5 ms·

How Britain has been kept safe for a decade

38 points by sjclemmy 10y ago

hliyan 10y ago
Attributing all this to intelligence sharing alone seems an oversimplification. I suspect the difference in the level of assimilation between British Muslims and their French counterparts is the biggest factor.
- hokkos 10y ago
  The problem with French intelligence is the number of services : − la Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure (DGSI) − la Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure (DGSE) − le Service central du renseignement territorial (SCRT) − la Sous-direction de l’anticipation opérationnelle de la gendarmerie nationale (SDAO) − la Direction du renseignement militaire (DRM) − la Direction de la protection et de la sécurité de la Défense (DPSD) − la Direction du renseignement de la préfecture de police de Paris (DRPP) − la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED) − le Traitement du renseignement et action contre les circuits financiers clandestins (Tracfin) And the coordination services: − l’Unité de coordination de la lutte antiterroriste (UCLAT) qui n’a autorité que sur les services relevant de la police nationale − l’État-major opérationnel de prévention du terrorisme (EMOPT) directement rattaché au ministre de l’Intérieur − le Coordonnateur national du renseignement auprès du Président de la République A 2000 pages and 6 months enquirie by a bipartisan commission found we should unify them but it was promptly ignored by the government.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    > A 2000 pages and 6 months enquirie by a bipartisan commission You're saying like this is part of the solution, but it's part of the problem Though it seems that some of those still might make sense as a separate entity, like Tracfin and DNRED
- yardie 10y ago
  I've traveled between London and Paris frequently. I found the visibility of fundamentalist muslims in the UK to be much higher than anywhere in France. The burka and niqab, for example, is not only illegal but even before being so it was extremely unpopular in France (I believe the estimate was ~200 for the entire country). Yet, walking around London and it's outskirts this was a common sight. France has managed to avoid most islamic extremists by working closely with local mosques; by not treating them as the enemy but as a local resource. The extremists are spreading their views through the internet. They are not welcome in the mosque.
  - MicroBerto 10y ago
    > France has managed to avoid most islamic extremists Yet any extremist can literally walk into France and terrorize, which is essentially what's happened. So perhaps the biggest difference the fact that Britain has a physical border wall?
    - yardie 10y ago
      He was originally from Tunisia, there is a large body of water that separates them from France. Extremists can arrive by plane or boat. The same way they can get into the UK.
      - MicroBerto 10y ago
        Not in the significant numbers that have been coming into France by way of land. Statistically speaking, the fewer terrorists you allow into your country, combined with the fewer amounts of terrorist organizations you allow to operate in your country, the fewer terrorist attacks you will have.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - ismail 10y ago
    "The burka and niqab, for example, is not only illegal but even before being so it was extremely unpopular in France" Niqaab/burka != terrorist
JupiterMoon 10y ago
Would joined up intelligence really prevent the lone lunatic attack? If so how?
- elcapitan 10y ago
  Also, weren't the Paris attacks organized from Brussels?
- cmdkeen 10y ago
  The suggestion is that "lone lunatics" don't wake up one day and decide to commit murder without there being any warning signs in advance. Even people who aren't in a cell are likely to exhibit changes in character, association and behaviour that could bring them to the attention of the authorities. One of the other things about the UK over the past 15 or so years has been the massive investment in "community policing". It has been a huge cultural change, police forces became police services. Thousands of PCSOs were hired and conscious efforts made to get officers out of cars and into communities building up relationships. While sources aren't revealed I'd be amazed if some of those 40 foiled plots hadn't been in part stopped due to better initial local intelligence rather than hi-tech GCHQ gizmos.
- DanBC 10y ago
  You monitor people who download certain material. You then see if they apply for passports or buy tickets to Syria (or the gateway countries to Syria). You then monitor them to see if they buy knives, guns, fertiliser / etc. You also monitor them to see if they're talking about their plan to kill people (because so far most of these attacks seem to have had some planning in semi-public fora.) To me this list is scary, and we should resist governments that ask for these powers. But currently this is at the mild end of what UK gov is asking for (and doing). They'd go much further in their human rights violations. As an example of some intrusive monitoring, and other measures, that were aimed at stopping radicalisation of a family, and preventing a child from flying to Syria: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/london-borough-tower-hamlets-v-b-13-july-2016/ https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/london-borough-tower-... This case in interesting because they could have used "joint enterprise" to convict the family, but chose not to. (A good thing, joint enterprise is linked to many miscarriages of justice).
zimbatm 10y ago
> Forty terrorist plots have been disrupted since 2005 (in Britain) - including seven in the past 18 months. Does anyone know where these numbers come from? Are the information to the individual cases available?
- JupiterMoon 10y ago
