"See it, say it, sorted"

[takno]

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.

I'd honestly have to disagree with almost every word of that response. To unpack that a little: These annoying scare-mongering announcements are not benign. A place people are pretty much trapped in for periods of time in uncomfortable surroundings is a worse than average place to bombard them with announcements, not a better place. You believe that you know what affects peoples stress levels and mental health so much better than the rest of us that we are "remarkably ignorant". You are so angry about people disagreeing with you that you are condemning them as selfish.

 

[Llanigraham]

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?

Does that mean that the people moaning about them on here are illogicial?

I'll get my coat.

 

[Mathew S]

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).

No, far from it. There is blatently little chance of an attack being carried out at, say, Corrour or Fort William. I suppose there is a tiny theoretical chance that someone could board a train from there to attack another location, but I would agree the chance is tiny. Ideally announcements such as this would be targetted sensibly. In my area, for example, they are not to be heard on the tiny local stations I use, and yet are heard regularly at major stations. I would suggest that is a reasonable approach.

I'd honestly have to disagree with almost every word of that response. To unpack that a little: These annoying scare-mongering announcements are not benign. A place people are pretty much trapped in for periods of time in uncomfortable surroundings is a worse than average place to bombard them with announcements, not a better place. You believe that you know what affects peoples stress levels and mental health so much better than the rest of us that we are "remarkably ignorant". You are so angry about people disagreeing with you that you are condemning them as selfish.

You are wrong. I wouldn't normally say it that simply, however in this instance it is undoubtedly the case, and I am completely certain of it. If you choose to bury your head in the sand of your entrenched views, so be it. It would appear that no logic amount of logic, explanation, or reasonable argument is going to change your mind.

Am I angry? No. I am fed up of ignorant individuals such as yourself refusing to accept that there may be someone else in the world who understands these issues better than you do.

For once, listen, and you may learn something.

In the meantime, I'm done.

 

[EM2]

...was told the staff were not allowed to override the system.

That is frankly not true. Even if they can't do it themselves, they should know who to contact for it to be switched off.
Everyone is happy to complain here, but not where their opinion might make a difference,, like to the DfT.

 

[fowler9]

As I have said before I personally think the announcements are pointless and are exactly what the terrorists want, terror. People being afraid of going about their daily business. You stand on the station listening to constant announcements that you could basically be next. Then you pick up your Metro with loads of stories about what Muslims are up to. Like it or not this does turn some people against the Muslim community which then helps to radicalise some members of said Muslim community. At the same time as lots of the Christian community are reading rubbish on Facebook that Christmas and Easter are being banned because people are offended there are loads of Muslim people being marginalised. The actual terrorists love this.

 

[sheff1]

That is frankly not true. Even if they can't do it themselves, they should know who to contact for it to be switched off.
Everyone is happy to complain here, but not where their opinion might make a difference,, like to the DfT.

You have said you work at a station and hence you are in a position of being able to state with confidence that the staff at Manchester Piccadilly were not telling the truth. Without having that knowledge I could not go back at them at the time and anyway, as I said, I was merely querying why the wet weather announcement was being played and not making a complaint as such.

 

[sheff1]

Ideally announcements such as this would be targetted sensibly. In my area, for example, they are not to be heard on the tiny local stations I use, and yet are heard regularly at major stations. I would suggest that is a reasonable approach.

If we accept the announcements are appropriate in the first place then, agreed, that seems a reasonable approach. It is not, though, the approach currently taken in all areas.

 

[43096]

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?

Can we complain to you on here instead, then? It's a load of meaningless, pointless drivel like all the other cr@p that gets spouted on railway PA systems such that people just "tune out" and then miss announcements that are important.

 

[DarloRich]

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).

but the campaign is also designed to make you feel comfrtbale about texting BTP about issues you might see such as vandalism or people jumping over level crossing barriers.

I'd honestly have to disagree with almost every word of that response. To unpack that a little: These annoying scare-mongering announcements are not benign. A place people are pretty much trapped in for periods of time in uncomfortable surroundings is a worse than average place to bombard them with announcements, not a better place.

I have absolutely no idea what this means. Can you clarify?

You believe that you know what affects peoples stress levels and mental health so much better than the rest of us that we are "remarkably ignorant". You are so angry about people disagreeing with you that you are condemning them as selfish.

In all honesty if an announcement at the station gets you so stressed out that you think you have PTSD you should seek medical help ASAP.

