the bloke next to them on the tube reading the financial times might be packing,they might think twice about going for whatever they have in their backpack.

Seeing as they often blow themselves up in the process, I very much doubt that they would care.

 

[Mathew S]

I didn't say it's non-credible, just that it's incredibly unlikely to happen at any given point on the network at any given point in time. With all due respect to the briefings you receive from the security services, you may actually be too close to the problem to take a sufficiently wide view.

The emotional and attention costs of these relentless adverts for terror is not zero. We may not be privy to the same threat analyses etc that you are, we are all able to observe the tiny number of people actually affected by these incidents, and we are all capable or drawing reasonable conclusions that the benefits are being outweighed by the costs. You may be an expert on the threats, but you'd really need to be an expert on the impact and cost of the announcements to pull rank on us in this discussion.

What 'costs' - other than practical costs in terms of creating/broadcasting the things - are incurred by making anouncements? I'm sure that some people find them annoying, but that's not really a great concern when the objective is saving lives. I find being searched on the way into work annoying, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's necessary.

I am in no way an 'expert' in security or terrorism. As I've said on here before, I'm a journalist. Part of my role involves reporting on security/CT matters, and as such I receive briefings from people who are experts and work day to day in this field, but I am not one myself. I also work in what is considered high-risk location(s), and so receive regular briefings about specific threats which affect me and where I work. These briefings regularly include the rail network, but are by no means railway specific.

All I can do is speak from my own experience and the knowledge I have gained. If your knowledge and experience leads you to an alternative conclusion to my own then that is, of course, your right. Personally, I value learning from the experience and knowledge of railway staff on this forum to further my own interests and knowledge. I try to contribute something back from my own experience and knowledge when I am able to do so, and hope that others who are willing may take some learning from my posts in the way I do from those made by others.

 

[Mathew S]

i beg to differ.

run,hide,tell teacher ,etc is EXACTLY the culture of fear the terrorist seek...especially if the people actually able to deal with it are:
1)not around to deal with it for several minutes
2)not allowed to deal with it instantly.

why should we be scared???
..the problem is the "government" solution,is always costly,done very badly,and exists to increase their own "control" of a situation,rather than actually dealing with it in the first place.

the best solution is actually to have a cadre of screened joe public with concealed carry and pistols....the yanks and the isrealis have sky marshalls on most planes these days...you just don't see them,but they are there.
If the terrorist suspected the bloke next to them on the tube reading the financial times might be packing,they might think twice about going for whatever they have in their backpack.

..and FWIW vis a vis mad mullah style terrorism,they will not be sporting moeen ali beards....the jihadis are required to shave before committing such atrocities.

this is one point I think trump..whatever you may think of the guy,has nailed.

Are you a) an American, b) a member of the NRA, or c) Donald Trump?

 

[SWR commuter]

If you're talking about a situation that needs to be resolved by way of a 'rapid' response, ie. within seconds or minutes, then phoning/texting a hotline is absolutely the wrong thing to do. If, for example, you observe a person behaving in a way which leads you to believe that an attack is imminent the best course of action is to alert the nearest police officer or staff member as rapidly as possible - which, in real extremis, means shouting as loud as you can - or as a last resort call 999; and then follow the "Run, Hide, Tell" advice at www.npcc.police.uk/staysafe.

Where "See it, Say it, Sorted" is the right message, though, is when it comes to intelligence gathering. As a hypothetical example: imagine I see someone walking around a major station behaving suspiciously (such as observing staff entering secure areas, or photographing surveilance equipment, to use two extreme examples). I contact the security services and inform them of my concern. Chances are it will be nothing, but if it isn't nothing then the information I provide could be an important part of the wider intelligence picture. That is why it's so important.

It's no secret that terror attacks are becoming harder to stop as they are incresaingly low-tech and carried out by individuals/small groups. Despite claims of responsibility from some international organisations, many of these individuals have few or limited connections to established terror organisations, which makes them extremely difficult to locate. Those contacts they do have are often a) online and b) protected using encryption. One very real effect of this is to increase the reliance of security and intelligence organisations on human intelligence, including from the public, as a means detecting persons of concern.