  It depends upon who you trust. Police/government release figures and press releases. However, one of the problems with the official statements is that terrorism trials in the UK can be (and are) held in closed courts in which evidence is withheld. Therefore the public cannot know if what they are being told is accurate+. + I don't actually think that we are being lied to (at the moment) but with closed trials we can't know that for sure.
  - sevenless 10y ago
    I agree it's unlikely they are outright lying but it is possible some of those terrorist plans were instigated in sting operations. So it's not clear how many of them would have proceeded absent government involvement. This is similar to the US: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/21/government-agents-directly-involved-us-terror-plots-report https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/21/government-age...
  - jahnu 10y ago
    Imagine if the Birmingham 6 or Guilford 4 and Maguire 7 were tried and convicted in secret courts.
    - cmdkeen 10y ago
      You mean the cases we know about due to the independent judiciary and that have led to massive systemic change? You're not going to find a terror suspect being interviewed by the police without a lawyer present and the whole thing being videoed. The days of false confessions and coercive interrogations are long gone.
      - 10y ago
jkraker 10y ago
If you have various groups working a problem and they don't communicate, they are significantly disadvantaged relative to groups that talk. Each of these groups have their particular specialties, and it could only be beneficial for them to communicate. Now whether this communication is THE standout factor preventing attacks...that seems a stretch.
- matdrewin 10y ago
  I would counter that being in the loop on everything adds a lot of noise and decreases your focus (because you have much more to look at) possibly making you less effective. Communication is hard.
  - jkraker 10y ago
    A fair point. I assumed with the article that the communication is working to some extent. I have no way of knowing whether that is indeed the case.
sevenless 10y ago
Touch a big fucking piece of wood with that title, BBC. Guns are much rarer in the UK than on the continent. This obviously doesn't make attacks impossible but it does make life harder for terrorists. For example, the maniac who murdered Lee Rigby with a knife tried to get a gun first. All he could get was a modified starter pistol that jammed on the first shot. The right wing terrorist who murdered Jo Cox apparently had a home made single shot pistol. Imagine if they'd been able to get Glocks or Kalashnikovs. I would like to see more restrictions on high strength peroxide as TATP seems to be the explosive of choice for terrorists.
- flexie 10y ago
  Good point, but it doesn't explain the Nice or Bruxelles attacks where the weapons were a truck and bombs, items that are as common or uncommon on the continent as in the UK.
  - sevenless 10y ago
    Of course, but shooting attacks have been a major component of terrorism in Europe (Paris, Charlie Hebdo, Brussels Jewish Museum, etc). I have to also point out that it's still not clear at this time whether Nice was a terrorist attack. The UK may be better protected against "truck amuck" incidents as we had so many IRA car and truck bombs. Risers and bollards are very common around public spaces (and also, we don't have the luxury of miles of riviera beach front...). For example a ramming attack at Glasgow airport in 2007 was prevented by bollards. As for bombs, I certainly hope someone buying the ingredients in the UK would immediately draw police attention.
    - hammock 10y ago
      Unless the driver was asleep at the wheel and it was all an accident, it's pretty clear Nice was a terrorist attack. The question you're looking for is whether it was an act of Muslim extremism.
      - sevenless 10y ago
OscarCunningham 10y ago
The boring truth is that the number of terrorist attacks is too small to draw significant conclusions from.
- benmarks 10y ago
  I suppose there's more data from the number of attacks which don't happen, but how we'd get that data, I don't know.
blisterpeanuts 10y ago
Intelligence sharing is a good idea, but the Nice attacker appears to have been an individual with mental health issues and no known fundamentalist tendencies. His family and associates probably knew something was wrong with him; he threatened his ex and was violence prone at times. Unfortunately, there's not a lot you can do, especially in a free society, unless the person runs afoul of the law. If they stay out of trouble, they can plan horrific attacks at a time of their choosing. The only thing I can think of is to have more available mental health services including residential treatment facilities, and make it easier for concerned families to get someone the help he needs before a tragedy occurs. Probably in an immigrant community, there's the shame factor to deal with as well; so discretion and confidentiality would be highly important. Beyond that, France and other countries taking in large numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers from troubled regions need to obviously limit the numbers and scrutinize each applicant more carefully. Easier said than done, but they have to try.
bengalister 10y ago
