UK terror threat level raised to 'severe'

It’s political.

What exactly is the average person in the street going to do or change in response to such an escalation? There is no national plan or set of directions that each must undertake in reaction to such an announcement.

As somebody else has pointed out it is merely an **** covering exercise by the politicians in government so they can with cleanish conscience state they had issued a warning in the horrible event of an incident occuring.

Thus allowing their apologists (hi charlie! in this instance :-)) to claim that the govenrment did all they could.

Good question…..who is the threat level for? Why make it so public?

Is is normal to let your enemies know that you ‘know’? Is it deterrence? Surely you don’t need a public announcement to let your own security services know the threat level has increased?

Or is it something more sinister; is it to control the way your own population feels about the threat? Of course, if there is a genuine threat at all.

EXACTLY!

Nothing new.
A few years back an moderator here said something basically wishing Maggie Thatcher ill.

There is, I suspect, a world of difference between wishing ill of somebody, actually inflicting injury on somebody, and effectively congratulating someone for administering a beating.
Yes, you can do two of the above on a forum without having to actually meet anybody, which I guess makes it alright, but when the strong arm of the forum – yes, a moderator – makes such comments isn’t that a little…off?
That said he probably did it when he wasn’t being a moderator…;o)

I know these comment are made “in jest” but such comments basically condone lawlessness, and basically make us no better that those we oppose.
“It’s shocking that ISIS kills a hostage…”but in the next breath..”It’s okay to beat up someone I disagree with”. I’m not sure adding a smiley face lessens the intent.

Maybe they include the smiley to show they’d enjoy carrying out the beating?

Surely they teach logic (or just comic irony) in schools?

Ah, but even if they did today it wouldn’t make any difference to us on this forum now – I doubt anybody here has been involved in the learning side of education in many a year…

“Spin”-based as much as fact-based?

Good question…..who is the threat level for? Why make it so public?

Sounds like an announcement driven as much by “spin doctoring” as by any specific covert intelligence. And, as others have said, it could well also be the first PR step in ramping up justification for military action when that decision has to be taken. Its a bit of a “win/win” strategy, whereas sayign nothing might leave HMG very susceptible to adverse PR by the oppostion if the wrost occurred.

With a UK general election drawing ever closer the ‘spin-doctors’ will be doing all they can to avoid their party being seen to have been caught on the back foot should a terrorist act occur.

Picture the following scenario:

No specific threats have been received, and no major plots identified by intelligence organisations, but HMG realise that there is an ever-increasing (but still small) risk that an individual or a small group, who may well be below the intelligence services’ radar, decide to perform a “lone wolf” act of barbarism/terrorism within the UK.

Say nothing and if an event were to occur HMG will immediately be accused, by populist media and opposition parties, of having failed to protect the UK population from those nasty jihadists .

But, raise the alert level “just in case”, and HMG can never be accused of not having warned the population, can they? If something did kick-off, HMG can say, with a clean(ish) conscience – “Well, we did warn everyone that the risk had increased, but that we had no knowledge of any specific plot….”.

Many in UK will have lived through earlier “high risk periods”, and/or will have seen the media coverage/aftermath of assorted attrocities that have been perpertrated on UK mainland over the last fifty or so years. Hopefully for most people in UK the announcement makes no real difference to the way we live our daily lives, as the risk from terrorism is probably still far lower than the risk of being run over by a bus or car as we cross the road. For those who work in careers where the risk is higher by virtue of their job, or where their roles help reduce the risks to the wider population, then the heightened security state will help remind them of the need for extra vigilance.

Oh, come on – surely you know they believe that battered wives also deserve to be beaten, for burning the dinner or looking at them funnily…

And who, precisely, are “they”? I hope you do not mean the members of this forum, since I speak as someone who, for a time, worked for a firm of private investigators, and, more than once, had to get between an angry husband and terrified wife. When you’ve seen a woman shaking with fear, simply for having to speak with a man (any man,) or had a five-year-old child throw her arms around you, pleading to “keep daddy away from me,” you (I hope, though I can’t be absolutely sure, since you appear to thrive on being objectionable) might find yourself reacting with anger at someone making the sort of crass, insensitive accusations you seem to love making.

(Of course in the real world they’d run away from the incident with the ‘nasty’ man beating up the other ‘nasty’ man…)

Easy to accuse someone (anyone) of cowardice, while carefully concealing your identity behind a pseudonym; other, less charitable, types might consider that an act of cowardice.

