UK terror threat level raised to 'Severe'

[Johnuk123]

http://news.sky.com/story/1326830/uk-terror-threat-level-raised-to-severe

The terror threat level has been raised from substantial to severe, Home Secretary Theresa May has said.
This means an attack is deemed to be "highly likely",but there is no intelligence to suggest one is imminent.

Cameron reckons this country will be at substantial risk from Islamic terrorism for decades.
Not really telling us something we didn't already know.

Obviously Cameron knows a lot more than he's telling, I have a feeling the next attack here will be something out of the ordinary.
The terror threat now is from extremely well funded, trained and equipped terrorists this new lot don't wear sandals and a sheet.

 

[kylemore]

http://news.sky.com/story/1326830/uk-terror-threat-level-raised-to-severe






The terror threat now is from extremely well funded, trained and equipped terrorists this new lot don't wear sandals and a sheet.

No they wear suits and ties just like they always have

 

[SS4]

I wonder if punitive measures against civil liberties are coming?

 

[Flamingo]

I wonder if punitive measures against civil liberties are coming?

Because we'd all rather have dead civilians than anything that might decrease the rights of the individuals who would abuse those rights...

 

[SS4]

Because we'd all rather have dead civilians than anything that might decrease the rights of the individuals who would abuse those rights...

Along with everyone else's rights. This is about what reaction is proportionate to the threat of terror. I can only assume there is some intelligence the government is aware of that is (understandably) kept from the public. Theresa May has already made noises about stripping citizenship from British national

Nobody wants dead civilians but nobody wants to live in an authoritative nanny state either

I must admit I am surprised you haven't considered this angle given your signature.

 

[Flamingo]

Yep, but in my experience, people bleating on about their rights usually have very little awareness of their responsibilities (or indeed the history of what created thoise rights in the first place).

 

[ExRes]

I'm glad to see that David Cameron and Theresa May are on the ball, mind you, a badly stuffed teddy bear could tell you that there is an increased risk of terrorist activity

If something does happen then, as usual, those very people that rattle on about 'civil liberties' will expect the security services to act to protect both them and the rest of the public, should the security services do nothing then they will be held to account for not taking strong enough steps

Personally I care very much about innocent people being killed or maimed by foreign terrorists while I couldn't care less about foreign terrorists being arrested or killed by the security services, any decent minded person should be fully behind the Government and the policies it puts in place to protect innocent citizens

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I'm glad to see that David Cameron and Theresa May are on the ball, mind you, a badly stuffed teddy bear could tell you that there is an increased risk of terrorist activity

I suppose if they didn't raise the threat level you'd be accusing them of being negligent and having their heads in the sand?

If something does happen then, as usual, those very people that rattle on about 'civil liberties' will expect the security services to act to protect both them and the rest of the public, should the security services do nothing then they will be held to account for not taking strong enough steps

I expect the security services to act within the legal framework they are given.

Personally I care very much about innocent people being killed or maimed by foreign terrorists while I couldn't care less about foreign terrorists being arrested or killed by the security services, any decent minded person should be fully behind the Government and the policies it puts in place to protect innocent citizens

It's all about proportional steps to control the likelihood of the threat. I'd rather not live in a country where every phone call I make is monitored, the Government had free and easy access to my health records, or having to make the Government aware of any trips I might like to make and get permission to go anywhere. It would undoubtably reduce the risk of terrorist attacks but at huge expense of our personal liberties (which, as I am sure you will remind everyone, were allegedly fought for in many wars).

 

[MidnightFlyer]

It's all about proportional steps to control the likelihood of the threat. I'd rather not live in a country where every phone call I make is monitored, the Government had free and easy access to my health records, or having to make the Government aware of any trips I might like to make and get permission to go anywhere. It would undoubtably reduce the risk of terrorist attacks but at huge expense of our personal liberties (which, as I am sure you will remind everyone, were allegedly fought for in many wars).

Indeed. I think I commented this on another thread ages ago similar to this one, but I'll say it again - anybody willing to sacrifice liberty for security will end up with neither. If there's one thing I've learnt about politics over the years it's that you should never blindly give more power or control to government. It could be irreversible.

 

[ExRes]

I suppose if they didn't raise the threat level you'd be accusing them of being negligent and having their heads in the sand?


I expect the security services to act within the legal framework they are given.

It's all about proportional steps to control the likelihood of the threat. I'd rather not live in a country where every phone call I make is monitored, the Government had free and easy access to my health records, or having to make the Government aware of any trips I might like to make and get permission to go anywhere. It would undoubtably reduce the risk of terrorist attacks but at huge expense of our personal liberties (which, as I am sure you will remind everyone, were allegedly fought for in many wars).

And did I say any differently ?, my point is, quite clearly, that it is as clear as the nose on your face that there is a significantly increased level of threat and risk

Did I say that the security services should operate in any other way ?

