Al Qaeda terror threat or Propaganda?

[Bugrit]

Am I alone in thinking that this just a prelude to more 'anti-terror' legislation which further attacks civil liberties (e.g. right to protest/gather/strike) in advance of announcements on cuts?

Wigeon am I safe to fly on Friday from a London airport?

"And terrorism itself has changed - far more sophisticated. "

But that's just it, the terrorists we face here are not far more sophisticated or far more skilled. Compared to the IRA they are distinctly amateurish. Some of that is done to the Intelligence Services denying them the ability to organise but trying to load a car with gas cylinders hoping it makes a bomb is, for example, demonstrates utter ignorance of how such things work.

The IRA were well funded (thanks America) and well equipped (thanks Libya) and knew how to put the two together.

We've had one successful group here in the UK, the 7/7 bombers, and they managed to take themselves out of the terrorist pool in the process.

I hope you're right - I hope we are dealing with a bunch of incompetent amateurs. That doesn't match the perception I have (Al Quaeda don't seem to lack funding), but then I don't really know enough to quibble.

Wigeon - that's not comforting frankly. I used to work in this area. Governments are not going to solve this problem. It's not actually in their interests to acknowledge it even. Private businesses need to solve it. It's them that will be destroyed. The country will still be here. And it's uneconomical for the majority of sectors of UK business to bother frankly.

Economic terrorism is an interesting proposition n'est pas? Obliterate any hope a large company has of succeeding. Make it a high profile company. Do it by stealth and make sure it looks like the staff are responsible.

I still think we should take a calculated gamble and withdraw all airport security which is actually, not shown to make any difference to outcomes. It's retrospective - it checks for things that have been known before. Shoe bombers, liquid devices. How very 2008! There's better, cleaner and more efficient methods.

Luckily it seems that Al Qaeda aren't as good at this stuff as some of our homegrown talent though I reckon there are a few developing economies who have the ability, it's just whether they have the desire and whether we are their biggest enemy at the time.

'It's not "someone's" civil liberties who would be infringed, it would be yours.

When you have anti-terror legislation used to harass photographers, check on parents applying for school places, to investigate benefit fraud, to enforce no-smoking policies and to try and get money out of Icelandic banks then something is very very wrong.

If a free and tolerant society can be turned into a totalitarian paranoid police state then the terrorists have scored a bit of a victory.'

I don't mind my civil liberties being infringed, but I was a bit at the rather over enthusiastic use of the anti terror legislation for Iceland ( it really pissed my Icelandic friends off), and for the school places and photographers.

I have my civil liberties infringed every time we fill out a direct vetting form; ins and outs of all my finances as well as dh's, and I don't get to say no (or keep my deatils from dh either). They even want details of my late father (address: in a pot under a magnolia) who was in HM Forces for 36 years.

"Governments are not going to solve this problem. It's not actually in their interests to acknowledge it even."

Well cynically it's immensely in the Government's interests to acknowledge a terrorism problem. It allows them to do all sorts of things (ID Cards, detention without charge, control orders, investigative powers etc.) that they wouldn't otherwise get the public backing for.

If it's in the Government's interest to solve the problem is something that depends on how cynical you actually are...

Hitler was warned that if he were to win WW2 he would face decades of terrorist style resistance to German occupation. He welcomed this, it would provide a focus for the German people and allow his Government the excuse to do pretty much whatever it wanted.

Nothing much has changed.

"I don't mind my civil liberties being infringed, but I was a bit at the rather over enthusiastic use of the anti terror legislation for Iceland"

You don't mind but you were also a bit ?

So you actually do mind?

Things like the anti-terror search laws have been used thousands of times to hassle photographers, demonstrators and other members of the public but I don't think they've resulted in one single arrest for any terrorism charge.

So not only do the laws trample all over our civil rights but they don't appear to actually be doing what they are intended to do. So why exactly are we accepting these abuses? How on earth have we allowed laws to come into force that we were told were for terrorists but are actually being used to spy on what pensioners put in their bins? They don't even pretend that there's some terrorism related reason when wielding the anti-terror stick.

There does have to be a balance but right now the balance is all wrong.

I think the anti-terror legislation if used correctly is fine. I would expect, if I stood outside Devonport Naval base and tried to take pics of people going in and out, to be questioned. It depends what you are photographing tbh.

Councils need to be challenged if they are using this legislation ultra-vires, and this is happening.

I agree the balance is skewed, but would prefer the legislation to be there rather than not.

"I think the anti-terror legislation if used correctly is fine"

But it's not being used correctly, and it's not just Councils abusing them but the Police as well.

And what do we get in return for giving our rights up? Nothing. Not one single terrorism related arrest has come as a result of the search laws.

So the authorities have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to use the current set of laws and powers correctly. They've demonstrated quite the opposite that they can't be trusted.

And that is the problem.

We're told we need these laws to fight terrorism.

Instead there being used to fight us.

Not having the legislation wouldn't have resulted in one single terrorist walking free. On the other hand it has resulted, for example, in a photographer in Kent not being arrested for being too tall.

We sometimes have to give up rights and freedoms when a good case for doing so has been made and their are suitable safe guards in place.

That's not what's going on here.

With badgers.