Yes, there is a real problem with idiots and conspiricy theorists when it comes to things like the Anti-Terrorist Hotline - there's a reason it's known by some as the "Loony Line" - and part of the security services role is to filter out the relevant information from the mountain of irrelevant, if well-meaning, tip offs. But there have been several cases, and continue to be cases going through the courts, where information from the public has been vital in saving lives.

If you're genuinely interested, look out for reports of terrorism trials in the press and go and sit in the public gallery, in most cases there is no reason that you can't, although you may be excluded from particularly sensitive parts of the hearings. You'll be surprised at how many times information from an ordinary member of the public either started an investigation or forms an important piece of evidence in a case.

Of course, the chances of getting caught up in a terror attack are vanishingly small for any given individual; but the assertion by some that the chances of an attack on the rail network are small? That's simply not true. JTAC don't invent threat levels for a laugh, nor do BTP deploy armed officers because they need to find something for them to do. The risk is very, very real and - as we saw in Manchester and London last year - it remains a case of 'when' attacks happen, rather than 'if'.

The length and generality of your reply distracts from the central question: is there a plausible scenario where this message might be actioned and result in a practical contribution. The example doesn't seem compelling: I cannot imagine today's attacker needs to wander around taking photos of surveillance equipment or "look at staff". Really? Are we to report people "looking at staff"? And when we report them, should we also take a photo?

 

[Mathew S]

The length and generality of your reply distracts from the central question: is there a plausible scenario where this message might be actioned and result in a practical contribution. The example doesn't seem compelling: I cannot imagine today's attacker needs to wander around taking photos of surveillance equipment or "look at staff". Really? Are we to report people "looking at staff"? And when we report them, should we also take a photo?

Of course I'm speaking in generalities. I would have hoped it was obvious that I'm not allowed to disclose information I receive in the course of confidential briefings from police officers or members of the security services. I'd lose my job, at least.

If you would like a concrete example, then think back to 2005. Prior to the bombings on the Tube, the attackers carried out a rehearsal of their actions, making the journeys as they would on the day, going through the motions if you will. Without blaming anyone, that was a missed opportunity to stop the attacks which took place nine days later.

Or consider Manchester last year, where we now know that the individual who carried out that attack was behaving suspiciously in and around the city centre for some hours prior. Again, an opportunity missed.

Now it may be the case that in those specific incidents the attackers did nothing which gave anyone cause for concern, hence the alarm was never raised. However, other attacks have been stopped at the reconaisance/rehearsal stage, or shortly after, precisely because of suspicious behaviour being highlighted by members of the public.

Most terrorists are no more intelligent than you, or I, and many a damn sight less so. Like all criminals, they make mistakes and do things which betray them to others, even if only in very small ways. The aim of "See It, Say It" is to encourage people to report those small concerns when they come to light because what may seem a tiny, inconsequential piece of information to you could just be a vital piece in the overall jigsaw when added to other facts in the security services' possession.

(Note: I've used 7/7 and Manchester Areana as examples because they are already in the public domain, not because I think mistakes were made by anyone in either case. Indeed, I am aware of lessons which have been learned from both of these attacks which inform current policy.)

 

[hooverboy]

Are you a) an American, b) a member of the NRA, or c) Donald Trump?

as someone who has had the misfortune to be in such a predicament about 30 years ago in manchester,I can only say at least the IRA were civilised enough to give a telephone warning first.
we are now dealing with people who don't.

some of you may well be old enough to remember the IRA planting litter-bin bombs in stations.
the difference is, the IRA were primarily going for economic targets,transport systems,communications and so on.They knew going for mass chaos was a non starter and would alienate the people against them

the new wave is going for maximum human casualties..they do not care.

 

[Mathew S]

as someone who has had the misfortune to be in such a predicament about 30 years ago in manchester,I can only say at least the IRA were civilised enough to give a telephone warning first.
we are now dealing with people who don't.

You have my sympathies. I was in Brusells two years ago, so I am very aware of the impact it can have.
Strage world where we're refering to the IRA as 'civilised', but you're right of course. Lack of warning realy does make the whole predicament much more challenging. I remain unconvinced that arming members of the public - even carefully vetted ones - is going to result in anything other than in increase in the number of people who get shot, but I can see how it's possible to reach an alternative view. My biggest concerns are what happens, for example, when someone is completely convinced that a person is a terrorist, and they turn out to be wrong? Or if there is a Mumbai style attack and police can't tell the difference between the 'goodies' and the 'badies'? I just don't think it's worth it.