Why do you have a go at me ? "which, as I am sure you will remind everyone blah blah"

I want a safe country that protects its citizens and visitors not one that bows down to foreign terrorists, no security service can carry out that task without intelligence, take your pick, reduced personal liberties or anarchy because no bunch of terrorists are going to send prior information of their intentions
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed. I think I commented this on another thread ages ago similar to this one, but I'll say it again - anybody willing to sacrifice liberty for security will end up with neither. If there's one thing I've learnt about politics over the years it's that you should never blindly give more power or control to government. It could be irreversible.

And having terrorists roaming the country killing at will is reversible ?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

And having terrorists roaming the country killing at will is reversible ?

... Is not what I meant. What happens when the threat level reduces to the what it was before the current problems in the Middle East arose? The government still have access to all the things you granted them to for your protection. If we willfully give them all the access they please on phone calls, texts; even things outside of communications, how do you repeal that right from them? That's what I meant by irreversible.

 

[Flamingo]

By voting? It is a democracy. In WW2 the government had all sorts of emergency powers that are no longer there.

 

[Jonny]

I wonder what this raising of the alert level is an excuse for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

By voting? It is a democracy. In WW2 the government had all sorts of emergency powers that are no longer there.

It took an age to get rid of some of them - like rationing up to 1952 !!!

 

[Flamingo]

This seems to fit in well on this thread...

 

[Oswyntail]

Because we'd all rather have dead civilians than anything that might decrease the rights of the individuals who would abuse those rights...

Interesting point, that. Over the centuries, many have believed that liberty is more important than life. It could be argued that that was the core theme of wars in the 20th century. And yet we equally believe that one death in such circumstances diminishes us all, and is one too much.

 

[Flamingo]

Interesting point, that. Over the centuries, many have believed that liberty is more important than life. It could be argued that that was the core theme of wars in the 20th century. And yet we equally believe that one death in such circumstances diminishes us all, and is one too much.

Call me a pragmatist, I don't believe in dying for a cause. However, if the guy who wants to kill me is prepared to die for his cause, I'm happy to see him obliged!

 

[St Rollox]

As British passport holders fighting for ISIS in Iraq, would somebody injured by say an American drone attack be entitled to a mobility car on return from Iraq?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yep, but in my experience, people bleating on about their rights usually have very little awareness of their responsibilities (or indeed the history of what created thoise rights in the first place).

Glad to see that rights and responsibilities are mentioned together,
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Interesting point, that. Over the centuries, many have believed that liberty is more important than life. It could be argued that that was the core theme of wars in the 20th century. And yet we equally believe that one death in such circumstances diminishes us all, and is one too much.

The belief of "Liberty is more important than life" needs to be reconciled with the fact that there would be no liberty to be existing, without life actually existing in order to allow this to happen.

 

[21C101]

I'm sure the people who spent six years having the c**p bombed out of them daily between 1939 and 1945, not to mention people who frequent pubs in places like Guildford agree this is the most severe threat to Britain ever.

What this is is the most ignorant and hysterical government ever. Whatever happened to keep calm and carry on?

 

[Oswyntail]

Glad to see that rights and responsibilities are mentioned together,

Exactly!

The belief of "Liberty is more important than life" needs to be reconciled with the fact that there would be no liberty to be existing, without life actually existing in order to allow this to happen.

This is the essential paradox, and it comes down to simple arithmetic, a fact that many find uncomfortable. "Liberty" is really a purist ideal that, imho, must be kept alive, whatever the cost.

 

[ExRes]

I wonder what this raising of the alert level is an excuse for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It took an age to get rid of some of them - like rationing up to 1952 !!!

I assume this is an 'amusing' comment, rationing was because of global shortages and the small fact that this country was bankrupt, hardly the shadows of a 1984 style government
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sure the people who spent six years having the c**p bombed out of them daily between 1939 and 1945, not to mention people who frequent pubs in places like Guildford agree this is the most severe threat to Britain ever.

What this is is the most ignorant and hysterical government ever. Whatever happened to keep calm and carry on?

Keep calm and carry on is for selling merchandise, the government is there to do their best to keep the country AND YOU free from death by terrorists, if that's being ignorant and hysterical then perhaps you could tell us precisely what they should be doing

 

[cjp]

I am not sure why they needed to announce so loudly the change in security level.
Would not those involved (on either side) not just get to know this?

It is perhaps too cycnical to see this a precursor to seeking more powers to regulate the masses, to justify more spying by GCHQ and the ilk upon the common man, another part of the "No campaign" (must have a strong unified UK forces) as we have already had Australian and EU politicians putting in their two pennyworth

The most significant common thread among regimes is the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—are usually effective. FUD


Not much longer now until Scotland votes.

Just saying. . . .

