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

[QUOTE=David29;52270561]I'm not sure what you are measuring your claims against. Is there any hard proof to say these security measures don't work?[/QUOTE] Do you have any proof that they actually work? [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Matriax;52270768]Oh right, really? Should I bow you your knowledge? How much expertise do you have in this field then, as a member of the general population? Do you have access to a global communications network of intelligence gathering sources? Do you have legions of people working day, day out detecting patterns of life, identifying threats, cross examining sources of information? Do you have field teams dedicated to infiltrating undercover networks capable of building bombs? Do you have access to a network of supply information, working out what buyer can build potentially harmful devices? As a member of the general population, do you have any of that? Or do you have as I have already pointed out, absolutely nothing beyond your barefaced "I reckon"? Now, I'm not an intelligence specialist, I have no expertise in this area. However, I'd say I seem to know a tad more than you do.[/quote] they don't know a lot - in spite of their vast security networks and intelligence gathering. they are gathering huge quantities of data and processing it, only for much of it to turn out to be useless at best and sometimes worse than that: [b]the vast bulk of that information they collect is noise[/b] the more information they gather (and the more they intrude into peoples private lives in order to gather yet more data), the less effective they actually become. you are searching for a needle in a very big haystack, wasting a great deal of manpower, time, and resources on following leads which go nowhere and real threats being lost in the noise [b]These intelligence gathering "experts" and "agencies" are no more capable of predicting threats than any random person is. Sometimes their prediction skills are even worse than random[/b] [quote]You make a lot of claims about measures not working, and how these measures won't do anything. My message is that, and I'm annoyed I have to say it again:- [B]You have no factual basis to make that claim, and you seem to have no fucking idea what you're talking about. You have no made ONE valid point against ANYTHING that either Hezzy or I have said in rebuttal to you. If you're not going to do that, stop spreading fear mongering bullshit.[/B] Until you're willing to address what has been pointed out to you time and time again, you're wasting everyone's time.[/QUOTE] I believe that it's on the part of the security services to actually justify their job and their actions. They've done all of this - the justification is for interests of "security" or "safety" - where is the evidence saying this? How many attacks have they prevented? The scale of such attacks? I know that which I don't know, but they don't know what they don't know. Hence the big problem. These measures don't work - why don't you find evidence proving that they do actually work?

I can't help but feel this wouldn't be necessary if police funding for both regular and armed officers hadn't been slashed repeatably by our current Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary. I also feel sorry for the squaddies as well, though hopefully they've got better training than they've gotten in the past. My old man served several tours in Northern Ireland during the height of the troubles, and his training consisted of a very brief infantry course (as he was in the Royal Engineers, who got sent in as infantry with the Artillery and Signals Corps.) But they probably don't want to be there either.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52270781]Do you have any proof that they actually work?[/QUOTE] Well, after the last two times the 'critical' level was used the police were able to round up the remaining members of the networks very quickly - enabling them to lower the level back down to 'severe' after a few days. In the 2006 Transatlantic bomb plot, they were able to arrest all those involved and reduced the threat level back down after 3 days. In the 2007 Glasgow airport attack, they arrested a number of people and were able to reduce the threat level back down again after 5 days. In both those cases, they were able to make swift arrests and wind up any accomplices in a short period of time. So they seem to have worked quite well in the past. (Unfortunately they might be hindered this time by the US leaks but I would still expect them to lower the level back after a few more days.)

[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;52268342]does that mean they have troops on patrol like cops do?[/QUOTE] I heard it was because of all the police funding cuts in the north, so they had to get the army out to help.

[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] Lmfao you have no idea what you're talking about