 

[sheff1]

JTAC don't invent threat levels for a laugh, nor do BTP deploy armed officers because they need to find something for them to do.

A few months back a couple of armed BTP officers were standing on platform 7 at Sheffield staring at people boarding the London train. They did not make me feel more "secure" because (i) I did not feel at all insecure in the first place and (ii) on seeing them. any self respecting terrorist would likely either disappear casually or board the train without batting an eyelid.

If the officers were, in fact, expecting a known individual to board, a rather lower profile would seem to be a better option.

 

[sheff1]

I can only say at least the IRA were civilised enough to give a telephone warning first.
the difference is, the IRA were primarily going for economic targets,transport systems,communications and so on.They knew going for mass chaos was a non starter and would alienate the people against them.

As someone working in central Birmingham on the night of the 1974 pub bombings, I cannot agree with this.

 

[Mathew S]

If the officers were, in fact, expecting a known individual to board, a rather lower profile would seem to be a better option.

How do you know there wasn't a 'rather lower profile' presence there as well?

A few months back a couple of armed BTP officers were standing on platform 7 at Sheffield staring at people boarding the London train. They did not make me feel more "secure" because (i) I did not feel at all insecure in the first place and (ii) on seeing them. any self respecting terrorist would likely either disappear casually or board the train without batting an eyelid.

Yeah, to an extent I agree. The approach that the police took in Manchester after last years bombing seemed to strike the right balance to me. Yes, there were hoards of armed officers everywhere in the days following the attack, but they were playing football with kids, and chatting with the public, rather than being 'robocop'. Much less unpleasent.

 

[edwin_m]

i beg to differ.

run,hide,tell teacher ,etc is EXACTLY the culture of fear the terrorist seek...especially if the people actually able to deal with it are:
1)not around to deal with it for several minutes
2)not allowed to deal with it instantly.

why should we be scared???
..the problem is the "government" solution,is always costly,done very badly,and exists to increase their own "control" of a situation,rather than actually dealing with it in the first place.

the best solution is actually to have a cadre of screened joe public with concealed carry and pistols....the yanks and the isrealis have sky marshalls on most planes these days...you just don't see them,but they are there.
If the terrorist suspected the bloke next to them on the tube reading the financial times might be packing,they might think twice about going for whatever they have in their backpack.

..and FWIW vis a vis mad mullah style terrorism,they will not be sporting moeen ali beards....the jihadis are required to shave before committing such atrocities.

this is one point I think trump..whatever you may think of the guy,has nailed.

I sincerely hope the sky marshals are something better than "screened joe public" ... they need to have proper training and not least the type of ammunition that won't depressurise the plane. And I don't think doling out guns to the public after a couple of hours training on the range is going to make them very effective against trained and motivated terrorists - they'd probably end up shooting each other.

A terrorist intent on martyrdom isn't going to be deterred by the possibility of a member of the public being armed. It may make them more likely to choose a weapon such as a truck, which would be very difficult for an armed but relatively untrained member of the public to do anything about.

And having a large group of people authorised to carry weapons makes it all the more likely that those weapons will fall into the wrong hands. The numbers killed in America by accidental shooting far exceed the intentional shootings by law enforcement or concerned citizens that may (or may not) save an innocent life, and that's before you take into account the number of deliberate criminal shootings that easy availability of guns makes possible.

 

[hooverboy]

Of course I'm speaking in generalities. I would have hoped it was obvious that I'm not allowed to disclose information I receive in the course of confidential briefings from police officers or members of the security services. I'd lose my job, at least.

If you would like a concrete example, then think back to 2005. Prior to the bombings on the Tube, the attackers carried out a rehearsal of their actions, making the journeys as they would on the day, going through the motions if you will. Without blaming anyone, that was a missed opportunity to stop the attacks which took place nine days later.

Or consider Manchester last year, where we now know that the individual who carried out that attack was behaving suspiciously in and around the city centre for some hours prior. Again, an opportunity missed.