As I have said before I personally think the announcements are pointless and are exactly what the terrorists want, terror. People being afraid of going about their daily business. You stand on the station listening to constant announcements that you could basically be next

Are you suggesting, in honesty, that hearing the phrases: "if you see something that doesn't look right report it" & "see it, say it, sorted" makes you feel terrorised and afraid? Really?

It's a load of meaningless, pointless drivel like all the other cr@p that gets spouted on railway PA systems such that people just "tune out" and then miss announcements that are important.

In your opinion. The police and security experts seem to think differently. The test will be whether there is an increase in reports to the BTP via their various means such as thier text number or direct to the Terrorist Hotline. The media numbers I have seen suggest there has been an increase. What would you prefer? I wonder how quickly you and others would criticise if it transpired an attack could have been stopped but someone didn't feel able or empowered to report it. How is asking people to keep an eye out and report things they are uncomfortable with a problem? Many people aren't comfortable speaking up and need reassurance and encouragement to do so. It may shock you that many people don't like the police.

 

[EM2]

Can we complain to you on here instead, then?

If you want. Not that I can do anything about them, but if it makes you feel better.

It's a load of meaningless, pointless drivel like all the other cr@p that gets spouted on railway PA systems such that people just "tune out" and then miss announcements that are important.

Don't "tune out" then.

 

[SWR commuter]

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.)

Neither of these are concrete examples of what I have asked you for, namely a plausible scenario where this message would be actioned. You say as much yourself, when you state they did nothing which would really give cause for concern. Why would they? Reviewing CCTV after the event shows some guys making a journey. It isn't an opportunity missed. They certainly weren't taking photos of surveillance equipment, or "looking at staff entering secure areas" (your previous examples of "suspicious" behaviour). On the other hand public transport is chock-full of diverse people, acting much more weirdly than they were.

Inviting people to be suspicious is a mean and unpleasant strategy, and hopefully doesn't find traction with the majority of the traveling public, who should find it easy to gauge the statistical level of risk/threat (practically zero), and judge the message accordingly.

 

[mpthomson]

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).

Of course the threat is lower at remote rural stations and no-one has said otherwise. However you may be going to a large urban station, Glasgow or London to use the two most obvious examples where the threat level would obviously be significantly higher.

 

[mpthomson]

Reviewing CCTV after the event shows some guys making a journey. It isn't an opportunity missed. They certainly weren't taking photos of surveillance equipment, or "looking at staff entering secure areas" (your previous examples of "suspicious" behaviour). On the other hand public transport is chock-full of diverse people, acting much more weirdly than they were.

All I can say is that there have been examples where this kind of behaviour has resulted in arrests and plans/plots whatever being thwarted as a result. Either because they've actively watched as there were suspicions or because a member of staff/public didn't like the look of what was going on and rang someone.

I'd also add that you almost certainly haven't seen the whole of the CCTV of the 7/7 bombers, so you've no real way of knowing what else they were seen to be doing and there are reasons why it might not all be shown. Those kinds of behaviours are those that other terrorists have shown in the past and it's a standard recce type activity for both regular military and non-military groups, in as discrete a way as possible.

 

[43096]

If you want. Not that I can do anything about them, but if it makes you feel better.

Don't "tune out" then.

Sorry, just tuned out on your postings as you clearly don’t get it.

 

[mpthomson]

I'd honestly have to disagree with almost every word of that response. To unpack that a little: These annoying scare-mongering announcements are not benign. A place people are pretty much trapped in for periods of time in uncomfortable surroundings is a worse than average place to bombard them with announcements, not a better place. You believe that you know what affects peoples stress levels and mental health so much better than the rest of us that we are "remarkably ignorant". You are so angry about people disagreeing with you that you are condemning them as selfish.

Professionally I'm a psych nurse. To be blunt Mathew S is right and you're not.

 

[EM2]

Sorry, just tuned out on your postings as you clearly don’t get it.

*shrug*

 

[sheff1]

*shrug*

Pretty much the response I got from staff when I reported "something which does not look right".

 

[SWR commuter]

All I can say is that there have been examples where this kind of behaviour has resulted in arrests and plans/plots whatever being thwarted as a result. Either because they've actively watched as there were suspicions or because a member of staff/public didn't like the look of what was going on and rang someone.

I'd also add that you almost certainly haven't seen the whole of the CCTV of the 7/7 bombers, so you've no real way of knowing what else they were seen to be doing and there are reasons why it might not all be shown. Those kinds of behaviours are those that other terrorists have shown in the past and it's a standard recce type activity for both regular military and non-military groups, in as discrete a way as possible.

