Unattended bags

[johnkingeu]

The procedure that railways and airports use to assess unattended items (it's the same) is available online if you wish to look for it.

I’ve had a quick Google and not found anything - would you mind posting some links? They would make an interesting read. I found a US document but it doesn’t seem to correspond to what actually happens in the U.K.

 

[ComUtoR]

I’ve had a quick Google and not found anything - would you mind posting some links?

I believe he may be thinking about this.

 

[mpthomson]

So there have been between 2 and 4 viable bombs which have been discovered by members of the public in the last 10 years but the public has not been told about them? I am shocked, I have to say.

If these were in the UK then this would represent a significant increase in the threat level. I find it particularly surprising because word usually leaks far too quickly for the security services to hush it up - for instance the North Greenwich bomb was all over Twitter in minutes, before the security services became involved and long before the bomber was caught.

Why do you think you, as a member of the general public, would or should know about it? As has been explained by two of us previously it very much depends on the manner of their being found and how the information that led up to the discovery was obtained. There are very good operational and security reasons why the information wouldn't be made public sometimes in the same way that the detail of some of the other plots that have been discovered aren't always made public.

The threat level is what the threat level is. It's been SEVERE for a long time now, except for the few days at CRITICAL after the Manchester attack. The reason it's SEVERE is due to intelligence and plots discovered and/or intercepted, and most of which aren't made public as a matter of course.

 

[fowler9]

I had an interesting experience yesterday. After leaving my large rucksack on a train and calling the emergency line to say what I had done and being asked why the hell I had told them (a few years back now) I left my small bag at a table in the pub while I went outside for a ciggy. An elderly couple came outside and told me off for not telling them I had left my bag there while I went for a ciggy and it wasn't a bomb. They were quite rude about it and I asked them if they thought that perhaps terrorists hadn't got on to the idea of telling people they weren't up to no good and were leaving their bomb while they went for a cig. They could have told the staff or they could have told the police, but no, they came outside to tell the potential terrorist (In their mind). I'd feel bad about causing someone concern if it wasn't for the fact they just seemed to want to put someone in their place.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

As I see it there are two questions in this thread, “Is it okay to leave your bags unattended?” and “Has the terrorist threat on the rail network been wildly exaggerated?”, and I would answer both questions with a guarded ”Yes”.

On the first question, I’m with the OP; it’s perfectly acceptable to stay a few feet away from your bags when on a platform, so long as your bags remain within your own view. This is of course mainly so you make sure your luggage doesn’t get nicked rather than anything to do with suspicious packages but it does mean that if some over-zealous member of platform staff tries to interfere with your bags, you can immediately go over and stop them. I also found it amusing that someone suggested that you shouldn’t wear headphones on a station as you won’t hear any security announcements – the reason why most of us do wear headphones is that we don’t have to listen to the constant barrage of unnecessary security announcements in the first place!

The second point is that, without any evidence to the contrary, it’s logical to conclude that the actual terrorist threat on the rail network is much lower than the security services would have us believe. When this subject came up on here a few months back, a google search revealed that the security services had prevented a mere 13 attacks in 4 years (in the UK as a whole, not just the rail network). (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39176110 ) and, as already mentioned, the last terrorist attack on the rail network was 24 years ago. Even this list is open to conjecture; no proof or details have been published. In order to believe such figures I would expect the security services to tell us who was behind the attacks and when and where were they going to occur, to hide behind the flimsy “there’s lots of terrorists planning to kill us but we can’t tell you about them for security reasons” is simply unacceptable and in the absence of proof how can they be believed? It is of course in both MI5 and the governemnt's interests to scare us unnecessarily as this justifies giving the security services extra funding and also a scared population is likely to be far more obedient and willing to accept greater restrictions on their freedom but that's another argument for another thread.

Whilst if you live in London, it might be understandable for you to believe the terrorist threat is “severe”, when I’m waiting on a country station platform in rural Yorkshire, the chances of me being a victim of a terror attack are, as they have been for years, somewhere between “pretty remote” and “non-existent”!