Now it may be the case that in those specific incidents the attackers did nothing which gave anyone cause for concern, hence the alarm was never raised. However, other attacks have been stopped at the reconaisance/rehearsal stage, or shortly after, precisely because of suspicious behaviour being highlighted by members of the public.

Most terrorists are no more intelligent than you, or I, and many a damn sight less so. Like all criminals, they make mistakes and do things which betray them to others, even if only in very small ways. The aim of "See It, Say It" is to encourage people to report those small concerns when they come to light because what may seem a tiny, inconsequential piece of information to you could just be a vital piece in the overall jigsaw when added to other facts in the security services' possession.

(Note: I've used 7/7 and Manchester Areana as examples because they are already in the public domain, not because I think mistakes were made by anyone in either case. Indeed, I am aware of lessons which have been learned from both of these attacks which inform current policy.)

how many members of the public on the train into london actually keep an eye on the luggage r

I never said the screening would be as basic should be as basic as a criminal record check and a couple of hours shooting on a range.
I was thinking of:
1) a proper background check- baseline assessment+counter terror check or higher
2)psychometric testing/mental health checks
3)scenario simulator
4)shooting aptitude test under "stress " with moving targets and "good guys"..who must adequately be shot/avoided.

all of the above would need to be passed with a high degree of aptitude even before training starts for the real role...and that would include perception and identification tests,conflict management etc similar to a police officer.

of course there would also be a need for approved persons to permanently carry the correct ID when carrying,and also to give a warning of some kind which would allow law enforcement to identify they are licenced, and not some random gunman.

 

[edwin_m]

how many members of the public on the train into london actually keep an eye on the luggage r

I never said the screening would be as basic should be as basic as a criminal record check and a couple of hours shooting on a range.
I was thinking of:
1) a proper background check- baseline assessment+counter terror check or higher
2)psychometric testing/mental health checks
3)scenario simulator
4)shooting aptitude test under "stress " with moving targets and "good guys"..who must adequately be shot/avoided.

all of the above would need to be passed with a high degree of aptitude even before training starts for the real role...and that would include perception and identification tests,conflict management etc similar to a police officer.

of course there would also be a need for approved persons to permanently carry the correct ID when carrying,and also to give a warning of some kind which would allow law enforcement to identify they are licenced, and not some random gunman.

So pretty much the training that armed police officers get, which I would guess is months rather than weeks. How many members of the general public are going to be able/willing to do that, do we pay them for it, and most seriously what proportion of the applicants for something like that are going to be dangerously trigger-happy?

Everyone will need to know who is an "authorised" gun holder when they open fire, so the "warning" will have to be publicised widely, making it instantly useless as the terrorists will just use it too.

 

[DarloRich]

i beg to differ.

run,hide,tell teacher ,etc is EXACTLY the culture of fear the terrorist seek...especially if the people actually able to deal with it are:
1)not around to deal with it for several minutes
2)not allowed to deal with it instantly.

why should we be scared???
..the problem is the "government" solution,is always costly,done very badly,and exists to increase their own "control" of a situation,rather than actually dealing with it in the first place.

the best solution is actually to have a cadre of screened joe public with concealed carry and pistols....the yanks and the isrealis have sky marshalls on most planes these days...you just don't see them,but they are there.
If the terrorist suspected the bloke next to them on the tube reading the financial times might be packing,they might think twice about going for whatever they have in their backpack.

..and FWIW vis a vis mad mullah style terrorism,they will not be sporting moeen ali beards....the jihadis are required to shave before committing such atrocities.

this is one point I think trump..whatever you may think of the guy,has nailed.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. Personally I think this idea is detached from reality.

A few months back a couple of armed BTP officers were standing on platform 7 at Sheffield staring at people boarding the London train. They did not make me feel more "secure" because (i) I did not feel at all insecure in the first place and (ii) on seeing them. any self respecting terrorist would likely either disappear casually or board the train without batting an eyelid.

If the officers were, in fact, expecting a known individual to board, a rather lower profile would seem to be a better option.

That approach is about visual deterrence and reassurance to the public.

