Terrorist Threat in the UK - Severe

[Assume Nothing]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11335412

 

The UK faces a continuing serious risk of a lethal terrorist attack taking place, the head of MI5 has warned.

 

Jonathan Evans raised concerns over the number of soon-to-be-freed inmates who are "committed extremists and likely to return to terrorist activities".

 

He also said Somalia and Yemen were important concerns for MI5, as a source of serious plots against the UK.

 

And, he said, the security service had not expected dissident republicanism to grow as it had in Northern Ireland.

 

Mr Evans, who made the rare public remarks to the Worshipful Company of Security Professionals in London, said dealing with international terrorism remained the main focus of MI5's efforts.

 

'Diversifying threat'

"Counter-terrorist capabilities have improved in recent years but there remains a serious risk of a lethal attack taking place. I see no reason to believe that the position will significantly improve in the immediate future," he said.

 

He said hundreds of officers were involved in an "intense struggle", largely out of sight of the public.

 

Every month, hundreds of new leads come into MI5 headquarters at Thames House from various sources, with only sufficient resources to investigate those that appeared to be high priority, Mr Evans said.

 

"At any one time we have a handful of investigations that we believe involve the real possibility of a terrorist attack being planned against the UK," he said.

 

One concern is that a number of individuals, convicted of offences in the years after the 9/11 attacks, are now coming out of prison having served their terms.

 

"We know that some of these prisoners are still committed extremists who are likely to return to their terrorist activities," Mr Evans said, adding that they would be added to the cases that needed to be monitored.

 

He said another change in recent years was the source of the most serious plots.

 

In previous years, officials have said that 75% of priority plots had links to Pakistan. That figure has now dropped to 50%.

 

This was partly because of pressure on al-Qaeda leadership operating in Pakistan's tribal areas, but it was also a sign of a diversifying threat, he said.

 

Mr Evans said in Somalia there were a "significant number of UK residents training in Al Shabaab camps" to fight in the country.

 

"I am concerned that it is only a matter of time before we see terrorism on our streets inspired by those who are today fighting alongside Al Shabaab," he warned.

 

'Nasty disappointment'

He said Yemen was the other main country of concern.

 

He said the involvement of the radical preacher Anwar Al Awlaqi in a succession of plots - and the influence of his message in the UK - had raised concerns that his adherents, possibly lone individuals, would respond by mounting attacks.

 

 

Mr Evans admitted that when MI5 assumed the lead responsibility for intelligence in Northern Ireland in October 2007, its "working assumption" was that the residual threat from terrorism was low, and likely to go down.

 

Instead the opposite has happened. Mr Evans described a "persistent rise in terrorist activity and ambition", with signs of increasing co-ordination and co-operation between disparate groups in recent months.

 

This year there had been more than 30 attacks or attempted attacks by dissident republicans on security targets, compared with just over 20 for the whole of last year, he said.

 

Mr Evans also warned that while the campaign by dissident republicans was currently focused on Northern Ireland, MI5 "cannot exclude the possibility" that it might spread to the mainland.

 

Mr Evans also warned against a "zero tolerance" attitude to the terrorist risk, which he said was spreading.

 

"In recent years we appear increasingly to have imported from the American media the assumption that terrorism is 100% preventable and any incident that is not prevented is seen as a culpable government failure.

 

"This is a nonsensical way to consider terrorist risk and only plays into the hands of the terrorists themselves. Risk can be managed and reduced but it cannot realistically be abolished and if we delude ourselves that it can we are setting ourselves up for a nasty disappointment," he said.

 

What do you think the government should do? Is UK even safe anymore?

[Bows]

No place will ever be 'safe' while extremists/terrorists are out there. Hell, right now in my house I could be bombed; technically I'm not ever safe. So, the UK isn't safe, the US isn't safe, not even Russia is safe.

[Jernlov]

What is with all you Americans making threads about us? You know [bleep] all.

[Bows]

What is with all you Americans making threads about us? You know [bleep] all.

Who says Dzi is an American?

[Serpent Eye]

No place will ever be 'safe' while extremists/terrorists are out there. Hell, right now in my house I could be bombed; technically I'm not ever safe. So, the UK isn't safe, the US isn't safe, not even Russia is safe.

Nothing like a good story before bed. :P

 

Seriously though, I don't get bogged down worrying about this stuff every day, or I'd just get depressed.

[Rainy_Day]

What is with all you Americans making threads about us? You know [bleep] all.

Dzi is English. Great one though. :thumbup:

 

I think our country is a little too lenient on most sentencing, Judge's have inlfuence on their sentencing due to the knowledge that prisons are overcrowding. That shouldn't be an issue for them, that's a problem for the Government to deal with.

 

I'm confident that MI5/police services can prevent most incidents though, after the events of 9/11 & 7/7, security is a bit more intense these days.

[Shiny]

:thumbup: You guys in YK will be fine. I thinjk the world is ultimately moving towards peac.e

[Racheya]

*shrugs*

 

We weren't safe yesterday, we're not safe today and we won't be safe tomorrow.

 

I can live with it.

[assassin_696]

I think our country is a little too lenient on most sentencing, Judge's have inlfuence on their sentencing due to the knowledge that prisons are overcrowding. That shouldn't be an issue for them, that's a problem for the Government to deal with.