 

[mpthomson]

In order to believe such figures I would expect the security services to tell us who was behind the attacks and when and where were they going to occur, to hide behind the flimsy “there’s lots of terrorists planning to kill us but we can’t tell you about them for security reasons” is simply unacceptable and in the absence of proof how can they be believed? It is of course in both MI5 and the governemnt's interests to scare us unnecessarily as this justifies giving the security services extra funding and also a scared population is likely to be far more obedient and willing to accept greater restrictions on their freedom but that's another argument for another thread.

Whilst if you live in London, it might be understandable for you to believe the terrorist threat is “severe”, when I’m waiting on a country station platform in rural Yorkshire, the chances of me being a victim of a terror attack are, as they have been for years, somewhere between “pretty remote” and “non-existent”!

The numbers of foiled attacks is correct in terms of numbers revealed to the public, I've seen some of the detail, but as discussed if all the info was revealed it would compromise some of the methods used by the various agencies, which for obvious reasons they don't want to reveal. The 'who' is normally revealed at the point of trial, as are some of the other details.

If you look at the potential casualties that those 13 attacks would have caused then you wouldn't be using the term 'mere', some of them had the potential to cause multiple hundreds of deaths, particularly the ones involving aircraft.

The last terrorist attack on a rail network was 6wks ago, not 24yrs ago, and there was another foiled one about 6mths previously. I doubt very much that a terrorist makes a distinction between the Underground and an overground rail service and you shouldn't either in this context. The Madrid bombings in 2004 claimed nearly 200 lives and injured 2000 on a normal commuter rail network and this kind of attack remains a significant possibility.

Ask people in Manchester what they view the current terror threat as, I'm sure they'll appreciate your view that the risk isn't severe.

 

[D1009]

The numbers of foiled attacks is correct, I've seen some of the detail, but as discussed if all the info was revealed it would compromise some of the methods used by the various agencies, which for obvious reasons they don't want to reveal. The 'who' is normally revealed at the point of trial, as are some of the other details.

If you look at the potential casualties that those 13 attacks would have caused then you wouldn't be using the term 'mere', some of them had the potential to cause multiple hundreds of deaths, particularly the ones involving aircraft.

The last terrorist attack on a rail network was 6wks ago, not 24yrs ago, and there was another foiled one about 6mths previously. I doubt very much that a terrorist makes a distinction between the Underground and an overground rail service and you shouldn't either in this context. The Madrid bombings in 2004 claimed nearly 200 lives and injured 2000 on a normal commuter rail network and this kind of attack remains a significant possibility.

Ask people in Manchester what they view the current terror threat as, I'm sure they'll appreciate your view that the risk isn't severe.

No-one is suggesting the risk isn't severe, what the security services want is for us to be alert to suspicious behaviour and conversation. The risk is no more severe on the railway than anywhere else, and comparatively little to do with unattended bags. They come under "if you see something that doesn't look right" etc, and there should be no need for it to cause conflict between train despatch staff and the public.

 

[mpthomson]

No-one is suggesting the risk isn't severe, what the security services want is for us to be alert to suspicious behaviour and conversation. The risk is no more severe on the railway than anywhere else, and comparatively little to do with unattended bags. They come under "if you see something that doesn't look right" etc, and there should be no need for it to cause conflict between train despatch staff and the public.

My bold, this is incorrect at the time of writing, both in terms of the current threat and the fact that the last incident was a device in an unattended bag, plus the previous device that failed to initiate, which was also an unattended bag. You are right about conflict though, but this does require the general public to understand why leaving bags unattended causes anxiety amongst rail staff. It also requires rail staff to respond in an appropriate manner.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

The numbers of foiled attacks is correct in terms of numbers revealed to the public, I've seen some of the detail, but as discussed if all the info was revealed it would compromise some of the methods used by the various agencies, which for obvious reasons they don't want to reveal. The 'who' is normally revealed at the point of trial, as are some of the other details.

If you look at the potential casualties that those 13 attacks would have caused then you wouldn't be using the term 'mere', some of them had the potential to cause multiple hundreds of deaths, particularly the ones involving aircraft.

The last terrorist attack on a rail network was 6wks ago, not 24yrs ago, and there was another foiled one about 6mths previously. I doubt very much that a terrorist makes a distinction between the Underground and an overground rail service and you shouldn't either in this context. The Madrid bombings in 2004 claimed nearly 200 lives and injured 2000 on a normal commuter rail network and this kind of attack remains a significant possibility.