Of course I'm speaking in generalities. I would have hoped it was obvious that I'm not allowed to disclose information I receive in the course of confidential briefings from police officers or members of the security services. I'd lose my job, at least.

If you would like a concrete example, then think back to 2005. Prior to the bombings on the Tube, the attackers carried out a rehearsal of their actions, making the journeys as they would on the day, going through the motions if you will. Without blaming anyone, that was a missed opportunity to stop the attacks which took place nine days later.

Or consider Manchester last year, where we now know that the individual who carried out that attack was behaving suspiciously in and around the city centre for some hours prior. Again, an opportunity missed.

Now it may be the case that in those specific incidents the attackers did nothing which gave anyone cause for concern, hence the alarm was never raised. However, other attacks have been stopped at the reconaisance/rehearsal stage, or shortly after, precisely because of suspicious behaviour being highlighted by members of the public.

Most terrorists are no more intelligent than you, or I, and many a damn sight less so. Like all criminals, they make mistakes and do things which betray them to others, even if only in very small ways. The aim of "See It, Say It" is to encourage people to report those small concerns when they come to light because what may seem a tiny, inconsequential piece of information to you could just be a vital piece in the overall jigsaw when added to other facts in the security services' possession.

(Note: I've used 7/7 and Manchester Areana as examples because they are already in the public domain, not because I think mistakes were made by anyone in either case. Indeed, I am aware of lessons which have been learned from both of these attacks which inform current policy.)

I believe the precursors to these attacks are known in the trade as hostile reconnaissance. That is exactly the type of thing this campaign is focused upon. It is designed to empower someone who sees someone else acting oddly or out of the ordinary to feel comfortable in contacting the police. I honestly do not see why that is such an issue for posters here.

I cannot imagine today's attacker needs to wander around taking photos of surveillance equipment or "look at staff"

That is exactly what they do. They have to make inspections of the areas they wish to target and they have to practice. Is that surprising?

The number of times I've had customers approach me with concerns suggest that they are.

that information wont be popular here!

 

[takno]

What 'costs' - other than practical costs in terms of creating/broadcasting the things - are incurred by making anouncements? I'm sure that some people find them annoying, but that's not really a great concern when the objective is saving lives. I find being searched on the way into work annoying, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's necessary.

The primary cost is in attention. You have a really minimal number of shots at giving people messages before they start to tune them all out completely, and if you blow them on security theatre and telling people that the ground gets slippy in cold weather you aren't going to be able to tell them about useful things like platform alterations. The more insidious aspect is the underlying stress that repeated announcements of any kind have, and increased stress caused by these being an almost subliminal claim that there is a terrorist threat which is clear and present enough to require our attention. Normal civilian life should not be generating PTSD symptoms.

In common with most people I don't work in a place that needs to search people on the way in to prevent a terrorist threat. If I did I would likely work somewhere else instead. Annoyance and stress is a very real cost, and I don't want to have to switch to a car just because the security services are determined to ignore it.

 

[DarloRich]

The primary cost is in attention. You have a really minimal number of shots at giving people messages before they start to tune them all out completely, and if you blow them on security theatre and telling people that the ground gets slippy in cold weather you aren't going to be able to tell them about useful things like platform alterations. The more insidious aspect is the underlying stress that repeated announcements of any kind have, and increased stress caused by these being an almost subliminal claim that there is a terrorist threat which is clear and present enough to require our attention. Normal civilian life should not be generating PTSD symptoms.

In common with most people I don't work in a place that needs to search people on the way in to prevent a terrorist threat. If I did I would likely work somewhere else instead. Annoyance and stress is a very real cost, and I don't want to have to switch to a car just because the security services are determined to ignore it.

This post is a vast overreaction to a very minor issue. PTSD. Really? Come on now. BTW You are searched on the way into Court and have been for many years. People don't seem stressed out working there.

 

[farleigh]

And museums, and people seem very calm there

 

[Mathew S]

And museums, and people seem very calm there

... and concerts, stadiums, theatres... the list is a very long one.