Maybe the lack of coordination between intelligence agencies is to blame (it cannot help anyway) but it cannot alone explain the difference. First we (I am French) have a larger muslim population: 3-3,5 millions for UK the double in France mainly from North Africa. So statistically speaking there's a higher chance of having islamists in France. Also many of French of Arabic origin just hate or despise France and the causes have different roots: historical (Algerian war), cultural and societal (high unemployment rate especially among arabic population). For UK, I don't think their population of muslims origin "have a grudge" on their host. Every Bastille day, new year's eve or big event does not go without burning cars and policemen attacked by young people with many of them being of North African origin, and it's getting worse with time. Of course relations between the different ethnic group are not going to get any better now . I am very pessimistic about the future of my country. I see a lot of educated young people wanting to leave it (and not only for business opportunities) and the level of violence raising up. Bad time for being French.
- ap22213 10y ago
  Could you or other French elaborate more on that last paragraph? I'm curious of why the younger French would want to leave. Is it only because of the influx of Muslims, violence, and job opportunities? Or, are there other things going on, as well?
  - bengalister 10y ago
    I don't how it is much different to other European countries but many people of my entourage went abroad. Some ex co-workers went to USA & Canada, some cousins to Scotland, Singapore and Ireland. And they have no intention to come back. That's the difference with 15 years ago, expats used to come back. Also some young co-workers also are searching jobs out of France, even co-workers of Arabic origins want to leave (1 is in the process of being recruited for a Dubai job). That's not a coincidence. The main reason used to be of the French gloomy economy, especially for the new comers on the job market, it is very hard even with qualifications to find a job. And there's no perspective on improvement on that side since the mentalities are very conservative (to stay polite). People think they cannot be successful in France and can be in the countries mentioned above. Now since 5 years ago, I think you can add the feeling of France not being safe. Many jews left France being fed-up of being targeted by the muslim community and the lack of reaction from "traditional" French. The influx of people from troubled areas is not going to help. I expect the number of French leaving the country to boom.
HappyFunGuy 10y ago
Being safe from terror attacks is 9 parts not being attacked, and 1 part catching people beforehand. If you state you are safe, because you're doing the 10% right, you're mistaken. Would you also state there's no planes blowing up because the TSA or UK equivelent? It is because they are not trying. So find out why they aren't trying, and you'll find out why you're "safe." Maybe you are killing less people with drones? Maybe your local assholes are bad at recruiting human meat sacrifices. If it was because information sharing, you'd have jails full of bad dudes right?
- kelukelugames 10y ago
  When companies get hacked, their competitors don't say "we have better security." Because they know that invites them to be hacked.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > If it was because information sharing, you'd have jails full of bad dudes right? How do you know we haven't?
realusername 10y ago
I expected much more from the BBC than some stupid "our intelligence is better you see !!" article. No it's not the intelligence which prevented anything, it's the fact that strategically, the UK is a much less desirable target than France. No amount of intelligence could have prevented what happened in Nice and Paris and saying the opposite is trying to rewrite history.
- walshemj 10y ago
  One problem in France there is no single equivalent of MI5 - there are multiple organisations doing counterterrorist work.
- PaulKeeble 10y ago
  I assume that its plausible to put in place policies such that terrorist attacks can be much reduced, but that wouldn't be a modern western country any more and indeed the level of repression required would inhibit a countries function so dramatically that it would likely create more terrorists in the long term.
Kurtz79 10y ago
I would be very careful in publishing such "pat-in-the-back" articles. I remember reading a NYT article shortly after the Paris attacks that said something like "this could never happen in the US" (because of better intelligence and integration), and then the San Bernardino shootings happened soon after and the Orlando shooting later... (found it: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/opinion/could-paris-happen-here.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/opinion/could-paris-happen...) While UK DOES have probably a better Intelligence than most European countries, it also has the advantages of being an island and being outside the Schengen area, so entry in the country is much easier to monitor by the authorities. It is also clear that, unlike UK, France has been singled out as the main EU target by the terrorists. Spain has been safe even longer than UK, and Italy has never been attacked, although both countries experience a constant flux of migrants from northern Africa and it's hard to think of their Intelligence agencies as better than the French one.
- simbalion 10y ago
  regarding the shootings, "gun free zones" are actually "safe for terror zones" and should be referred to as such.
EGreg 10y ago
Terrorism is a problem of technology. As technology gets better so does the ability for a small group of people to inflict damage. A quiet surveillance state is the inevitable response, and this is what's being described. AI and drones are the next step, because they are autonomous. It is not known yet how to deal with that. States may soon try to lock down all code for drones and AI from being used by the public.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
known 10y ago
I think it's due to 1 million CCTVs http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8159141.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8159141.stm
simbalion 10y ago
There's no such thing as 'safe places'. They're certainly picking and choosing their data.