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52270781]Do you have any proof that they actually work? [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] they don't know a lot - in spite of their vast security networks and intelligence gathering. they are gathering huge quantities of data and processing it, only for much of it to turn out to be useless at best and sometimes worse than that: [b]the vast bulk of that information they collect is noise[/b] the more information they gather (and the more they intrude into peoples private lives in order to gather yet more data), the less effective they actually become. you are searching for a needle in a very big haystack, wasting a great deal of manpower, time, and resources on following leads which go nowhere and real threats being lost in the noise [b]These intelligence gathering "experts" and "agencies" are no more capable of predicting threats than any random person is. Sometimes their prediction skills are even worse than random[/b] I believe that it's on the part of the security services to actually justify their job and their actions. They've done all of this - the justification is for interests of "security" or "safety" - where is the evidence saying this? How many attacks have they prevented? The scale of such attacks? I know that which I don't know, but they don't know what they don't know. Hence the big problem. These measures don't work - why don't you find evidence proving that they do actually work?[/QUOTE] This is a pointless argument. Be happy there are people who are willing to give their lives (as many have) to protect you while you sleep. I can guarantee you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about. Literally none. Keep spreading your poisonous shite though, funnily enough it's what we in the defence sector fight to defend. Your ability to open your fat fucking mouth and talk utter, utter shite.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52270781]Do you have any proof that they actually work? [editline]24th May 2017[/editline] they don't know a lot - in spite of their vast security networks and intelligence gathering. they are gathering huge quantities of data and processing it, only for much of it to turn out to be useless at best and sometimes worse than that: [b]the vast bulk of that information they collect is noise[/b] the more information they gather (and the more they intrude into peoples private lives in order to gather yet more data), the less effective they actually become. you are searching for a needle in a very big haystack, wasting a great deal of manpower, time, and resources on following leads which go nowhere and real threats being lost in the noise [b]These intelligence gathering "experts" and "agencies" are no more capable of predicting threats than any random person is. Sometimes their prediction skills are even worse than random[/b] I believe that it's on the part of the security services to actually justify their job and their actions. They've done all of this - the justification is for interests of "security" or "safety" - where is the evidence saying this? How many attacks have they prevented? The scale of such attacks? I know that which I don't know, but they don't know what they don't know. Hence the big problem. These measures don't work - why don't you find evidence proving that they do actually work?[/QUOTE] Where are you even getting any of this information? Is this all just speculation? And if it is, why are you touting it as fact? Here is the UK security services saying they have 'foiled' 13 attacks since 2013 [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39176110[/url] , alongside those provided above me. Instead of speculating, please start providing sources to these things you are saying.

[QUOTE=Matriax;52270873]This is a pointless argument. Be happy there are people who are willing to give their lives (as many have) to protect you while you sleep. I can guarantee you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about. Literally none.[/quote] But they're not protecting me, nor anybody else that well. Westminster had its security beefed up after the 7/7 bombings and was considered to be completely safe, before then a guy drove in a few weeks ago and stabbed a police officer and two others to death while the Prime Minister was holding question time. If the security forces can't protect parliament, what hope do I or anybody else have? In the Manchester attack, a bomb was detonated at the exit of a building when people were leaving - again no security measure to date ever could have foreseen nor prevented it. The measures being taken before were useless, and they will be little better equipped to deal with the next one when it comes. [quote]Keep spreading your poisonous shite though, funnily enough it's what we in the defence sector fight to defend. Your ability to open your fat fucking mouth and talk utter, utter shite.[/QUOTE] It's poisonous shite to criticise government policy? So far our answer is to beef up surveillance and security, wait for the next bombing, blame it on the lack of surveillance and security, then beef it up again and wait for the next attack. This is a endless cycle that gets worse because it's quite obvious its not working (especially considering we only treat the symptoms and not the disease). Those "experts" in "intelligence" are time wasting, they might as well be masturbating. [b]You aren't defending my right to open my mouth to talk utter shite, you're allowing the government to slowly monitor everything I say and do in anticipation of removing my ability to do so.[/b]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52270961]But they're not protecting me, nor anybody else that well. [b]You aren't defending my right to open my mouth to talk utter shite, you're allowing the government to slowly monitor everything I say and do in anticipation of removing my ability to do so.[/b][/QUOTE] They couldn't give a shit about what you're doing unless you're literally doing dodgy shit like shopping around for explosive material. They can't just snoop around willy nilly, still have to go through legal processes to gain access to stuff if they have a legit belief,