I think we are nearing agreement then, insofar as no one can point to a concrete example of behaviour which would have led to an actionable report.

Nor does it seem there is a consistent definition of the criteria for suspicion. It’s an interesting topic, because without a definition we’re simply being requested to “be suspicious”, which has unpleasant connotations. Should we “profile” the people we’re watching, by their appearance or ethnicity, for example? If we cannot define the behaviour and map this to evidenced examples, then we’re left with something quite shoddy.

 

[DarloRich]

I think we are nearing agreement then, insofar as no one can point to a concrete example of behaviour which would have led to an actionable report.

Nor does it seem there is a consistent definition of the criteria for suspicion. It’s an interesting topic, because without a definition we’re simply being requested to “be suspicious”, which has unpleasant connotations. Should we “profile” the people we’re watching, by their appearance or ethnicity, for example? If we cannot define the behaviour and map this to evidenced examples, then we’re left with something quite shoddy.

While the focus is, perhaps understandably on terrorism, this is a general campaign deigned to encourage people to report poor behaviour they see on the railway.

As for the rest of the comment I feel you are being disingenuous. You know what you consider to be suspicious. You do not need that to be defined in a railway context. Further You know that it probably isn't possible to provide the examples you want to see in a public forum like this and so because that information isnt readily available you convince yourself there is no information and therefore the campaign is worthless.

 

[Juniper Driver]

Pretty much the response I got from staff when I reported "something which does not look right".

Not from me,mate.

See it,Say it, Sort it.

 

[mpthomson]

I think we are nearing agreement then, insofar as no one can point to a concrete example of behaviour which would have led to an actionable report.

Nor does it seem there is a consistent definition of the criteria for suspicion. It’s an interesting topic, because without a definition we’re simply being requested to “be suspicious”, which has unpleasant connotations. Should we “profile” the people we’re watching, by their appearance or ethnicity, for example? If we cannot define the behaviour and map this to evidenced examples, then we’re left with something quite shoddy.

No we aren't and I could 'point to a concrete example of behaviour which would have led to an actionable report', but I'm not going to.

I have a greater knowledge of these incidents and current threat assessments (for professional reasons) than the vast majority posters on here, along with Mathew S from his comments, and I'm at the limits of what I can say on a public forum. The best way I can put it is that people who need to know do so and if you (or anyone else) don't, then it's because you don't need to know.

Current terror threats are not just related to Islamist groups, there's also a significant threat from extreme right wing groups and Irish dissident republicans. People are profiled, but not normally by ethnicity. It's much more about online activities, group memberships, company they keep etc.

 

[Chris M]

Pretty much the response I got from staff when I reported "something which does not look right".

I've reported things that don't look right on the railway three times in person, although non related to suspicious behaviour.
One got a "thank you" which clearly meant "please stop bothering me." (a box that had a sign on it indicating it was supposed to be sealed shut but which wasn't), one got a "thank you, but this isn't actually a problem" (with no explanation why - it was what appeared to be a void under a sleeper such that the track dipped noticeably when a train passed over it) and one "you aren't the first person to report this, I'll pass it on again but don't hold your breath waiting for it to get fixed." (an 'if you see a vehicle strike this bridge' sign that was so heavily graffitied that the key information was illegible).
I've also reported issues electronically on a few occasions, almost all of which have been completely ignored as far as I can tell.

 

[hooverboy]

No we aren't and I could 'point to a concrete example of behaviour which would have led to an actionable report', but I'm not going to.

I have a greater knowledge of these incidents and current threat assessments (for professional reasons) than the vast majority posters on here, along with Mathew S from his comments, and I'm at the limits of what I can say on a public forum. The best way I can put it is that people who need to know do so and if you (or anyone else) don't, then it's because you don't need to know.

Current terror threats are not just related to Islamist groups, there's also a significant threat from extreme right wing groups and Irish dissident republicans. People are profiled, but not normally by ethnicity. It's much more about online activities, group memberships, company they keep etc.

correct.but you will also find there is a certain degree of "interchangability,and interoperability" between groups like dissident republicans and islamists,albeit for different reasons....it's the classic "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" relationship.
idealogically they are actually extremely similar...if you are a follower of david icke,he coined a very prescient term for them...he called them "opposames".
That relationship has existed for a very long time........like de valera's leanings in the 40's, the purchasing of semtex from gadaffi in the 80's,and their support for the PLO...could go on, but it's hundreds of years old and dates back to the 13th/14th century)

..as for the hardline right wingers, frankly most of them are just football hooligans looking for a fight.

edit....as for "need to know", the people DO "need to know" that the situation can,and possibly will,turn out as serious as the jacobite uprisings of the 1600's...of course the modern day jacobites are aiding and abetting the mad mullahs in their quest,so they don't have to do the dirty work,and can pose as saviours after the "enemy" in their eyes ,has been neutralised.

