Britain Raises Terrorism Threat Level, Meaning New Attack May Be Imminent - Polidicks

[QUOTE]After a meeting of her top security officials to consider intelligence after the attack in Manchester on Monday night that killed 22 people and wounded dozens more at a pop concert, Mrs. May said that “it is a possibility we cannot ignore that there is a wider group of individuals linked to this attack.” She added that soldiers would be deployed to assist armed police, and free some of them up to pursue the possibility that the bomber in Manchester, Salman Abedi, 22, did not act alone and was part of a larger cell that could be planning further attacks.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/world/europe/manchester-arena-attack-ariana-grande.html[/url] Stay safe over there everyone.

It's escalated in the past after previous terror attacks, this is nothing new. The deployment of troops however is a first and the idea is to deter attacks on targets, support emergency services and to speed up current investigations (and that raids that will follow) as they attempt to thwart any other attack plans to prevent them being activated prematurely. Such as the raids conducted by France following the attack at the Bataclan.

[QUOTE=ViralHatred;52267314]It's escalated in the past after previous terror attacks, this is nothing new. The deployment of troops however is a first and the idea is to deter attacks on targets, support emergency services and to speed up current investigations (and that raids that will follow) as they attempt to thwart any other attack plans to prevent them being activated prematurely. Such as the raids conducted by France following the attack at the Bataclan.[/QUOTE] does that mean they have troops on patrol like cops do?

[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;52268342]does that mean they have troops on patrol like cops do?[/QUOTE] Troops will work alongside armed police.

[QUOTE=ViralHatred;52267314]It's escalated in the past after previous terror attacks, this is nothing new. The deployment of troops however is a first and the idea is to deter attacks on targets, support emergency services and to speed up current investigations (and that raids that will follow) as they attempt to thwart any other attack plans to prevent them being activated prematurely. Such as the raids conducted by France following the attack at the Bataclan.[/QUOTE] i think deployment of the armed forces is excessive and primarily for political purposes

[QUOTE=waylander;52268456]i think deployment of the armed forces is excessive and primarily for political purposes[/QUOTE] It creates a sense of security for the public and if something happens they have better training and equipment.

I don't like this one bit terrorist attacks come at random, so deploying all of these extra security forces immediately after an attack isn't going to help much unless its done all the time - and deploying soldiers constantly does not sit well with me at all

[QUOTE=DMGaina;52268468]It creates a sense of security for the public and if something happens they have better training and equipment.[/QUOTE] I can't agree with that sentiment, military forces are usually not well equipped for fighting in highly populated areas with single combatants hiding in a crowd. The real plus is having a lot more armed personnel on the ground which is significant in the UK.

[QUOTE=DMGaina;52268468]It creates a sense of security for the public and if something happens they have better training and equipment.[/QUOTE] i understand your points but i think it depends if the troops they deploy received additional training as part of Operation Temperer and i think a lot of UK citizens would feel less safe seeing deployed troops not more safe

What it does is freeing up police hands. Most every damn job the police does requires two dudes on it for safety reasons. If you can have one police-man doing that job and the other being a soldier who just hangs around in case shit gets hairy, you've effectively doubled your police force by freeing up every second police officer for other duties.

Soldiers working with police? Soldiers with police isn't good at all. They're trained to kill, they're trained for combat. Police/armed police are trained to deal with civilians.

This isn't having infantry battalions patrolling the streets (not that we'd have enough anyways), this is having a few soldiers protecting sites like parliament and Downing Street The amount of troops deployed will be in the hundreds at the most

I'm not gonna let paranoia stop me from enjoying MCM Comic Con (London) this weekend.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52268612]Soldiers working with police? Soldiers with police isn't good at all. They're trained to kill, they're trained for combat. Police/armed police are trained to deal with civilians.[/QUOTE] During the 2012 Olympics, we had soliders positioned around London on the way to the stadiums, on transport links etc. They were great. They're just normal people too, not killing machines. You could have a bit of banter with them as they were checking your bags, have a chat about what its been like and stuff. While this situation is slightly different, they aren't going to be going around trying to kill people on the streets of the UK because 'They're trained to kill', just supporting the polices work. [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Dominic0904;52268639]I'm not gonna let paranoia stop me from enjoying MCM Comic Con (London) this weekend.[/QUOTE] You shouldn't, I am sure it's gonna be a sick weekend for you :~)

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52268612]Soldiers working with police? Soldiers with police isn't good at all. They're trained to kill, they're trained for combat. Police/armed police are trained to deal with civilians.[/QUOTE] Soldiers fighting ex-jihadis or those which are current sleeper cells(militia). Seems quiet fitting to me. Honestly, if you are dealing with sick fucks which bomb a concert with pressure-cooker bombs, it's fitting to deal with them in a military sense. Nothing like the old standard issue going up someones ass before they get sent to a military prison.