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52270961]But they're not protecting me, nor anybody else that well. Westminster had its security beefed up after the 7/7 bombings and was considered to be completely safe, before then a guy drove in a few weeks ago and stabbed a police officer and two others to death while the Prime Minister was holding question time. If the security forces can't protect parliament, what hope do I or anybody else have? In the Manchester attack, a bomb was detonated at the exit of a building when people were leaving - again no security measure to date ever could have foreseen nor prevented it. The measures being taken before were useless, and they will be little better equipped to deal with the next one when it comes. It's poisonous shite to criticise government policy? So far our answer is to beef up surveillance and security, wait for the next bombing, blame it on the lack of surveillance and security, then beef it up again and wait for the next attack. This is a endless cycle that gets worse because it's quite obvious its not working (especially considering we only treat the symptoms and not the disease). Those "experts" in "intelligence" are time wasting, they might as well be masturbating. [B]You aren't defending my right to open my mouth to talk utter shite, you're allowing the government to slowly monitor everything I say and do in anticipation of removing my ability to do so.[/B][/QUOTE] Considering how many attacks have been foiled I'd say they're pretty effective. Just because they don't catch literally everyone (which is obviously impossible) doesn't make them ineffective. The security beefing at westminster is why only a handful died rather than 52 like on 7/7. The manchester bombing got through because of police and intelligence defunding in the north, making it easier for someone to pull this off.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52270961]But they're not protecting me, nor anybody else that well. Westminster had its security beefed up after the 7/7 bombings and was considered to be completely safe, before then a guy drove in a few weeks ago and stabbed a police officer and two others to death while the Prime Minister was holding question time. If the security forces can't protect parliament, what hope do I or anybody else have? In the Manchester attack, a bomb was detonated at the exit of a building when people were leaving - again no security measure to date ever could have foreseen nor prevented it. The measures being taken before were useless, and they will be little better equipped to deal with the next one when it comes. It's poisonous shite to criticise government policy? So far our answer is to beef up surveillance and security, wait for the next bombing, blame it on the lack of surveillance and security, then beef it up again and wait for the next attack. This is a endless cycle that gets worse because it's quite obvious its not working (especially considering we only treat the symptoms and not the disease). Those "experts" in "intelligence" are time wasting, they might as well be masturbating. [b]You aren't defending my right to open my mouth to talk utter shite, you're allowing the government to slowly monitor everything I say and do in anticipation of removing my ability to do so.[/b][/QUOTE] You're comparing two different terrorism acts as if they were the same thing. The 7/7 bombings were sophisticated and planned attacks. The attack on parliament was one guy who picked up a knife and his car keys. You constantly make sweeping statements and claim your word is gospel but you have [b]no knowledge or experience[/b] to back it up. I think you should stop posting about this before you make an even bigger arse of yourself.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52268471]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] The end goal is create a permanent state of emergency, thus justifying a police state or martial law. Which leads to permanent suspension of democratic government. My theory the migrants are being used as a monkey paw. Once their use is over, I doubt it will end well for them.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52270781]Do you have any proof that they actually work?[/QUOTE] Please answer my question instead of simply asking me a different one.

Anybody that is easily radicalised because we are taking measures to prevent innocent people from dying is gonna be easily radicalised anyway. The argument has gone from we shouldn't go galavanting into middle east countries putting the world to rights to we shouldn't do anything at all to protect the public, it's a stupid point of view. There aren't enough resources to monitor the 3000 + known terror suspects in this country so the army stepping up can only be a good thing. We probably all agree that in the long term the answer lies in tackling the root cause of the problem but how long would that take, if ever? So in the short term the Govt are trying to do as much as they can to protect the public, they are really not interested in our surfing habits.

Got a punk gig in London next week. I'm hoping the increased police presence doesn't put people on edge too badly, I know that there's a few punks who aren't too friendly with the police..

[QUOTE=Viper1204;52273177]Got a punk gig in London next week. I'm hoping the increased police presence doesn't put people on edge too badly, I know that there's a few punks who aren't too friendly with the police..[/QUOTE] lol, yeah like the police should not be protecting the public because some punks might feel edgy.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52270961]In the Manchester attack, a bomb was detonated at the exit of a building when people were leaving - again no security measure to date ever could have foreseen nor prevented it. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52270961]Those "experts" in "intelligence" are time wasting, they might as well be masturbating.[/QUOTE] 'I'm utterly clueless about counterterrorism, therefore everybody else in the country and government must be too and it's all a plot to deprive me of my civil liberties' Please, tell us all about your extensive intelligence and counterterrorism experience, I'm [i]dying[/i] to hear all about your personal expertise that explains your utter lack of citations or any substantive argument.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52274953]'I'm utterly clueless about counterterrorism, therefore everybody else in the country and government must be too and it's all a plot to deprive me of my civil liberties' Please, tell us all about your extensive intelligence and counterterrorism experience, I'm [i]dying[/i] to hear all about your personal expertise that explains your utter lack of citations or any substantive argument.[/QUOTE] He's not allowed to divulge this info.

[QUOTE=DMGaina;52268468]It creates a sense of security for the public and if something happens they have better training and equipment.[/QUOTE] I feel less tranquil and secure if I see soldiers in full gear patroling the streets.

[QUOTE=junker|154;52276989]I feel less tranquil and secure if I see soldiers in full gear patroling the streets.[/QUOTE] Out of interest - why?

