UK raises threat level to 'critical'

PeteEU · May 27, 2017

Infinite Chaos said:
No, but it's not just about the military, it's also about warning the British public to be on guard.

Cry wolf scenario.. why? The ranking has been on severe for a long time. The difference between Substantial and Critical levels is next to nothing, if it is to tell the British public to be on guard..

Look at it this way.

"There is a low chance of rain" ... ahh screw the umbrella.
"There is a moderate chance of rain, but it is unlikely" ... hmm maybe take the umbrella?
"There is a substantial chance of rain"... take the umbrella with you.
"There is a severe chance of rain"... take the umbrella with you.
"Rain is expected imminently"... take the umbrella with you.

In the last 3, you should be taking the umbrella with you... aka the British people should be on guard.

Infinite Chaos · May 27, 2017

PeteEU said:
Cry wolf scenario.. why? The ranking has been on severe for a long time. The difference between Substantial and Critical levels is next to nothing, if it is to tell the British public to be on guard..

Look at it this way.

"There is a low chance of rain" ... ahh screw the umbrella.
"There is a moderate chance of rain, but it is unlikely" ... hmm maybe take the umbrella?
"There is a substantial chance of rain"... take the umbrella with you.
"There is a severe chance of rain"... take the umbrella with you.
"Rain is expected imminently"... take the umbrella with you.

In the last 3, you should be taking the umbrella with you... aka the British people should be on guard.

If you cannot see any difference between armed police on patrol at high level and then armed soldiers taking over those duties so armed police could be spread onto trains and many other events then I cannot help you.

One last try - how many numbers of armed people do you think make the difference between armed police only versus armed soldiers and police?

gunner · May 27, 2017

nota bene said:
Military personnel are being deployed. Home - BBC News

Doubtless, this is to scare the "ignorant masses" and keep them "pliable." I mean, the Brits are legendary for their overreactions. :roll:

What do you mean we are legendary for our overreaction?

gunner · May 27, 2017

PeteEU said:
Raising the threat level does not help the 8 year old does it now? Who does it benefit?

You do know the PM raises the threat level on advise from the security services?

gunner · May 27, 2017

joG said:
In any case it is disturbing that they are deploying troops to enforce domestic security.

Like you know anything about procedures that are in place. As per normal, you just gotta chip in with pointless crap.

joG · May 27, 2017

Infinite Chaos said:
No, but it's not just about the military, it's also about warning the British public to be on guard.

What a silly comment.

Ah, a British police agency contacted American press and leaked information? What are you smoking?

You must have lived a life well protected from how the news is made.

joG · May 27, 2017

gunner said:
Like you know anything about procedures that are in place. As per normal, you just gotta chip in with pointless crap.

What is rather scary is that the government is allowed to deploy military against citizens on a relatively small local incident. Sure twenty or thirty killed is very sad. But the danger from a government being able to use the military against its population is a much greater danger, should the persons in government be that kind.

ttwtt78640 · May 27, 2017

joG said:
In any case it is disturbing that they are deploying troops to enforce domestic security.

Well, when your police are not armed and you feel the need for an armed force to deal with a growing terror threat...

gunner · May 27, 2017

joG said:
What is rather scary is that the government is allowed to deploy military against citizens on a relatively small local incident. Sure twenty or thirty killed is very sad. But the danger from a government being able to use the military against its population is a much greater danger, should the persons in government be that kind.

WTF are you talking about? They're not using them against citizens, they are using them against knuckle draggers who want to take us back to the stone age. See the difference?

nota bene · May 27, 2017

gunner said:
What do you mean we are legendary for our overreaction?

Verbal irony--saying the opposite of what is meant and indicated by :roll: .

Infinite Chaos · May 27, 2017

joG said:
You must have lived a life well protected from how the news is made.

No, I asked you questions. How then would intelligence passed from Manchester Police to American intelligence sources end up in an American newspaper?

joG said:
What is rather scary is that the government is allowed to deploy military against citizens on a relatively small local incident. Sure twenty or thirty killed is very sad. But the danger from a government being able to use the military against its population is a much greater danger, should the persons in government be that kind.

How are the British govt using the military agains citizens?

And how is what happened in Manchester a "a relatively small local incident" - the man was from a Libyan family, armed by a network of jihadis and who had links to Syria and Libyan jihadis.

Manc Skipper · May 27, 2017

Infinite Chaos said:
If you cannot see any difference between armed police on patrol at high level and then armed soldiers taking over those duties so armed police could be spread onto trains and many other events then I cannot help you.

One last try - how many numbers of armed people do you think make the difference between armed police only versus armed soldiers and police?

Those armed police on trains are British Transport Police, not from the national force. The BTP are funded by the train operating companies, not the government.

Manc Skipper · May 27, 2017

joG said:
You must have lived a life well protected from how the news is made.

Given that the President has sent Tillerson to apologise in person, and threatened to prosecute the leakers, the info came from your side of the pond.

Manc Skipper · May 27, 2017

ttwtt78640 said:
Well, when your police are not armed and you feel the need for an armed force to deal with a growing terror threat...

May cut police budgets by 25%, and numbers by 20,000 since 2010. There's no resilience left. The army (less than 1,000) are being deployed to high-visbility areas to give the illusion of government caring for public safety during an election run-up.

