To think the "but there might be a terrorist attack" doomsayers should stfu

[PourquoiTuGachesTaVie]

Because they are in fact spreading terror. I've seen it on here and elsewhere loads. Christmas eve shopping, black Friday sales, concerts, tube journeys... basically, we can't do anything anymore because there might be a terrorist attack... oh no... wait.... that's not right is it?

I also don't think the preppers board is helping either

I don't like the car crash comparison.

Unless you mean it to be 'going out in the car and being killed by someone who has deliberately planned to ram as many people as possible that day'

Viking that's the point about cars though. No one need do anything. People driving normally have accidents or run over kids crossing the road. We take sensible safety precautions like seat belts and car seats and pelican crossings but they remain dangerous. We take the risk every time we drive or walk by a road because it's worth it. Same with terrorism. You're risks of actually being caught up in a terrorist attack are vanishingly small; driving is much more risky in terms of causing injury or premature death.

But no fucker gets to decide that people's fears of something they are being told is "highly likely" are "illegitimate".

It's been "highly likely" for fucking months....

Highly likely for who, where? Pretty sure it's not worth someone in Ashby De La Zouche worrying about their DC going to the primary school disco.

And that applies to 99% of the country. So the panickers are either doing it for the hell of it, or should maybe think about moving house if they're actually anywhere likely to be blown up (your Majesty)......

Even people living in London haven't stopped doing stuff - because it's been "highly likely" that a fucking plane will fall on them for the past 50 years. It was "highly likely" that the IRA would get them in the 80's and ironically - it's the traffic and pollution that will actually shorten their lives or kill them.....

I'm "highly likely" to have a sodding heart attack reading comments like that - won't stop me though!!

There might be a terror attack. But there's not a lot we can do about it, as we don't know when or where it might be. I'm going into central London twice this week, and I suppose there's more likely to be an attack in London than there is in, say, Norwich. But you don't know. The IRA targeted both Warrington and Reading. The terrorists always have the element of surprise on their side. In the face of that, all you can do is to carry on as normal.

Someone on my fb page has just said that they'd been watching the news before bed and seen a terrorist attack on London is imminent and no where is safe anymore. So that was a really helpful comment to read this morning as I wave dh off to his London based job. It winds me up because she is posting it knowing she isn't going into London! So I call that scaremongering.

And also I'm pretty sure the news last night didn't say that. As far as I'm aware the threat level is still the same (and we all know it's high- we get it)

We are on the highest alert we are told to be vigilant of course it makes people nervous

As others have said. The alert level hasn't changed for over a year and is not yet at the highest level.

It is severe yes but has not changed in he UK after the recent attacks. It is at the same level as it was last Christmas.

Along with all the preventative measures, the Belgian authorities have told people to STFU not gossip. I think there'd be an outcry here if the authorities did the same- more so than concrete shutting things down.

foxes it's really unhelpful isn't it.
Again making it about the Facebook bollocks sharer, look at me with my superior vigilance and knowledge of world affair. Although it's wrong!

foxes yes I sympathise, this is exactly the kind of thing that drives me bats. I am currently sitting in my central London office like I do 5 days a week, after having taken the tube, like I do 5 days a week. What exactly do these people think they are doing by banging on about they refuse to bring their DC in London? Bully for them, but some of us don't have the choice and would rather not have to come online every day and read about how we're all going to be shot or blown up.

I think it's hugely irresponsible. I have said that on other threads and been flamed for it, but I stand by it.

Was so cross I typed that incredibly badly - apologies!

People always worry more about things they can't control, than things they can.

People get the wrong end of the stick all the time foxes. You've said as much about the person on your FB, yet you still say she was scaremongering.

You can't have it both ways. Either she worried you or she didn't. Which was it?

Meanwhile, I guess your DH is at work by now.

What? Scaremongering is still scaremongering whether it worries you or not? The whole reason why scaremongering is so bloody irresponsible is because it worries people.

I don't see how someone putting a status like that on facebook is anything other than scaremongering, particularly when said person doesn't have to go into London themselves.