38 points by sjclemmy 10y ago

Attributing all this to intelligence sharing alone seems an oversimplification. I suspect the difference in the level of assimilation between British Muslims and their French counterparts is the biggest factor.

hokkos 10y ago
The problem with French intelligence is the number of services : − la Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure (DGSI) − la Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure (DGSE) − le Service central du renseignement territorial (SCRT) − la Sous-direction de l’anticipation opérationnelle de la gendarmerie nationale (SDAO) − la Direction du renseignement militaire (DRM) − la Direction de la protection et de la sécurité de la Défense (DPSD) − la Direction du renseignement de la préfecture de police de Paris (DRPP) − la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED) − le Traitement du renseignement et action contre les circuits financiers clandestins (Tracfin) And the coordination services: − l’Unité de coordination de la lutte antiterroriste (UCLAT) qui n’a autorité que sur les services relevant de la police nationale − l’État-major opérationnel de prévention du terrorisme (EMOPT) directement rattaché au ministre de l’Intérieur − le Coordonnateur national du renseignement auprès du Président de la République A 2000 pages and 6 months enquirie by a bipartisan commission found we should unify them but it was promptly ignored by the government.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  > A 2000 pages and 6 months enquirie by a bipartisan commission You're saying like this is part of the solution, but it's part of the problem Though it seems that some of those still might make sense as a separate entity, like Tracfin and DNRED
yardie 10y ago
I've traveled between London and Paris frequently. I found the visibility of fundamentalist muslims in the UK to be much higher than anywhere in France. The burka and niqab, for example, is not only illegal but even before being so it was extremely unpopular in France (I believe the estimate was ~200 for the entire country). Yet, walking around London and it's outskirts this was a common sight. France has managed to avoid most islamic extremists by working closely with local mosques; by not treating them as the enemy but as a local resource. The extremists are spreading their views through the internet. They are not welcome in the mosque.
- MicroBerto 10y ago
  > France has managed to avoid most islamic extremists Yet any extremist can literally walk into France and terrorize, which is essentially what's happened. So perhaps the biggest difference the fact that Britain has a physical border wall?
  - yardie 10y ago
    He was originally from Tunisia, there is a large body of water that separates them from France. Extremists can arrive by plane or boat. The same way they can get into the UK.
    - MicroBerto 10y ago
      Not in the significant numbers that have been coming into France by way of land. Statistically speaking, the fewer terrorists you allow into your country, combined with the fewer amounts of terrorist organizations you allow to operate in your country, the fewer terrorist attacks you will have.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- ismail 10y ago
  "The burka and niqab, for example, is not only illegal but even before being so it was extremely unpopular in France" Niqaab/burka != terrorist

JupiterMoon 10y ago

Would joined up intelligence really prevent the lone lunatic attack? If so how?

elcapitan 10y ago
Also, weren't the Paris attacks organized from Brussels?
cmdkeen 10y ago
The suggestion is that "lone lunatics" don't wake up one day and decide to commit murder without there being any warning signs in advance. Even people who aren't in a cell are likely to exhibit changes in character, association and behaviour that could bring them to the attention of the authorities. One of the other things about the UK over the past 15 or so years has been the massive investment in "community policing". It has been a huge cultural change, police forces became police services. Thousands of PCSOs were hired and conscious efforts made to get officers out of cars and into communities building up relationships. While sources aren't revealed I'd be amazed if some of those 40 foiled plots hadn't been in part stopped due to better initial local intelligence rather than hi-tech GCHQ gizmos.
DanBC 10y ago
You monitor people who download certain material. You then see if they apply for passports or buy tickets to Syria (or the gateway countries to Syria). You then monitor them to see if they buy knives, guns, fertiliser / etc. You also monitor them to see if they're talking about their plan to kill people (because so far most of these attacks seem to have had some planning in semi-public fora.) To me this list is scary, and we should resist governments that ask for these powers. But currently this is at the mild end of what UK gov is asking for (and doing). They'd go much further in their human rights violations. As an example of some intrusive monitoring, and other measures, that were aimed at stopping radicalisation of a family, and preventing a child from flying to Syria: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/london-borough-tower-hamlets-v-b-13-july-2016/ https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/london-borough-tower-... This case in interesting because they could have used "joint enterprise" to convict the family, but chose not to. (A good thing, joint enterprise is linked to many miscarriages of justice).

zimbatm 10y ago

> Forty terrorist plots have been disrupted since 2005 (in Britain) - including seven in the past 18 months. Does anyone know where these numbers come from? Are the information to the individual cases available?

