With Four Attacks This Year, Is It Now Time For The Terrorist Threat Level To Remain On 'critical'?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

It seems pointless to lower the level just because there happens to be a period of 'no attacks'.

Or is this lowering and raising of the threat level, aimed to give the impression that the government is doing something?

[Spicerack]

Overlooking the 400 arrests aren't you, jim?
There have been 5 'successful' attacks.

[THECORBYLOON]

How many have been charged? How many have been convicted?

[jim360]

I'm not sure that the "400 arrests" point really hurts my argument, to be honest. After all, weren't most of those arrests made when the terror threat level was at "severe" only? In which case it's still largely successful in its aims, and the extra resources that are presumably pumped in for a Critical threat level aren't needed all the time -- save in extreme circumstances when a particular attacker is being hunted for.

[Peter Pedant]

// I still dont see how it is illogical either way though. It has been done before when we were at war. //

I mean its a great idea ! You get a dog which didnt work last time - say "it did really work last time" and then say - yeah lets do it again

and then say "yeah uf we dont do something they;ll win !"
so you do something which will make it more likely they will win

that's logic for you

( in america specifically they closed down Liddle Tokyo sort of 8 Dec 1941 and carted them off to a desert (" interned Japanese nationals in an environment that kept them dry safe and isolated" ) and called up the kids of the traitors and spies and make them fight for uncle sam ! ) - the kids were critical of the logic of this behaviour at them time and later

[vetuste_ennemi]

The threat is vanishingly small (have I got the right phrase?) - more chance of being killed by a toaster etc.

So the rational response to these rare events is stoic acceptance of the new normal, or levity depending on whether you're Peter or everybody else.

Of course, while the threat is trivial the cost of keeping it that way by surveillance etc. is not. That cost will grow at a rate at least directly proportional to the increase in our Muslim population.

[Zacs-Master]

^^^ what a sensible and insightful answer VE.

[anotheoldgit]

jackthehat

Please use my correct username, would you wish yours to be altered?

After all it leads itself to many more descriptive alterations.

[Zacs-Master]

I'm still waiting for you to name the apologists AOG.

[scooping]

I wonder why we can't greatly improve funding for the security services and anti-terrorist police. If the government can find £1billion for the DUP and NI surely this is one thing we can do in the asbence of any other ideas and Labour and LibDems would have a hard job opposing the measure.

[anotheoldgit]

jim360

/// I'm sure that terrorists attacks could happen any day, at any time, and at any place. But usually they don't. ///

That should read "And they usually do"

/// it only means that there is a strong likelihood of an attack without any specific and known threat. At the moment, that's true most of the time, so the threat level is "mostly" severe. ///

And that is the reason that the threat level should remain as 'SEVERE', and the time has come that we can no longer enjoy any more lesser "let's just put our feet up" levels.

[Gromit]

scooping
You may not have been paying attention, but Labour and the LibDems have been calling for more funds for the police. But the Conservatives have been serverely cutting numbers since 2010.

[THECORBYLOON]

'/// I'm sure that terrorists attacks could happen any day, at any time, and at any place. But usually they don't. ///

That should read "And they usually do" '

I don't know what definition of "usually" you're using but it's not one that most folk use.

There have been five attacks this year and to-day is the 260th day of the year. Five attacks out of 260 days is hardly usual is it?

[jim360]

"
And that is the reason that the threat level should remain as 'SEVERE', and the time has come that we can no longer enjoy any more lesser "let's just put our feet up" levels."

OK wait a second. You were asking if the threat level should remain as "critical". It's literally right there in your OP. Right. There.

So are you now disagreeing with your own question? Well, of course you are, it's what you do.

Anyway, five attacks a year is five attacks too many, but going on to explain that they "usually" happen based on that is abuse of language.

[THECORBYLOON]

"And that is the reason that the threat level should remain as 'SEVERE'"

In the past three years, the threat levels have been as follows,

29.8.14 Severe
23.5.17 Critical
27.5.17 Severe
15.9.17 Critical

Looks like it's been Severe for all but about a week to me.

[THECORBYLOON]

The threat level has been reduced to Severe. That should keep ANOTHEOLDGIT happy.

[Zacs-Master]

But his question, as Jim pointed out, contains a plea for it to stay at Critical.

Care to clarify AOG?

[anotheoldgit]

I admit in the heat of the argument I did mistakenly put severe when I meant to put critical.

I do hope that clears that matter up?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4893510/Syrian-Heathrow-home-raided-Parsons-Green.html
In the meantime we can now all sleep peacefully in our beds because two 'child' refugees have been arrested which although they are not proven to be the bombers our home secretary has reduced the threat level.

/// Following the arrests the Home Secretary Amber Rudd announced the UK terror threat level has been reduced to 'severe' — meaning intelligence chiefs no longer think an attack is imminent. ///

/// She added said it appeared the bomber was not a lone wolf but added that it was 'too early to reach any final conclusions on that'. ///

Enough though to reduce the threat level.

You just couldn't make it up.

[jim360]

If intelligence chiefs no longer than there is a critical and imminent threat of attack, then reducing the threat level from "critical" seems rather sensible. Then you can go back to the previous situation, where (with around three or four hundred arrests per year) over 99% of potential attacks are stopped beforehand.

It's almost certainly impossible, sadly, to stop everyone who wishes to kill others indiscriminately, since, as we've seen recently, it's enough to drive a car or truck along a pavement and you don't necessarily need much planning for that. But as a matter of resource management, keeping on 24/7 high alert in preparation for something that may happen today but almost certainly won't, especially if you don't know what it is, who will do it or where it will happen, is a waste of time, money and effort. And it might happen anyway even if you did try to put officers on every street corner. What next for the escalation of security in that case?

I was going to start posting a slippery slope about how next you'd lock up anyone who could potentially be a terrorist, and then realised that people on AB have literally already called for exactly that. Thankfully, people on AB have no power whatsoever.

[THECORBYLOON]

ANOTHEOLDGIT, it's not been proven the two men are the bombers because there has been no court case yet.

I can't understand why you're not willing to accept the judgement of MI5 and JTAC when it comes to determining the threat levels.

Your perception of the threat is clearly out of kilter if you think attacks could happen any day "and they usually do." Even if we take into account the thwarted attempts, there are not attempts made on a regular basis.

It is bad enough that IS claim responsibility for any attack (regardless of any connexion) without your apparent belief that terrorists are queuing up with bombs in hand, waiting their turn.

[Spicerack]

'Child' 'refugee' plants bomb to kill the people that took him in.
The usual mob get angry at/attack AOG.
Did you campaign to flood the country with these 'refugees', AOG?