Ask people in Manchester what they view the current terror threat as, I'm sure they'll appreciate your view that the risk isn't severe.

Clearly we are not going to agree on this subject. I'm guessing that your job involves security so I understand why it's in your interests to exaggerate the threat and also the reasons why you can't go into details about the nature of specific terrorist threats.

Nonetheless, you don't seem to understand that there is a huge difference between the terrorist threat at a major London terminal and at a rural station out in the sticks and as such the advice given for the former is both excessive and unnecessary for the latter. If I were to wander away from my luggage at London Victoria for example I could understand it being frowned upon but were I to do the same at, say, Barton-on-Humber I would be amazed if anyone perceived it as a serious terrorist risk!

 

[jon0844]

While it might be unlikely at some small rural station, what about someone with a grudge, someone testing out a bomb or the security response, a protest or any number of things?

Terrorists often turn out to live well away from their targets.

We never know the exact part of London, Manchester etc that might be hit next, just as we can't know if there's going to be an incident in some rural village that prompts locals to say 'it's such a quiet place, nothing much ever happens here normally' afterwards.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

While it might be unlikely at some small rural station, what about someone with a grudge, someone testing out a bomb or the security response, a protest or any number of things?

Terrorists often turn out to live well away from their targets.

We never know the exact part of London, Manchester etc that might be hit next, just as we can't know if there's going to be an incident in some rural village that prompts locals to say 'it's such a quiet place, nothing much ever happens here normally' afterwards.

No, but neither do we want to live in a surveillance society where we're actively encouraged to be in a constant state of fear and to treat everyone we meet with suspicion, do we?

Any announcements need to be proportionate to the actual risk, concise and not repeated every few minutes ad nauseum. So I would replace the plethora of security announcements with just one repeated at most every ten minutes along the lines of "When waiting on the station, please keep an eye on your valuables."

 

[mpthomson]

Clearly we are not going to agree on this subject. I'm guessing that your job involves security so I understand why it's in your interests to exaggerate the threat and also the reasons why you can't go into details about the nature of specific terrorist threats.

Nonetheless, you don't seem to understand that there is a huge difference between the terrorist threat at a major London terminal and at a rural station out in the sticks and as such the advice given for the former is both excessive and unnecessary for the latter. If I were to wander away from my luggage at London Victoria for example I could understand it being frowned upon but were I to do the same at, say, Barton-on-Humber I would be amazed if anyone perceived it as a serious terrorist risk!

The difference is, with due respect, that I know what the current risks are and you clearly don't. I don't work for any of the security services involved in gathering intel (I'd hardly be posting on here if I did), but I do have to apply the outputs in the area that I do work in. No-one is exaggerating the level of risk, this isn't about creating sheep who blindly follow instruction or some conspiracy about a controlled population, it's about keeping people as safe as possible in a high risk society with threats from more than one obvious source with an ever evolving methodology being used by the 'terrorists' for want of a better phrase. There are genuine significant risks out there and the amount of control of the population with respect to this is minimal in truth. Most people's daily lives aren't affected one bit by making sure they don't leave their baggage unattended or being asked to report suspicious objects. It's really not a big ask or in any way a step towards a more controlled society.

There are some very high risk sites (some with their own armed security) in close proximity to small stations used regularly by the staff group. I understand perfectly what the risks are relatively in different locations. The relative lack of success of the various different groups considered a threat currently is down to vigilance of the public and the effective work that the different agencies responsible for this area carry out.

 

[jon0844]

No, but neither do we want to live in a surveillance society where we're actively encouraged to be in a constant state of fear and to treat everyone we meet with suspicion, do we?

Any announcements need to be proportionate to the actual risk, concise and not repeated every few minutes ad nauseum. So I would replace the plethora of security announcements with just one repeated at most every ten minutes along the lines of "When waiting on the station, please keep an eye on your valuables."

The 'See it, say it..' announcements are every 20 minutes I believe. I assume that's not a real problem when most people don't spend that long at a station.

If you've heard it countless times then, unless you're staff, maybe someone will ask why you're hanging around for so long!!

 

[sheff1]

but this does require the general public to understand why leaving bags unattended causes anxiety amongst rail staff.

But it is rail staff who are encouraging, or in some cases even insisting on, the leaving of bags unattended.