 

[muddythefish]

Sorry I am fed up hearing this soundbite seemingly everywhere on the national railway network. Its everywhere on trains and at stations. I know its purpose is commendable, but its just the way I feel.

Absolutely agree. Cretinous and makes me cringe every time I hear it.

 

[mpthomson]

..as for the hardline right wingers, frankly most of them are just football hooligans looking for a fight.

That's a very complacent view of the current situation. Britain First! and idiot organisations like that are the remnants of the old EDL etc, but there are some much more sinister XRW groups out there, particularly National Action which is a proscribed organisation. One of their followers/fellow travellers murdered the MP Jo Cox and recent arrests concern a viable plot about the kidnap and live beheading of another MP.

They're currently considered a current and significant threat and they recruit very differently from EDL/BF!, in that they recruit much more from middle-class or professional backgrounds and particularly interested in serving members of the armed forces with current military knowledge. They absolutely aren't interested in the overweight, tattooed and bald football loving gentlemen who stereotypically made up the majority of the EDL and Britain First 'footsoldiers', they're much more sophisticated than that.

 

[fowler9]

That's a very complacent view of the current situation. Britain First! and idiot organisations like that are the remnants of the old EDL etc, but there are some much more sinister XRW groups out there, particularly National Action which is a proscribed organisation. One of their followers/fellow travellers murdered the MP Jo Cox and recent arrests concern a viable plot about the kidnap and live beheading of another MP.

They're currently considered a current and significant threat and they recruit very differently from EDL/BF!, in that they recruit much more from middle-class or professional backgrounds and particularly interested in serving members of the armed forces with current military knowledge. They absolutely aren't interested in the overweight, tattooed and bald football loving gentlemen who stereotypically made up the majority of the EDL and Britain First 'footsoldiers', they're much more sophisticated than that.

Spot on. The far right are more than happy for people to think it is a few footy hooligans. They are insidious. They sneak in with half truths and have otherwise decent people repeating the unthinkable.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Looks like even MI5 have started to see sense and have downgraded the terror threat from Northern Ireland to "moderate" - ie an attack is possible but unlikely.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43242726

Presumably it won't be long before terror threats from other locations are also downgraded to "moderate" which is of course the level they should have been at all along. Then we can all stop getting panicking, the alarmists on this thread can stop scaremongering and we can all enjoy our train journeys in peace without having to endure hysterical warnings to "see it say it and sort it" every few minutes!

 

[mpthomson]

Looks like even MI5 have started to see sense and have downgraded the terror threat from Northern Ireland to "moderate" - ie an attack is possible but unlikely.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43242726

Presumably it won't be long before terror threats from other locations are also downgraded to "moderate" which is of course the level they should have been at all along. Then we can all stop getting panicking, the alarmists on this thread can stop scaremongering and we can all enjoy our train journeys in peace without having to endure hysterical warnings to "see it say it and sort it" every few minutes!

While the threat in NI has gone down, thankfully, the threat from Islamist based terrorists is currently increasing with the arrival back in the UK of those who have been fighting in Syria particularly and Iraq in smaller numbers, and the number of discovered cells/plots has increased significantly over the last 12mths. It won’t be going down soon and to suggest it should just shows that, frankly, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[fowler9]

While the threat in NI has gone down, thankfully, the threat from Islamist based terrorists is currently increasing with the arrival back in the UK of those who have been fighting in Syria particularly and Iraq in smaller numbers, and the number of discovered cells/plots has increased significantly over the last 12mths. It won’t be going down soon and to suggest it should just shows that, frankly, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

I agree, I try to leave the house as little as possible. I am grateful I am still alive.

 

[mpthomson]

I agree, I try to leave the house as little as possible. I am grateful I am still alive.

Lol, it’s not about that, people should carry on with their lives, it’s just about getting people to be vigilant and acknowledge that there is a level of risk. Individually, including to me, it’s relatively low but as a country it’s a severe risk and more a case of when not if.

If people are aware of that and play their part then there’s a chance that something you or I or anyone else sees and reports may stop something from happening at whatever stage of the process. As I say, there are instances of it happening previously that have stopped significant incidents happening.