Waiting for 'Encryption is bad' talks to come soon.

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;52268665]Armies around the world have branches or training for that. And it is good, keeping the entire police system on high alert without it just ends up with a lot of police at home because of burnouts.[/QUOTE] I think I might have my attitude because I think we should spend less on army and more on police so perhaps my biases are clouding my judgement.

there is no benefit to telling people that there "might be another terrorist attack" other than to deliberately scare them - if the reason for doing it is so people change plans to be more "safe", then you are doing what the terrorists want, disruption and fear also publicly announcing the "terror level" is an absolute fucking joke

Haven't we been in 'imminent or immediate threat of a terror attack' mode since the tube bombings over 10 years ago?

[QUOTE=Ishwoo;52268743]Haven't be in 'imminent or immediate threat of a terror attack' mode since the tube bombings over 10 years ago?[/QUOTE] it has never gone below "substantial" in the 11 years that it has existed that's how fucking stupid the system is it has wavered between severe and substantial for a while - the difference being that substantial means that an attack is a strong possibility, and severe means that an attack is highly likely. i mean, forgive me if I'm wrong, but those sound like fucking synonyms to me

I've literally just got back from Westminster and Victoria Station, there were a few extra armed guards but everything is calm and just like normal. I think it's all ok, yes everyone is a little bit tense right now but everything was just carrying on like normal and it made me feel a bit better

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52268612]Soldiers working with police? Soldiers with police isn't good at all. They're trained to kill, they're trained for combat. Police/armed police are trained to deal with civilians.[/QUOTE] As far as I'm aware with the Army it depends on circumstances. From what I've been told the Army tends to try and maim enemies. The reason for this is it takes 2 people to remove 1 injured person meaning 1 maiming can result in 3 people off the field for a period of time.

[QUOTE=Ishwoo;52268743]Haven't we been in 'imminent or immediate threat of a terror attack' mode since the tube bombings over 10 years ago?[/QUOTE] [URL]https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels[/URL] No; LOW means an attack is unlikely. MODERATE means an attack is possible, but not likely SUBSTANTIAL means an attack is a strong possibility SEVERE means an attack is highly likely CRITICAL means an attack is expected imminently The Home Secretary has stated that the bomber was likely not acting on his own, so there's potentially people out there with the capability and motivation to conduct more attacks. Have a read of the link above, it gives a little bit more of an insight into how / why threat levels are raised. [QUOTE=waylander;52268456]i think deployment of the armed forces is excessive and primarily for political purposes[/QUOTE] You're free to think what you want, however Op Temperer isn't something the PM can decide to roll out for no apparent reason. [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11764301/Secret-plan-to-deploy-5000-soldiers-on-UK-streets-in-wake-of-major-terror-attacks.html[/url] It's to combat marauding firearm attacks primarily.

Welcome to the club British fellows, we're in this state since November 2015 here.

[QUOTE=NassimO PotatO;52268855]Welcome to the club British fellows, we're in this state since November 2015 here.[/QUOTE] The Gendarme have always protected critical locations in France?

[QUOTE=Hezzy;52268863]The Gendarme have always protected critical locations in France?[/QUOTE] You mean before the state of emergency ? If so yes, the Gendarmerie did some patrols on the critical locations like airports or train stations since 2001. Since November '15 the govt started the "Sentinelle" operation : 10 412 soldiers from all branches (land, air, sea and the Gendarmerie) do patrols on the criticals spots + places higly visited like museums for example, and even near the places of worship.

Can't say I wholly believe having soliders in the streets. Not to besmirch the boys in green themselves, it just sends the wrong message to me.

[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;52268917]Can't say I wholly believe having soliders in the streets. Not to besmirch the boys in green themselves, it just sends the wrong message to me.[/QUOTE] What message does it send to you then?

fuck that, the only thing worse than a terrorist is a nutcase squaddie

[QUOTE=djjkxbox;52268924]What message does it send to you then?[/QUOTE] I fully admit it's my paranoia at wok here, but guns don't make me feel safe at all. They do the opposite, so calling for more guns in the street doesn't say "anti-terror" to me. However, what I'm imagining probably isn't what's being done. If it's just making the most of what we've got then I can see the reasoning behind it. If soliders can help with the more overtly dangerous law enforcement situations then it's better than letting them go to waste.