So, whilst some rail staff may be suffering from anxiety, other rail staff are inducing the public to act in a way which is causing the anxiety in their colleagues. Hardly surprising that people fail to understand when mixed messages are being conveyed.

 

[EM2]

But it is rail staff who are encouraging, or in some cases even insisting on, the leaving of bags unattended.

What staff are encouraging leaving bags unattended?

 

[jon0844]

What staff are encouraging leaving bags unattended?

I assume this will be the request to put bags in the luggage racks. It's not quite the same thing.

A bigger risk would be someone walking down a platform with a bomb in a case, boarding a train, putting it in a luggage rack, getting off and leaving. But as has been said before, there's only so much you can do. You're reducing risk, not eliminating it.

Screening all bags and passengers would solve that, but we don't do that. We also don't want to do it, as that then shows we've 'lost' and creates risk at the security checkpoints. Where does it then end?

 

[EM2]

I assume this will be the request to put bags in the luggage racks. It's not quite the same thing.

I assumed that too.
But luggage in racks doesn't mean it's unattended. You can be sitting in view of the rack, the rack could be above your head, your luggage could be under your seat.
I doubt very much that any member of staff is encouraging or insisting bags to be left unattended.

 

[sheff1]

I assume this will be the request to put bags in the luggage racks. It's not quite the same thing.

A bigger risk would be someone walking down a platform with a bomb in a case, boarding a train, putting it in a luggage rack, getting off and leaving.

Exactly that, as my post #80.

The bag in the luggage rack could quite easily be further away from the owner than the bag on the platform. The one in the rack is also out of sight of the owner, whereas the one on the platform is in sight. If the latter is classed as unattended then the former is even more so.

But luggage in racks doesn't mean it's unattended. You can be sitting in view of the rack, the rack could be above your head, your luggage could be under your seat.
I doubt very much that any member of staff is encouraging or insisting bags to be left unattended.

As I said before, I am talking about the racks which are behind doors at the end of the carriage and which cannot be seen from any of the seats in that carriage, let alone the next one. This is the situation on XC Voyagers on which announcements are made asking people to place their luggage there. I have, on many occasions, seen guards then come through telling (not asking) people place their luggage there and this includes people in the adjacent coach. I have also, on a few occasions, seen guards and trolley hosts actually manhandle bags out of the seating area and when people have complained they could not then keep their eyes on the luggage the answer was basically "tough".

 

[RichE]

I work far a major UK quoted company, not in the travel business, which does have staff travelling regularly including abroad.

We get regular training sessions on "Run, Hide, Tell" and one thing that is emphasised is never, ever use headphones, especially noise cancelling ones, to the extent that you cannot hear what is going on around you. I have a set of over ear headphones that I used to use, having sat through the training I never use them now except at home. It is also pointed out that you should always, wherever you are, be aware of your surroundings and have an escape route planned or, if it is not possible to escape, then a route to a place of safety.

We run mock terrorist raids on our offices out of hours with volunteers from the staff 'working' in their normal roles. It is a real eye opener and changes how you look at the world around you. That world IS a surprisingly more threatening and violent place than it used to be many years ago and more threatening than many people think when going about their normal daily routine. What most people do not, and cannot, take into account are the number of foiled attacks about which we rarely hear. Our in house security team are headed by a former counter-terrorism 'operative' who reached a senior position. They are still briefed by the authorities to a sufficient level to keep our staff as safe as they can be.

One thing we are told is to avoid being predictable, rather difficult if one is catching the same train at the same time every day ...

 

[D1009]

My bold, this is incorrect at the time of writing, both in terms of the current threat and the fact that the last incident was a device in an unattended bag, plus the previous device that failed to initiate, which was also an unattended bag. You are right about conflict though, but this does require the general public to understand why leaving bags unattended causes anxiety amongst rail staff. It also requires rail staff to respond in an appropriate manner.

I totally agree regarding the anxiety point. Are the incidents to which you refer in the public domain, and if so could you enlighten us as to when and where they occurred?