ANYTHING which is likely to increase the safety of this country and it’s citizens is to be welcomed and is indeed the first priority of its government.

No, not necessarily………….

A moderator advocating rewarding an alleged criminal assault?

Nothing new.
A few years back an moderator here said something basically wishing Maggie Thatcher ill.

I know these comment are made “in jest” but such comments basically condone lawlessness, and basically make us no better that those we oppose.
“It’s shocking that ISIS kills a hostage…”but in the next breath..”It’s okay to beat up someone I disagree with”. I’m not sure adding a smiley face lessens the intent.

Surely they teach logic (or just comic irony) in schools?

Has having the threat level raised sold anything to you, CD?

Good question…..who is the threat level for? Why make it so public?

Is is normal to let your enemies know that you ‘know’? Is it deterrence? Surely you don’t need a public announcement to let your own security services know the threat level has increased?

Or is it something more sinister; is it to control the way your own population feels about the threat? Of course, if there is a genuine threat at all.

The knighthood gets my vote

A moderator advocating rewarding an alleged criminal assault?

So it’s okay to assault someone if you happen to disagree with them? :

Oh, come on – surely you know they believe that battered wives also deserve to be beaten, for burning the dinner or looking at them funnily… (Of course in the real world they’d run away from the incident with the ‘nasty’ man beating up the other ‘nasty’ man…)

So it’s okay to assault someone if you happen to disagree with them? 🙂

When are you joining ISIS/the KKK/or anyone of a number of groups? Or are you just starting a local branch?

The knighthood gets my vote

The increased threat level is in place as a direct result of the assault on George Galloway last night. It is likely, if convicted, that the perpetrator of this assault will receive a custodial sentence. There is no truth in the rumour that there is a Facebook campaign to award the perpetrator a Knighthood for services to humanity.

Regards,

kev35

….whilst the Americans are unaware of any ‘specific, credible’ threat to them and therefore, by extension, us.

Perhaps the UK authorities know of a “UK national” terrorist who simply missed his flight to the mid-east?
There are plenty of “radicalized” people in both countries who are known on just local or national levels (like the Boston bombers).

As 9-11-01 proved, the American intelligence services aren’t always 100% accurate.
And even now, the left and media are trying to weaken them to pre-9-11 levels.

It reminds me of that time there were British Army Scorpion tanks driving round Heathrow Airport…

…I never did understand what ‘threat’ they were supposed to counter? But it was just before Gulf War Two.

Remember, the first job before going to war is to ‘sell’ it to your own people.

Silly – they were there in case Saddam… um, did something? Flying the flag, I suppose; making everyone feel that much more secure.

Has having the threat level raised sold anything to you, CD?

ANYTHING which is likely to increase the safety of this country and it’s citizens is to be welcomed and is indeed the first priority of its government.

Indeed, but will the entire UK see it that way? Do you feel safer now, Charlie, than you did before we became severe?
If just raising the threat level one notch increases the safety of this country then why have they waited so long, and why not go all the way to the top? Because, on the whole, raising the threat level does precisely nothing; a few more security people deployed at entry points like airports and ferry ports, a few more armed police, some posters up at railway stations and maybe an advertising campaign to raise awareness and scare a few more people, and more suits scratching their heads, wondering what will happen and where, and worrying about the extra expenditure.

Charlie, you will believe I am trolling – but, seriously, I am not. They have raised the threat level – why? What made them choose now rather than just after the Foley video was publicised, say, or why not wait for something tangible to be found (which they won’t tell us about for security reasons; of course, they might already have that info but, understandably, they won’t tell us that although if this is the case is it fair to lead us all into a false sense of security by telling us there is nothing to worry about?). Just saying that it is a good thing for the security of the country when there is little reason other than vague supposition is doing a small part of the terrorists job for them.
It might, just might, be more to do with the rise of Ebola and they are trying not to let the country panic over that by scaring us with ‘yet another’ terrorist scare…

ANYTHING which is likely to increase the safety of this country and it’s citizens is to be welcomed and is indeed the first priority of its government.

It reminds me of that time there were British Army Scorpion tanks driving round Heathrow Airport…

…I never did understand what ‘threat’ they were supposed to counter? But it was just before Gulf War Two.

Remember, the first job before going to war is to ‘sell’ it to your own people.