The primary cost is in attention. You have a really minimal number of shots at giving people messages before they start to tune them all out completely, and if you blow them on security theatre and telling people that the ground gets slippy in cold weather you aren't going to be able to tell them about useful things like platform alterations. The more insidious aspect is the underlying stress that repeated announcements of any kind have, and increased stress caused by these being an almost subliminal claim that there is a terrorist threat which is clear and present enough to require our attention. Normal civilian life should not be generating PTSD symptoms.

In common with most people I don't work in a place that needs to search people on the way in to prevent a terrorist threat. If I did I would likely work somewhere else instead. Annoyance and stress is a very real cost, and I don't want to have to switch to a car just because the security services are determined to ignore it.

Announcements asking people to be vigilant do not cause PTSD and, if I may say so, implying that they do is both silly and making light of a very serious medical condition.

Rather than being an unintended effect, as you imply, reminding people that there is a clear and present threat which requires their attention is precisely the aim of the announcements. If individuals are finding that problematic, I would suggest that may reveal more about said individuals than about the annoucements.

I do, however, agree that 'the floor gets slippery when it's cold/wet' announcements are daft.

 

[Shell]

People aren't subjected to searches at high-risk places of employment on a regular basis unless they actively pursue a job working at those places, which is a self-selecting population by definition. For the rest of us, e.g. random searches on the street or while travelling would only serve to cause increased stress. I know very well that when I lived in Northern Ireland, the random stop-and-search of vehicles that was going on at the time was highly distressing as a child.

As for "See It, Say It, Sorted" over the tannoy - I do think we've all got the point by now. These days, every time I go into Edinburgh Waverley I am confronted by no fewer than four posters on the way to catch any given train, have to get past multiple police officers hanging around the bottom of the escalators (which is terrifying for those of us at increased risk of being mistreated by people in authority positions, and who are less likely to receive justice when that happens), and listen to the long-winded message about keeping our eyes out for any brown people who might be using the network that day multiple times before I get on the train. Once on the train, I'm confronted with even more posters about how we should be on constant vigilance for people with beards, and it might even be that train in the god-awful BTP livery for good measure. Off the train, and I get that all over again before I can finally get a breath of fresh air.

Believe it or not, it's *exceptionally* unlikely that I, as an individual, will foil a terrorist plot. It's exceptionally unlikely that one will happen to me, or even in my general area, or even to people I know. And yet I'm being bombarded with messaging which claims that I should be constantly vigilant for this thing that is actually exceptionally unlikely to happen in my vision, and that if I drop my attention even for a second, someone might blow up the train network and it'll be all my fault because I didn't see it or I didn't speak to a member of staff or text the British Transport Police. You can't see why that sort of ongoing low-level stress is a problem?

On the other hand, if I take the Megabus or National Express from the bus station, I get precisely none of that, and it's a lot less stressful. Hell, I can go through an airport with less hassle and a lower visible police presence than some stations these days, and not be constantly told that I've suddenly been put in charge of an anti-terrorism operation with no training.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

The majority of instances where people face mortal danger or injury are more likely to be from other sundry travellers as opposed to any terrorist threat - but then that is the same in life generally. You are more likely to die slicing a major artery on a beans can in your kitchen than in a terrorist attack.
More frequent messages along the lines of "Don't Annoy Your Fellow Passengers with your Inane Telephone Conversations lest they may Stab You" would probably prevent more deaths and injuries.

 

[Mathew S]

Believe it or not, it's *exceptionally* unlikely that I, as an individual, will foil a terrorist plot. It's exceptionally unlikely that one will happen to me, or even in my general area, or even to people I know.

You specifically, yes that's true. But just because it probably won't be you doesn't mean it won't almost certainly be somebody. That's the nature of the threat.

You can't see why that sort of ongoing low-level stress is a problem?

No, I really can't.
I feel that you may be (not deliberately I'm sure) misinterpreting a particular message which you find irritating.

The failings you describe of "stop & search" and the attitude of certain police officers (neither of which I defend in the slightest) are different issues altogether and I broadly agree with you. These are not considerations which are even remotely relevant to counter-terror strategy, however serious they may be in their own right.

 

[Shell]

OK, let's put it this way - ongoing low-level stress, caused by things such as constant statements that we're going to be killed at any moment if we're to stop paying attention for even a second, contributes heavily to the ever-declining mental health of our population. If you want to put it into economic terms - mental health treatment costs our NHS dearly even when handled at the GP level, is likely to cost it more in the future, and poor mental health (whether treated or untreated) reduces productivity massively.