 

[CaptainHaddock]

The difference is, with due respect, that I know what the current risks are and you clearly don't. I don't work for any of the security services involved in gathering intel (I'd hardly be posting on here if I did), but I do have to apply the outputs in the area that I do work in. No-one is exaggerating the level of risk, this isn't about creating sheep who blindly follow instruction or some conspiracy about a controlled population, it's about keeping people as safe as possible in a high risk society with threats from more than one obvious source with an ever evolving methodology being used by the 'terrorists' for want of a better phrase. There are genuine significant risks out there and the amount of control of the population with respect to this is minimal in truth. Most people's daily lives aren't affected one bit by making sure they don't leave their baggage unattended or being asked to report suspicious objects. It's really not a big ask or in any way a step towards a more controlled society.

There are some very high risk sites (some with their own armed security) in close proximity to small stations used regularly by the staff group. I understand perfectly what the risks are relatively in different locations. The relative lack of success of the various different groups considered a threat currently is down to vigilance of the public and the effective work that the different agencies responsible for this area carry out.

I know as much as I'm allowed to know about what the current risks are and, based on the information in the public domain and historical evidence I have concluded that the terrorist risk is much less significant than MI5 would have us believe, certainly outside of London. It may be true that MI5 say the current level is "severe" but if you have a look at the link below, you'll see that even though there are 5 different levels, the bottom two have never been used and the threat has either been "substantial", "severe" or "critical" ever since the information was first published. This is despite the fact that between 2006 and 2016 there were no significant terrorist attacks in the UK. Little wonder so many of us reckon that MI5 are crying wolf.

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels

As for your point that leaving bags unattended is no big deal, I see it as a "thin end of the wedge" argument. Once you convince people that changing their behaviour for "security reasons" is justified, it becomes easier to introduce ever more draconian measures. For example, although I don't fly I find it ridiculous that if you take a domestic flight, there are extreme limits on what liquids and toiletries you can take with you yet people meekly accept it! How long before the security services start dictating not just where we keep our bags on the rail network but also what we're permitted to put in them?

 

[delt1c]

Ive picked up a few in my time

 

[Bantamzen]

I know as much as I'm allowed to know about what the current risks are and, based on the information in the public domain and historical evidence I have concluded that the terrorist risk is much less significant than MI5 would have us believe, certainly outside of London. It may be true that MI5 say the current level is "severe" but if you have a look at the link below, you'll see that even though there are 5 different levels, the bottom two have never been used and the threat has either been "substantial", "severe" or "critical" ever since the information was first published. This is despite the fact that between 2006 and 2016 there were no significant terrorist attacks in the UK. Little wonder so many of us reckon that MI5 are crying wolf.

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels

As for your point that leaving bags unattended is no big deal, I see it as a "thin end of the wedge" argument. Once you convince people that changing their behaviour for "security reasons" is justified, it becomes easier to introduce ever more draconian measures. For example, although I don't fly I find it ridiculous that if you take a domestic flight, there are extreme limits on what liquids and toiletries you can take with you yet people meekly accept it! How long before the security services start dictating not just where we keep our bags on the rail network but also what we're permitted to put in them?

For as long as I can remember, and I can remember back to the early 70's there has in one form or another been a risk of terrorism from one source of another, be it from the Middle East or Northern Ireland. So pointing to the fact that the lowest two ratings have never been used (and they haven't always been the same) isn't proof of some "thin edge of the wedge". Do you really think that asking passengers to be aware of their luggage, and keep close to them at stations is draconian? Because I certainly don't, its actually common sense not just because of any potential for unattended luggage to be investigated by staff or the Police, but there are plenty of bad 'uns out there that wouldn't think twice about procuring luggage left unattended for any length of time. As for other security measures on other forms of transport such as luggage, these are based on real / attempted attacks. How is accepting that you can't take on liquids in hand luggage over a certain limit "meekly accepting" a ridiculous situation?

MI5 are not crying wolf, there have been terror attacks (with another, albeit non-luggage related in NYC just yesterday), and there will be more. And not just in London as the recent attack in Manchester showed. What we do not know is how many may have been prevented by the extra bit of vigilance that the security measures (if you can really call tannoy announcements as such) have generated. So it is not unreasonable to ask the public to be a little more aware of their surroundings & possessions to potentially reduce the risk of unnecessary intervention from an already over-stretched resource (this doesn't mean I am happy with the levels BTW). The problem here is people in Britain have developed a dislike for being told what to do, whilst at the same time demonstrating an ever greater lack of basic common sense. Perhaps if so many people didn't leave their stuff lying about, there would not be the need to repeatedly remind them not to do so. Just as people have to be reminded not to walk into roads staring at their mobiles, or use the indicators when driving (just two examples of a change in British behaviour).