JupiterMoon 10y ago
It depends upon who you trust. Police/government release figures and press releases. However, one of the problems with the official statements is that terrorism trials in the UK can be (and are) held in closed courts in which evidence is withheld. Therefore the public cannot know if what they are being told is accurate+. + I don't actually think that we are being lied to (at the moment) but with closed trials we can't know that for sure.
- sevenless 10y ago
  I agree it's unlikely they are outright lying but it is possible some of those terrorist plans were instigated in sting operations. So it's not clear how many of them would have proceeded absent government involvement. This is similar to the US: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/21/government-agents-directly-involved-us-terror-plots-report https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/21/government-age...
- jahnu 10y ago
  Imagine if the Birmingham 6 or Guilford 4 and Maguire 7 were tried and convicted in secret courts.
  - cmdkeen 10y ago
    You mean the cases we know about due to the independent judiciary and that have led to massive systemic change? You're not going to find a terror suspect being interviewed by the police without a lawyer present and the whole thing being videoed. The days of false confessions and coercive interrogations are long gone.
    - 10y ago

jkraker 10y ago

If you have various groups working a problem and they don't communicate, they are significantly disadvantaged relative to groups that talk. Each of these groups have their particular specialties, and it could only be beneficial for them to communicate. Now whether this communication is THE standout factor preventing attacks...that seems a stretch.

matdrewin 10y ago
I would counter that being in the loop on everything adds a lot of noise and decreases your focus (because you have much more to look at) possibly making you less effective. Communication is hard.
- jkraker 10y ago
  A fair point. I assumed with the article that the communication is working to some extent. I have no way of knowing whether that is indeed the case.

sevenless 10y ago

Touch a big fucking piece of wood with that title, BBC. Guns are much rarer in the UK than on the continent. This obviously doesn't make attacks impossible but it does make life harder for terrorists. For example, the maniac who murdered Lee Rigby with a knife tried to get a gun first. All he could get was a modified starter pistol that jammed on the first shot. The right wing terrorist who murdered Jo Cox apparently had a home made single shot pistol. Imagine if they'd been able to get Glocks or Kalashnikovs. I would like to see more restrictions on high strength peroxide as TATP seems to be the explosive of choice for terrorists.

flexie 10y ago
Good point, but it doesn't explain the Nice or Bruxelles attacks where the weapons were a truck and bombs, items that are as common or uncommon on the continent as in the UK.
- sevenless 10y ago
  Of course, but shooting attacks have been a major component of terrorism in Europe (Paris, Charlie Hebdo, Brussels Jewish Museum, etc). I have to also point out that it's still not clear at this time whether Nice was a terrorist attack. The UK may be better protected against "truck amuck" incidents as we had so many IRA car and truck bombs. Risers and bollards are very common around public spaces (and also, we don't have the luxury of miles of riviera beach front...). For example a ramming attack at Glasgow airport in 2007 was prevented by bollards. As for bombs, I certainly hope someone buying the ingredients in the UK would immediately draw police attention.
  - hammock 10y ago
    Unless the driver was asleep at the wheel and it was all an accident, it's pretty clear Nice was a terrorist attack. The question you're looking for is whether it was an act of Muslim extremism.
    - sevenless 10y ago

OscarCunningham 10y ago

The boring truth is that the number of terrorist attacks is too small to draw significant conclusions from.

benmarks 10y ago
I suppose there's more data from the number of attacks which don't happen, but how we'd get that data, I don't know.