For scaremongering to work you have to be scared maybe. The definition's kind of in the word.

You also have to have a credible reason to be scared, otherwise you are just as panicky as the person who put the rumour about in the first place.

If Theresa May put that on her FB I'd be scared. But some random woman on FB? No, not so much.

I take it you have objected in writing to the press and political scaremongers also?

We are not on the highest level of alert and an attack is not deemed to be imminent but ' 'severe' maning highly likely' - something will get through the net at some stage but at the moment there is no specific threat. I don't think an attack would focus on London anyway because London is extremely well equipped to respond quickly and police officers can be mobilised in large numbers quickly. Anyway, I can perfectly understand nervousness as long as the anxiety levels don't mean people react completely out of proportion and stop making plans and going about their normal business. But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't more nervous in the current climate.

For scaremongering to work you have to be scared maybe. The definition's kind of in the word.

I am. I've stated several times on this thread I have an anxiety disorder, OCD and intrusive thoughts, and people pointlessly saying 'I am not going to London in case I get shot' is extremely triggering for me and for people like me, especially when it pops up in completely innocuous threads about christmas shopping.

I'm not quibbling about whether it is or isn't scaremongering, I'm saying that it's irresponsible.

Yes I massively object to the media's scaremongering too! I have written letters and emails about it.

I'm with you, maybe and foxes.

I really don't understand why people keep on doing it. (and yes, my FB has people saying similar) I guess they get a vicarious thrill from it or something.

While I agree that all the random "we're all going to die!" interjections aren't at all helpful and should be rightly challenged, it sounds like might not be a bad time to cut down Internet use a bit maybe.

I'm sympathetic as I get health anxiety and know how unpredictable and uncontrollable anxiety can be. However, no one out there can predict every anxiety response, most can move past it, and this IS going to be talked about and worried about, that's just the reality of early weeks after a terror attack. Perhaps ease up for a bit?

That was an unfortunately phrased OP. But the underlying point is true.

A few hours before the Paris attack, I posted on one of the Remembrance threads about the 1940 Coventry Blitz.

That was a terror attack by the Nazis, intended to cause the population to break down and give way. And for a few days it looked like it might have worked. Then determination and "Blitz spirit" reasserted themselves, and people got on amid the rubble of their city.

They were still terrified, and their fears were entirely reasonable. But they had to dig deep and get on.

In our case, the enemy who has declared war on us can't beat us militarily (unlike the Nazis, where it was a close-run thing). They can ONLY use fear, divide-and-rule, suspicion, provocation, etc, and hope that we destroy ourselves.

to those suffering anxiety. There's a good post on another thread about actual risk as opposed to perceived risk: I'll see if I can find it.

Excellent post about risk, with figures, here.

The poster adds: Part of the reason why terrorism seems like a bigger threat, besides the fact that it makes much bigger news, is that it's easier to feel involved even if we're not. I feel connected to the Paris attacks because I found out later that a good friend of mine was within a mile of them at the time - if I'd said I felt 'connected' to a small (but fatal) accident on the M6 because I found out afterwards that a good friend of mine had been driving there on the same day and ended up stuck in traffic, you'd probably think I was insane at best.

BTW, the OP of that thread, who'd been asking whether to cancel a trip to the theatre?

They went... and had a wonderful time.

Radio 2 talked about it earlier in relation to Brussels, if there was a credible threat I would have stayed at home too. I cant believe that people are being so critical of this behaviour.

in the UK our risk is "Severe" according to MI5 SEVERE means an attack is highly likely. I think caution is acceptable, I will be avoiding crowded places when in London over the next few months, I can't avoid going there due to work commitments. Yes I will socialise but I won't be taking me or my DD to crowded places.

People are quoting Northern Ireland, saying that they lived with risks for years and still carried on their business however many lives were lost, ask a relative of a civilian killed by a terrorist attack in NI whilst they were going about their normal lives if they wished that their dead loved one had behaved differently due to a terrorist risk and you would get a majority yes.