To suggest that "See it, Say it, Sorted", along with the other similar stressors in our lives, are ethical is to say that your answer to "can we cause injury to a large number of people to potentially save a small number of people's lives" is "yes" for a massive number of people's injuries and a vanishingly small number of people's lives. I thought that, as a society, we'd come to the opposite conclusion.

Perhaps, as an alternative, training voluntary citizen groups in what they should actually be looking out for on their daily commute would work better, and it would allow those who choose to be the first line of defence in an anti-terrorism operation to do so, and the rest of us to get some peace in at least one part of our lives.

 

[EM2]

If these announcements are such a problem to so many people, why has no-one complained about them to me or anyone in my team at the station where I work since they've been playing?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

If these announcements are such a problem to so many people, why has no-one complained about them to me or anyone in my team at the station where I work since they've been playing?

Maybe they just annoy the silent psychopathic types

 

[Shell]

If these announcements are such a problem to so many people, why has no-one complained about them to me or anyone in my team at the station where I work since they've been playing?

I somewhat doubt there's the slightest chance they'd be stopped if people did complain, so why would any logical person make the effort?

 

[takno]

If these announcements are such a problem to so many people, why has no-one complained about them to me or anyone in my team at the station where I work since they've been playing?

Personally I'm not travelling by train all the much at the moment so I'm just hoping they'll knock it off soon before I need to start complaining to anyone. If they don't I imagine I'd complain direct to Network Rail rather than the station team.

 

[Mathew S]

OK, let's put it this way - ongoing low-level stress, caused by things such as constant statements that we're going to be killed at any moment if we're to stop paying attention for even a second, contributes heavily to the ever-declining mental health of our population. If you want to put it into economic terms - mental health treatment costs our NHS dearly even when handled at the GP level, is likely to cost it more in the future, and poor mental health (whether treated or untreated) reduces productivity massively.

To suggest that "See it, Say it, Sorted", along with the other similar stressors in our lives, are ethical is to say that your answer to "can we cause injury to a large number of people to potentially save a small number of people's lives" is "yes" for a massive number of people's injuries and a vanishingly small number of people's lives. I thought that, as a society, we'd come to the opposite conclusion.

Perhaps, as an alternative, training voluntary citizen groups in what they should actually be looking out for on their daily commute would work better, and it would allow those who choose to be the first line of defence in an anti-terrorism operation to do so, and the rest of us to get some peace in at least one part of our lives.

To suggest that relatively benign announcements at a train station of all places are going to have any impact at all on the mental health of the majority of people is totally untrue, and demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of the causes and triggers of mental ill health.

If you really want to get training, it is freely available. Either approach your regional CT Police team or simply read the guidance available online such as "Run, Hide, Tell" or the various resilience forum publications.

As for "See It, Say It" announcements creating stress, or 'causing injury to a large number of people'; if I used the words I want to describe what I think of that I'd get banned from the forum. It doesn't happen often, but words adequate to condemn the ignorance and selfishness in that statement literally fail me.

 

[sheff1]

If these announcements are such a problem to so many people, why has no-one complained about them to me or anyone in my team at the station where I work since they've been playing?

I somewhat doubt there's the slightest chance they'd be stopped if people did complain, so why would any logical person make the effort?

Exactly. I did once query why "take care in today's wet weather" was being played over and over on a sunny day when all the "surfaces" were bone dry and was told the staff were not allowed to override the system. If that is the case for a quite clearly pointless announcement then, when the announcement is one which is apparently highly regarded in some quarters as a fundamental plank of the counter terrorism, there will no chance.

 

[sheff1]

reminding people that there is a clear and present threat which requires their attention is precisely the aim of the announcements.

When waiting for a train at an unstaffed station in the Scottish Highlands I am as confident as I ever will be about anything that there will be no terrorist threat present, clear or otherwise. No doubt you will tell me that my confidence is misplaced .... so be it, I will certainly not be scouring the horizon ready and eager to text BTP (not that there is likely to be mobile coverage even if I were).