 

Judges are restricted by whatever sentencing guidelines they are given, trust me when I say prison overcrowding is not factored into their sentencing decisions. If the sentences are too lenient then there needs to be reform higher up, but any judges trying to reform from the bench would just have the sentence appealed and probably overturned.

[obfuscator]

*shrugs*

 

We weren't safe yesterday, we're not safe today and we won't be safe tomorrow.

 

I can live with it.

This. It's really the same everywhere. Canada's been incredibly lucky that we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since the 70's, and that was internal. (not counting Air India in the 80's, since that wasn't in Canada). Still, they catch terrorists every few years here, and I won't be at all surprised if sooner or later something actually happens.

[magekillr]

Yeah, you guys can give up all your civil liberties in the name of terrorism, just like we did here in the United States! After all, your tool of a PM gave our president plenty of domestic cover to invade Iraq, I guess it's our turn to return the favor and let you know about how giving up our 4th amendment rights is totally worth feeling "safe."

[Naraku893]

Yeah, you guys can give up all your civil liberties in the name of terrorism, just like we did here in the United States! After all, your tool of a PM gave our president plenty of domestic cover to invade Iraq, I guess it's our turn to return the favor and let you know about how giving up our 4th amendment rights is totally worth feeling "safe."

 

This :thumbup:

[Guy]

Like someone (can't remember who) said, if I worried about this sort of thing every day, I would just become depressed. Ultimately, it's not my job to worry about this kind of thing, nor do I really want to. I'm sure MI5 know what they're doing.

[Rainy_Day]

I think our country is a little too lenient on most sentencing, Judge's have inlfuence on their sentencing due to the knowledge that prisons are overcrowding. That shouldn't be an issue for them, that's a problem for the Government to deal with.

 

Judges are restricted by whatever sentencing guidelines they are given, trust me when I say prison overcrowding is not factored into their sentencing decisions. If the sentences are too lenient then there needs to be reform higher up, but any judges trying to reform from the bench would just have the sentence appealed and probably overturned.

That explains GBH/theft cases being given suspended sentences as opposed to a real punishment (jail time). :razz: I realise they are restricted, but their decisions aren't half lenient most of the time.

[Guest Rob]

People are now (or will be) scared that a terrorist attack is about to take a place, and they'll all die. Now there will be panic from many people(Not a majority, but enough), and possibly paranoia, and a few other things.

 

Are the terrorists now saying "mission complete"?

 

So, isn't issuing a terrorist warning really handing them a trophy, and letting them win?

[Will H]

People are now (or will be) scared that a terrorist attack is about to take a place, and they'll all die. Now there will be panic from many people(Not a majority, but enough), and possibly paranoia, and a few other things.

 

Are the terrorists now saying "mission complete"?

 

So, isn't issuing a terrorist warning really handing them a trophy, and letting them win?

 

Not really. Considering that there's no logical plan of action that the public could do to make themselves 'safer', so they won't do anything about it and go about their daily lives. Now, if it was a particular place that the article said was of high risk of a bombing, that would be a different matter.For now, I'm just living life and not wasting my time worrying about this kind of thing.

[Alg]

The point of terrorism is to cause fear though.

[Will H]

The point of terrorism is to cause fear though.

 

Nearly, the point of terrorism is to use fear to achieve a goal. If the pressure has no direction, it has no effect.

[Alg]

The point of terrorism is to cause fear though.

 

Nearly, the point of terrorism is to use fear to achieve a goal. If the pressure has no direction, it has no effect.

The goal is most likely the same as the goal of every other recent terrorist attack.

[The Observer]

Suppose I'm thankful for being Canadian. Doesn't mean I'm safe though. None of us really are...

[Dexek]

I'm safe due to where I live within my country, though my country itself, nor any country will never be truly safe.

[Giordano]

Being born into a living creature warrants you a life of danger.

[obfuscator]

I'm safe due to where I live within my country, though my country itself, nor any country will never be truly safe.

You're not safe...you don't live in a place that would make an ideal target, but it's certainly possible something could happen.

 

For example: any bio-terrorism attempt might be focused on farm country.

[The Dark Lord]

The point of terrorism is to cause fear though.

 

Nearly, the point of terrorism is to use fear to achieve a goal. If the pressure has no direction, it has no effect.

The goal is most likely the same as the goal of every other recent terrorist attack.

 

Terrorism actually is a pretty effective tactic for revolutionary groups to use in order to achieve their desired means. It's especially useful for those who lack the necessary numbers in order to fight their enemies head-on. Take the Irish Republican Army for instance... Do you honestly think that (from their point of view) that it would be better to sacrifice their lives on the battlefield against the British military and then failing to achieve the means (union of all of Ireland) that they devoted their lives to? I mean, it would be rather silly to do so since they know that they would fail in a "fair" fight anyway. It's much easier to cause mayhem, bomb the [cabbage] out of people, and be a thorn in the UK government's ass.

[Giordano]

Uhh, no. Today's terrorism it the most ineffective form of waging a war there could possibly be. Why not bomb the Parliament building than buses? Why not attack military bases around the world than taxi vans. Right now they scare over the population, which they think we've got some sort of political power? Lol, we're as screwed as they are.

 

Attacking where the the politicians' interests are, then it'll hurt. Their government buildings, their businesses, their banks, their assets, their families, etc.