Severe threat to the UK

[LeazesMag 0]

 

yes, you are right. I remember now. Shows nothing is 100% safe though doesn't it ?

 

Exactly.

 

In the last 3 years since the attack mentioned above we've increased defence spending by 15% and justified it as keeping us safe though.

 

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDef...nceSpending.htm

 

 

What price security though? You have just quoted an example since Lockerbie that could have been a bigger disaster. Does this warrant more money spent on airport security ? This is political. The NHS, Education, Transport etc, they all could do with more money - some of them could be managed better too - but where do you draw the line ? How much of your taxes would you be prepared to pay ? Some people are prepared to pay for this, and some aren't [but still expect it to still be a good "service"].

 

The two bold questions seem to me to be contradictions. How do you define "security" in the second one? The absolute certainty that we'll be safe on the tube, the terminal or the plane? We agree that's impossible. For that reason I would not have advocated any significant increase in security spending either following 9/11 or 7/7. Certainly not at a rate higher than increases in education, health or even transport spending. I don't believe that either of those events made Great Britain an inherently more dangerous place to live.

 

yes, it is impossible.

 

It is when something happens, the public come out and ask questions. They don't appear to understand that such things are impossible to achieve. When nothing happens, they complain about the cost though.

 

My personal opinon is that all the public services are underfunded, you could also say they are badly managed and they probably are in lots of areas. People can't expect high standards from underfunded public service, I think decreasing proportional spending increases the chance of an attack. 9/11 and 7/7 would have made the average man in the street more aware of security, but there are still millions who think it won't happen to them so they aren't too concerned. But of course, there are victims in every attack who thought it wouldn't happen to them. I know a guy who, on the day of the 7/7,, didn't get that bus to work. He got it every single day but missed it that once .....

Edited February 12, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Happy Face 29]

 

yes, you are right. I remember now. Shows nothing is 100% safe though doesn't it ?

 

Exactly.

 

In the last 3 years since the attack mentioned above we've increased defence spending by 15% and justified it as keeping us safe though.

 

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDef...nceSpending.htm

 

 

What price security though? You have just quoted an example since Lockerbie that could have been a bigger disaster. Does this warrant more money spent on airport security ? This is political. The NHS, Education, Transport etc, they all could do with more money - some of them could be managed better too - but where do you draw the line ? How much of your taxes would you be prepared to pay ? Some people are prepared to pay for this, and some aren't [but still expect it to still be a good "service"].

 

The two bold questions seem to me to be contradictions. How do you define "security" in the second one? The absolute certainty that we'll be safe on the tube, the terminal or the plane? We agree that's impossible. For that reason I would not have advocated any significant increase in security spending either following 9/11 or 7/7. Certainly not at a rate higher than increases in education, health or even transport spending. I don't believe that either of those events made Great Britain an inherently more dangerous place to live.

 

yes, it is impossible.

 

It is when something happens, the public come out and ask questions. They don't appear to understand that such things are impossible to achieve. When nothing happens, they complain about the cost though.

 

My personal opinon is that all the public services are underfunded, you could also say they are badly managed and they probably are in lots of areas. People can't expect high standards from underfunded public service, I think decreasing proportional spending increases the chance of an attack. 9/11 and 7/7 would have made the average man in the street more aware of security, but there are still millions who think it won't happen to them so they aren't too concerned. But of course, there are victims in every attack who thought it wouldn't happen to them. I know a guy who, on the day of the 7/7,, didn't get that bus to work. He got it every single day but missed it that once .....

 

The way I look at it, the danger of being burgled, beaten, raped, murdered etc is far greater than the danger of being bombed (thought still small) and is reduced by more policing.

 

Since 2001 UK defence spending has increased £13Billion from £24Billion to £37Billion. That's 55% (or 6% a year), supposedly to keep us safer.

 

In the same period Northumbria police budget has increased from £228m to £300m. Just over a 30% increase or (3.3% a year), around half as much, in an area that would have a far more beneficial impact on the security of UK residents.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

yes, you are right. I remember now. Shows nothing is 100% safe though doesn't it ?

 

Exactly.

 

In the last 3 years since the attack mentioned above we've increased defence spending by 15% and justified it as keeping us safe though.

 

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDef...nceSpending.htm

 

 

What price security though? You have just quoted an example since Lockerbie that could have been a bigger disaster. Does this warrant more money spent on airport security ? This is political. The NHS, Education, Transport etc, they all could do with more money - some of them could be managed better too - but where do you draw the line ? How much of your taxes would you be prepared to pay ? Some people are prepared to pay for this, and some aren't [but still expect it to still be a good "service"].

 

The two bold questions seem to me to be contradictions. How do you define "security" in the second one? The absolute certainty that we'll be safe on the tube, the terminal or the plane? We agree that's impossible. For that reason I would not have advocated any significant increase in security spending either following 9/11 or 7/7. Certainly not at a rate higher than increases in education, health or even transport spending. I don't believe that either of those events made Great Britain an inherently more dangerous place to live.

 

yes, it is impossible.

 

It is when something happens, the public come out and ask questions. They don't appear to understand that such things are impossible to achieve. When nothing happens, they complain about the cost though.

 

My personal opinon is that all the public services are underfunded, you could also say they are badly managed and they probably are in lots of areas. People can't expect high standards from underfunded public service, I think decreasing proportional spending increases the chance of an attack. 9/11 and 7/7 would have made the average man in the street more aware of security, but there are still millions who think it won't happen to them so they aren't too concerned. But of course, there are victims in every attack who thought it wouldn't happen to them. I know a guy who, on the day of the 7/7,, didn't get that bus to work. He got it every single day but missed it that once .....

 

The way I look at it, the danger of being burgled, beaten, raped, murdered etc is far greater than the danger of being bombed (thought still small) and is reduced by more policing.

 

Since 2001 UK defence spending has increased £13Billion from £24Billion to £37Billion. That's 55% (or 6% a year), supposedly to keep us safer.

 

In the same period Northumbria police budget has increased from £228m to £300m. Just over a 30% increase or (3.3% a year), around half as much, in an area that would have a far more beneficial impact on the security of UK residents.

 

Well I would rather be burgled than bombed....

 

Don't you think the danger of being bombed has increased ? If so, how do you measure it in percentage terms ?

[Happy Face 29]

I think I covered that earlier.....

 

Looking at the history, in 21 years there's been two bombings on planes....

 

1994 Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901

2004 Russian aircraft bombings

 

Compared with 20 or so in the 40 years prior to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_bombings

 

If anything it's a downward trend.

 

In terms of Hijackings, there were 12 notable occurences in all the 2000's.

 

This compares with 13 in the 90's, 16 in the 80's and 21 in the 70s.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notab...raft_hijackings

 

These reduced numbers go hand in hand with an exponential increase in the number of flights being flown.

 

Yet as these numbers dwindle, the panic whipped up seems to be far greater than when more attacks actually took place.

[Rob W 0]

No-one will tell you how many real bombers have been intercepted in airport security checks - the rumour is , in the USA, zero...............

[Park Life 71]

No-one will tell you how many real bombers have been intercepted in airport security checks - the rumour is , in the USA, zero...............

 

Big hoo-ha in the states as it is revealed security services knew about underwear bomber and let him on plane. No suprises there.

[Park Life 71]

Patseeeeeeeeeeeeeee