 

[jon0844]

As I said before, I am talking about the racks which are behind doors at the end of the carriage and which cannot be seen from any of the seats in that carriage, let alone the next one. This is the situation on XC Voyagers on which announcements are made asking people to place their luggage there. I have, on many occasions, seen guards then come through telling (not asking) people place their luggage there and this includes people in the adjacent coach. I have also, on a few occasions, seen guards and trolley hosts actually manhandle bags out of the seating area and when people have complained they could not then keep their eyes on the luggage the answer was basically "tough".

Some train operators require you to label bags stored 'out of view' and I assume staff can do checks, and if a bag isn't tagged with the owner/seat details, they can treat it as suspicious.

Of course if you're standing then I am not sure what happens.

Seems like on-train security is another subject and a risk that has to be judged independently of bags left on platforms, concourses, behind equipment, in off-limits areas etc.

 

[duffield]

Some train operators require you to label bags stored 'out of view' and I assume staff can do checks, and if a bag isn't tagged with the owner/seat details, they can treat it as suspicious.

I've never heard this before, do you have any further details? I usually travel light with just a small rucksack that can fit under my seat etc. but when I do have a large bag I often place it (unlabelled) on the end of carriage racks. I could do with knowing if I should label it.

 

[DarloRich]

Clearly we are not going to agree on this subject. I'm guessing that your job involves security so I understand why it's in your interests to exaggerate the threat and also the reasons why you can't go into details about the nature of specific terrorist threats.

Nonetheless, you don't seem to understand that there is a huge difference between the terrorist threat at a major London terminal and at a rural station out in the sticks and as such the advice given for the former is both excessive and unnecessary for the latter. If I were to wander away from my luggage at London Victoria for example I could understand it being frowned upon but were I to do the same at, say, Barton-on-Humber I would be amazed if anyone perceived it as a serious terrorist risk!

The risk is different ( Islamonut jobs aren't going to waste resources blowing up Fenny Stratford station or hacking the 2 passengers to death.) but the chain of vigilance/observance is only as strong as the weakest link. People committing a big attack (which today are generally marauding terrorist incidents with knives or guns) against, say, a mainline terminal at rush hour have to undertake reconnaissance, they have to practice, they have to set off from somewhere, they have to travel, they have to equip and prepare and each of these activities creates a potential intervention point that can prevent the final act. Someone may spot spomething and feel empowered to report their suspicions.

The announcements across the system are designed to encourage people to report those suspicions and be comfortable with doing so. It is to help people understand the same rules apply everywhere and that the threat, while different, applies everywhere and that you, as a decent bloke, need to help out the stretched police/ security services a tiny bit. Listening to a couple of announcements and not leaving your bags unattended doesn't seem too much to ask.

 

[DarloRich]

I've never heard this before, do you have any further details? I usually travel light with just a small rucksack that can fit under my seat etc. but when I do have a large bag I often place it (unlabelled) on the end of carriage racks. I could do with knowing if I should label it.

I think he means stored in, say, the DVT like VTEC do on busy Anglo- Scottish trains.

 

[Confused147]

Does anyone else feel like the unattended bag situation lately has got a bit silly? I been approached a number of times by station staff/BTP when I have left my bag less than 5 metres from my person while I stroll up and down a small area of platform as I wait for my train. !

Why on earth do people feel the need to stroll away from their bags while waiting for trains? I'd say if the owner is even 3 metres away then the bag can be declared "unattended" so whats the problem?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Why on earth do people feel the need to stroll away from their bags while waiting for trains? I'd say if the owner is even 3 metres away then the bag can be declared "unattended" so whats the problem?

Because for some people, standing or sitting still for an extended period of time can be painful or uncomfortable? Nothing wrong with wanting a little movement. We are talking about a few metres on a quiet platform here. There is no reasonable way in that case you can describe such a bag as unattended. Of course, on a busier platform where there are more people about and that is a different story altogether!

 

[ooo]

Perhaps we should introduce luggage tags such as those provided by SNCF and Eurostar