Infinite Chaos · May 27, 2017

Manc Skipper said:
Those armed police on trains are British Transport Police, not from the national force. The BTP are funded by the train operating companies, not the government.

My mistake regarding the trains however the other point stands which is why PeteEU hasn't returned.

Manc Skipper · May 27, 2017

Infinite Chaos said:
My mistake regarding the trains however the other point stands which is why PeteEU hasn't returned.

It's the not far away from being a private army. There's a national committee but the structure and oversight is vague enough to be a concern.

joG · May 28, 2017

ttwtt78640 said:
Well, when your police are not armed and you feel the need for an armed force to deal with a growing terror threat...

If your police are unarmed, then maybe they need to be, if you think you need an armed force.
But, if you want to radically change the power of the state and deploying armed forces, where hitherto no arms were deployed, is a major shift in the power of those in power, then you want to make sure that the checks on that power and balances of it are strengthened.

joG · May 28, 2017

gunner said:
WTF are you talking about? They're not using them against citizens, they are using them against knuckle draggers who want to take us back to the stone age. See the difference?

What if someone decides you and your ilk are the kuckle daggers. Wut da fuc? That is one of the basics of constitutional theory. You protect every citizen's rights because dictators eliminate resisting groups separately and one after the other in the hope that knuckle draggers will say: "Awe, cool! Dem dare deserve it"!

joG · May 28, 2017

Infinite Chaos said:
No, I asked you questions. How then would intelligence passed from Manchester Police to American intelligence sources end up in an American newspaper?

How are the British govt using the military agains citizens?

And how is what happened in Manchester a "a relatively small local incident" - the man was from a Libyan family, armed by a network of jihadis and who had links to Syria and Libyan jihadis.

-The easiest way would be a reporter askes a cop or forensics person over a pint of beer. I've seen that work before with politicians, central bankers and judges.
-the troops were in the streets, where the citizens were. And the radicals are citizens.
-Abedi was a Britt as far as I've read. But yes small and local. I haven't looked up the numbers, but the iRA was, I believe, more widely spread in the country and a greater problem.
The international aspect has nothing to do with deployment of troops in a country like GB. In Israel it is an other matter. I hope you see the manifold differences.

joG · May 28, 2017

Manc Skipper said:
Given that the President has sent Tillerson to apologise in person, and threatened to prosecute the leakers, the info came from your side of the pond.

I think that that is best in any event. Calm the waves independent of any reality. But I don't think that I have seen any mention of the exact path of leakage.

joG · May 28, 2017

Manc Skipper said:
May cut police budgets by 25%, and numbers by 20,000 since 2010. There's no resilience left. The army (less than 1,000) are being deployed to high-visbility areas to give the illusion of government caring for public safety during an election run-up.

When I see young men trained for combat with automatic weapons in crowded train stations my first thought is collateral damage.

But that is not the important danger to society. It is the fact that military can be deployed against citizens and how the society controls the deployers, should they want more power.

Infinite Chaos · May 28, 2017

Manc Skipper said:
It's the not far away from being a private army. There's a national committee but the structure and oversight is vague enough to be a concern.

OTOH, we haven't had the numbers of bad policing incidents seen by the ordinary police force but that's derailing the thread.

joG said:
~ I hope you see the manifold differences.

To be frank, no I don't. You're not making much sense. A reporter gives a Manchester policeman a beer and he hands over an SD card of images from a bombing so it can be published in US papers?

Foolishness.

joG said:
When I see young men trained for combat with automatic weapons in crowded train stations my first thought is collateral damage. ~

OK, how many innocent bystanders have been killed when British police and or military have had to discharge their weapons in public? Now compare that to other nations and come back when you have something of worth.

joG · May 28, 2017

Infinite Chaos said:
OTOH, we haven't had the numbers of bad policing incidents seen by the ordinary police force but that's derailing the thread.

To be frank, no I don't. You're not making much sense. A reporter gives a Manchester policeman a beer and he hands over an SD card of images from a bombing so it can be published in US papers?

Foolishness.

OK, how many innocent bystanders have been killed when British police and or military have had to discharge their weapons in public? Now compare that to other nations and come back when you have something of worth.

- oh, it makes sense. You've just never handled that kind of situation. It happens all the time.
- in most places the military patrols the streets there is collateral damage. Even in disciplined places with lots of practice like Israel. I would be surprised to find that it had never happened at the prime time of the RAF.
- but that is not, as I mentioned somewhere in the thread, not the greatest danger from allowing the government to deploy military against its citizens. BTW the government and the law and order people will usually argue that it isn't "against the citizens". That is what Putin says of Assad.

Manc Skipper · May 28, 2017

Though they are rare, 2016 was a relatively "bad" year for British police shootings. Five people were killed. James Wilson, William Smith, Dalian Atkinson, (who was tased, and died) Josh Pitt, and Lewis Skelton. None of them were bystanders.

Stop your silliness, and behave.

UK raises threat level to 'critical'

PeteEU

Infinite Chaos

gunner

gunner

gunner

joG

joG

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

gunner

nota bene

Infinite Chaos

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member

Infinite Chaos

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member

joG

joG

joG

joG

joG

Infinite Chaos

joG

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member