Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Terror threat raised from "substantial" to "severe"

59 replies

mateykatie · 22/01/2010 21:14

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8476238.stm

Does it mean anything, or is it another "45 minutes"?

The government is having an awful day with what has happened in Doncaster, after all...

OP posts:
chibi · 23/01/2010 12:59

I started another thread about this, not realising this one was already here.

this is what I said:

What am I supposed to do with this information? What can the purpose be other than to put me in a state of terror?

If I were told I were at severe risk of having a heart attack, I could make changes to my diet and lifestyle, if I chose. If I were at severe risk of a traffic accident, I could also alter my behaviour to help minimise this.

WTF am I meant to do about a severe risk of a terrorist incident? Not leave the house? Glare at people with suspiciously long beards?

Why even tell me? Seriously, what is the point of this?

Why is the threat severe now, as opposed to last week, or last month, and if there is nothing I can do beyond what I am already doing, what is the aim of making this information public?

It just seems to inject a level of constant fear and tension into daily life. I am unconvinced that this is really necessary or helpful.

This actually makes me angry.

BrahmsThirdRacket · 23/01/2010 13:02

Well, they have to put out some kind of warning if they think there's a likelihood of an attack. If they didn't, and then there was one, people would say 'Why didn't you tell us there was a risk'. You can't do anything about it, but that's life.

dittany · 23/01/2010 13:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

chibi · 23/01/2010 13:11

Well, they have to put out some kind of warning if they think there's a likelihood of an attack

I disagree. There weren't any warnings before the 7 July attacks in London, or the attempted ones that followed.

Likewise there were no warnings before the airline liquid explosives plot was exposed.

Nor were there any warnings before the xmas pants-on-fire guy made his attempt.

I really, really wonder what the point of this is - it can't be to ensure that we are prepared.

I am not trying to suggest that it is some sort of conspiracy, but I do think that it is v convenient to have a populace in a perennial state of terror. They are a lot more likely to swallow things that might otherwise seem over-the-top -- I am thinking of those proposals for extended detention of suspects without charge while police are gathering evidence against them, suggestions that there may be occasions where torture is appropriate.

There are others, these are just the first things that popped into my head.

As with anything else, the cynic in me asks, cui bono?(who benefits)

BrahmsThirdRacket · 23/01/2010 13:15

The risk was at severe for about 4 years. It was only quite recently (last year sometime) lowered to significant, or whatever it is now. It only makes the news when it changes.

BadgersPaws · 23/01/2010 15:16

"What am I supposed to do with this information?"

Accept ID cards, long queues at airports, intrusive body scanners, extended detention before being charged, detention without trial, CCTV cameras, electronic surveillance, more armed police and so on and so forth.

sarah293 · 23/01/2010 16:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

dittany · 23/01/2010 17:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BrahmsThirdRacket · 23/01/2010 18:25

Probably not. But isn't it a bit old hat to put up the terror warning just because there's an election coming. Everyone has seen through it. I don't think we had published threat levels during the IRA time, but they were definitely there after 9/11. As far as I can remember, it was 'severe' for the vast majority of the time, going up to 'critical/attack imminent' just after the 7/7 bombings and the attempted bombings at Glasgow. Then it went down to 'substantial' last year, which I thought was weird, and now it's gone back up. So the threat level isn't a lot different to what it's been for the past decade really.

Georgimama · 23/01/2010 18:28

I am willing to put money on it that as May approaches various "intelligence" reports will show an even more imminent risk of a conservative government a terrorist attack and the election will be postponed. Before anyone laughs the legislation exists to let him do it.

Will be delighted to be wrong.

BecauseImWorthIt · 23/01/2010 18:33

Cross-cultural comparisons of levels of security:

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorised from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was during the great fire of 1666.

The Scots raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line in the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralysing
the country's military capability.

It's not only the French who are on a heightened level of alert. Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout loudly and excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose".

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Americans meanwhile are carrying out pre-emptive strikes on all of their allies, just in case.

New Zealand has also raised its security levels - from "baaa" to "BAAAA!". Due to continuing defence cutbacks (the air force being a squadron of spotty teenagers flying paper aeroplanes and the navy some toy boats in the Prime Minister's bath), New Zealand only has one more level of escalation, which is "Shit, I hope Australia will come and rescue us".

Australia , meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, mate". Three more escalation levels remain, "Crikey!', "I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is cancelled". So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

HTH

noddyholder · 23/01/2010 18:33

The US sec of state is due here next week so that may have some bearing on this although I too feel this is to save TB's arse next week

hf128219 · 23/01/2010 18:33

If there is a tube strike any time soon you will now the risk was very real.

catinthehat2 · 23/01/2010 18:44

Part of the purpose is to ensure acceptance of war in Yemen. That is next on the list after Iraq and Afghanistan.

noddyholder · 23/01/2010 18:46

cat I fear that too the world is in a real mess atm I can't see an end to it

catinthehat2 · 23/01/2010 18:51

And what she said:
By BadgersPaws Sat 23-Jan-10 15:16:19
"What am I supposed to do with this information?"

Accept ID cards, long queues at airports, intrusive body scanners, extended detention before being charged, detention without trial, CCTV cameras, electronic surveillance, more armed police and so on and so forth.

catinthehat2 · 23/01/2010 18:53

Never mind Nod - it's Celebrity Big Brother tonight! Let's all stop worrying our pretty little girly heads about all this nasty scary stuff.

catinthehat2 · 23/01/2010 18:56

And obviously ignore all these nasty people - because you can bet this isn't going to feature highly on the news programmes tonight.

Nancy66 · 23/01/2010 19:07

I was on the London underground on Friday and, at Victoria, lots of guards got on going through the carriages saying 'is that your bag' 'whose buggy is this please' etc...never seen that before. Needless to say I got off at the next station!

BrahmsThirdRacket · 23/01/2010 19:18

Surely Brown would wish to shit all over Blair at the enquiry? If they can pin all the bad stuff on Blair, then Labour might have a better chance at the election.

BIWI, that's hilarious.

sarah293 · 23/01/2010 19:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

mateykatie · 23/01/2010 19:47

BacauseImWorthIt

OP posts:
orienteerer · 23/01/2010 19:52

Hmm, there has to be some justification for it however unspecific (and I don't believe an upcoming General Election is sufficient).

Awassailinglookingforanswers · 23/01/2010 19:53

BIWI that's brilliant

Awassailinglookingforanswers · 23/01/2010 19:55

could I suggest that the upcoming vist to the UK of Afghan leader Hamid Karzai and the UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon (and Hilary Clinton) could be part of the reason.

The DM seems to think they'd be after Clinton.......(personally I think an Al Qaeda/Talban linked terrorist would be after the Afghan leader - but hey what would I know )