 

[NSEFAN]

Realistically, what is the chance of me dying in a road accident or from cancer compared to me dying in a terrorist attack? It would be nice to have some actual perspective, rather than being told when I should or shouldn't be afraid.

 

[cjp]

Realistically, what is the chance of me dying in a road accident or from cancer compared to me dying in a terrorist attack? It would be nice to have some actual perspective, rather than being told when I should or shouldn't be afraid.

I agree.

Where is that vote or a thumbs up button when you want it??

 

[Welly]

Last time we had high levels of Terrorist Alert back in the early 2000s, some gricers were stopped and searched just because they were hanging around Basingstoke station - that made the national news! Also some unfortunate American enthusiast was stopped and searched by police because he was photographing GW trains from a bridge (he told that story on another forum)

 

[Wyvern]

It isnt clear why there should suddenly be an increased threat.

There's a school of thought that IS itself is more of a danger to other Muslims than to the West.

AlJazeeral

 

[21C101]

I assume this is an 'amusing' comment, rationing was because of global shortages and the small fact that this country was bankrupt, hardly the shadows of a 1984 style government
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Keep calm and carry on is for selling merchandise, the government is there to do their best to keep the country AND YOU free from death by terrorists, if that's being ignorant and hysterical then perhaps you could tell us precisely what they should be doing

The government would save more deaths if they redeployed a large number of police from anti terror duties to traffic patrols to take numpty drivers off the road.

If they were serious they would have not have armed and supported the authoritarian absolute monarchy regime in Saudi Arabia which is funding and prosletysing puritanical wahibi fanatiscism and sectarianism.

To be honest i would not be surprised if the real reason for this announcement was to divertmedia attention from one of camerons mps joining ukip.

 

[Saint66]

The one thing I would say is that this level was increased upon advice of the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, which advises the Gov and other bodies. So, it wasn't just a decision made by Cameron and May.

I don't see much behind it, apart from the obvious fact there is definitely more from a threat from IS at the moment. However, I suppose if others wish to feel that the Gov have another plan behind increasing the level, whether that's directing attention, or something else, then they're free to do so!

 

[Hornet]

Might not be IS. Might be because MI5 have picked up information regards "Dissident Republicans".

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...arda-leaking-information-to-ira-30546886.html
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

MI5 discover rogue garda leaking information to IRA Justice Minister is establishing the facts of the situation 'as a matter of urgency'
A major security alert was sparked when a rogue officer passed on key information from a garda station to a senior IRA figure, it can be revealed. The Herald has learned that the garda passed on information about two dissident Republican suspects that were being questioned in the Leinster station where the officer worked.Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald has described the incident as 'disturbing' and said she is establishing the facts of the situation as a matter of urgency.The Minister has asked the Interim Garda Commissioner for a full report into the incident.In a statement this evening the department said:"It would be completely unacceptable if information of any kind were to be passed by a member of An Garda Siochana to members of unlawful organisations"."It is understood that An Garda Siochana is aware from its own intelligence and enquiries of suggestions that a member of the force passed on the names of persons who had been arrested on a particular occasion.
"The member in question has since resigned and is currently under criminal investigation in relation to this and an unrelated matter."It is understood that the information involved the names of the detained suspects and how long they were being questioned for by detectives.It has emerged that the garda sent a text message to a senior IRA figure based in the North.This was then picked up by intelligence agencies monitoring phone traffic.Senior gardai became aware of the situation when they were contacted by the PSNI who had been tipped off by MI5.They had been using the British state intelligence agency to monitor all calls and text messages to and from the IRA man's phone.Investigations by the PSNI later established that the person who gave the information to the IRA figure was in fact a garda.However, it is not believed the garda had access to information about what was being said during the questioning of the suspects, which took place after their arrest by armed officers under the Offences Against the State Act.Garda headquarters were notified of the incident but it is understood that no further action will be taken in the case.The reason for this is the garda has since resigned from the force and is the subject of investigations into separate serious offences.The now retired officer joined the force within the last decade at a time when background checks were sometimes not as scrupulous as they are now.

BOMBING

The incident happened in a Leinster garda station within the past year.It has since emerged that the garda has very close links to a man that was arrested in relation to the 1998 Omagh bombing in which 29 people were murdered including a woman pregnant with twins.And in recent times the former garda has been spotted in the company of a middle-aged Continuity IRA member who previously served a lengthy jail sentence for bomb making."This garda's behaviour has caused a huge amount of shock to their colleagues," a source told the Herald."What was happening is highly unusual and is in no way any reflection on the people who were stationed with the garda."In a completely unrelated case, the Smithwick Tribunal found last year that an IRA mole in Dundalk Garda Station tipped off an IRA hit squad and this led to the murders of two of senior RUC men in March, 1989.

Source Evening Herald.

 

[St Rollox]

Or it could be those people that joined up to fight in Ukraine.

Oops sorry, nobodies supposed to know that.