[QUOTE=David29;52277023]Out of interest - why?[/QUOTE] Well, it creates this sense of imminent dread and causes overall people to be more cautious and panic more easily as far as I can tell. I went to Antwerpen regularly in Belgium and some townparts, especially the ones with a jewish community are heavily guarded by armed soldiers. It just creates a tension. It is a very subjective feeling. Seeing any kind of armed forces always causes distress in people.

[QUOTE=junker|154;52277050]Well, it creates this sense of imminent dread and causes overall people to be more cautious and panic more easily as far as I can tell. I went to Antwerpen regularly in Belgium and some townparts, especially the ones with a jewish community are heavily guarded by armed soldiers. It just creates a tension. It is a very subjective feeling. Seeing any kind of armed forces always causes distress in people.[/QUOTE] I agree it is subjective. I don't agree it will always cause distress in people (also aren't you contradicting yourself by saying that?). Personally I don't have a problem with having a limited number of armed forces on the streets.

[QUOTE=junker|154;52277050]It is a very subjective feeling. Seeing any kind of armed forces always causes distress in people.[/QUOTE] When I was in Italy last year, especially in Rome, there were Carabinieri in full military garb and carrying weapons around all the tourist attractions and government buildings. You don't see that sort of thing in the US, but for me at least it wasn't a big deal, and the locals didn't seem to have a problem either. I get that it's subjective, but I think saying it 'always causes distress in people' is painting with a broad brush.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52277373]When I was in Italy last year, especially in Rome, there were Carabinieri in full military garb and carrying weapons around all the tourist attractions and government buildings. You don't see that sort of thing in the US, but for me at least it wasn't a big deal, and the locals didn't seem to have a problem either. I get that it's subjective, but I think saying it 'always causes distress in people' is painting with a broad brush.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170525091510-police-blowing-kisses-manchester-picture-exlarge-169.jpg[/img] I know it's police in that case, but I don't see any distress there.

[QUOTE=Useful Dave;52277377][img]http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170525091510-police-blowing-kisses-manchester-picture-exlarge-169.jpg[/img] I know it's police in that case, but I don't see any distress there.[/QUOTE] At the the end of the day, both soldiers and armed police will only cause as much distress as you allow them to. Its the same type of hysteria that makes some people associate Muslims with terrorists ("that person is dressed a certain way and I have certain stereotyped views against that so they must be bad").

[QUOTE=David29;52277466]At the the end of the day, both soldiers and armed police will only cause as much distress as you allow them to. Its the same type of hysteria that makes some people associate Muslims with terrorists ("that person is dressed a certain way and I have certain stereotyped views against that so they must be bad").[/QUOTE] Weapons effect (contentious and controversial theory) would suggest that someone having a weapon changes how they interact with people and how people interact with them. We associate weapons with power. Maybe it's not so different though, since we learn both those associations. Suppose it depends whether or not the weapons thing is learnt or instinct or indeed if it exists at all.

So what happens if nothing happens? Do the police just stroke eachother off and say their anti-terror operations were a success while not actually saying what they really did or does the country just get a month where the possibility of an "Imminent Threat" persists, again with absolutely nothing disclosed on what it might be? I've heard police everywhere play this card so many times now it's the equivalent to the boy who cried wolf. Nobody cares.

FYI the terror level is being reduced back down to 'severe' and the troops will start returning back to their barracks from Monday (after the Bank Holiday weekend). [media]https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/868421869443194880[/media] If the authorities are reducing the threat level then they are confident they've caught all the members of the cell and there is no longer an imminent threat. I told y'all it'd be a temporary thing.

[QUOTE=Mythman;52280602] If the authorities are reducing the threat level then they are confident they've caught all the members of the cell and there is no longer an imminent threat. I told y'all it'd be a temporary thing.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately the specifics of those arrests will likely never be known under the veil of national security. I don't buy into this bullshit anymore, or at least I don't want to wait to find 50 years from now that it was just a ploy to make it look like everything was fine in a declassified document.

[QUOTE=pentium;52283244]Unfortunately the specifics of those arrests will likely never be known under the veil of national security. I don't buy into this bullshit anymore, or at least I don't want to wait to find 50 years from now that it was just a ploy to make it look like everything was fine in a declassified document.[/QUOTE] We'll find out who has been arrested if/when they get charged - and I'm sure we'll find out more about what happened in British newspapers (who have sensibly waited to publish stuff to prevent damaging the investigation..)