blisterpeanuts 10y ago

Intelligence sharing is a good idea, but the Nice attacker appears to have been an individual with mental health issues and no known fundamentalist tendencies. His family and associates probably knew something was wrong with him; he threatened his ex and was violence prone at times. Unfortunately, there's not a lot you can do, especially in a free society, unless the person runs afoul of the law. If they stay out of trouble, they can plan horrific attacks at a time of their choosing. The only thing I can think of is to have more available mental health services including residential treatment facilities, and make it easier for concerned families to get someone the help he needs before a tragedy occurs. Probably in an immigrant community, there's the shame factor to deal with as well; so discretion and confidentiality would be highly important. Beyond that, France and other countries taking in large numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers from troubled regions need to obviously limit the numbers and scrutinize each applicant more carefully. Easier said than done, but they have to try.

bengalister 10y ago

Maybe the lack of coordination between intelligence agencies is to blame (it cannot help anyway) but it cannot alone explain the difference. First we (I am French) have a larger muslim population: 3-3,5 millions for UK the double in France mainly from North Africa. So statistically speaking there's a higher chance of having islamists in France. Also many of French of Arabic origin just hate or despise France and the causes have different roots: historical (Algerian war), cultural and societal (high unemployment rate especially among arabic population). For UK, I don't think their population of muslims origin "have a grudge" on their host. Every Bastille day, new year's eve or big event does not go without burning cars and policemen attacked by young people with many of them being of North African origin, and it's getting worse with time. Of course relations between the different ethnic group are not going to get any better now . I am very pessimistic about the future of my country. I see a lot of educated young people wanting to leave it (and not only for business opportunities) and the level of violence raising up. Bad time for being French.

ap22213 10y ago
Could you or other French elaborate more on that last paragraph? I'm curious of why the younger French would want to leave. Is it only because of the influx of Muslims, violence, and job opportunities? Or, are there other things going on, as well?
- bengalister 10y ago
  I don't how it is much different to other European countries but many people of my entourage went abroad. Some ex co-workers went to USA & Canada, some cousins to Scotland, Singapore and Ireland. And they have no intention to come back. That's the difference with 15 years ago, expats used to come back. Also some young co-workers also are searching jobs out of France, even co-workers of Arabic origins want to leave (1 is in the process of being recruited for a Dubai job). That's not a coincidence. The main reason used to be of the French gloomy economy, especially for the new comers on the job market, it is very hard even with qualifications to find a job. And there's no perspective on improvement on that side since the mentalities are very conservative (to stay polite). People think they cannot be successful in France and can be in the countries mentioned above. Now since 5 years ago, I think you can add the feeling of France not being safe. Many jews left France being fed-up of being targeted by the muslim community and the lack of reaction from "traditional" French. The influx of people from troubled areas is not going to help. I expect the number of French leaving the country to boom.

HappyFunGuy 10y ago

Being safe from terror attacks is 9 parts not being attacked, and 1 part catching people beforehand. If you state you are safe, because you're doing the 10% right, you're mistaken. Would you also state there's no planes blowing up because the TSA or UK equivelent? It is because they are not trying. So find out why they aren't trying, and you'll find out why you're "safe." Maybe you are killing less people with drones? Maybe your local assholes are bad at recruiting human meat sacrifices. If it was because information sharing, you'd have jails full of bad dudes right?

kelukelugames 10y ago
When companies get hacked, their competitors don't say "we have better security." Because they know that invites them to be hacked.
DanBC 10y ago
> If it was because information sharing, you'd have jails full of bad dudes right? How do you know we haven't?

realusername 10y ago

I expected much more from the BBC than some stupid "our intelligence is better you see !!" article. No it's not the intelligence which prevented anything, it's the fact that strategically, the UK is a much less desirable target than France. No amount of intelligence could have prevented what happened in Nice and Paris and saying the opposite is trying to rewrite history.

walshemj 10y ago
One problem in France there is no single equivalent of MI5 - there are multiple organisations doing counterterrorist work.
PaulKeeble 10y ago
I assume that its plausible to put in place policies such that terrorist attacks can be much reduced, but that wouldn't be a modern western country any more and indeed the level of repression required would inhibit a countries function so dramatically that it would likely create more terrorists in the long term.

Kurtz79 10y ago

I would be very careful in publishing such "pat-in-the-back" articles. I remember reading a NYT article shortly after the Paris attacks that said something like "this could never happen in the US" (because of better intelligence and integration), and then the San Bernardino shootings happened soon after and the Orlando shooting later... (found it: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/opinion/could-paris-happen-here.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/opinion/could-paris-happen...) While UK DOES have probably a better Intelligence than most European countries, it also has the advantages of being an island and being outside the Schengen area, so entry in the country is much easier to monitor by the authorities. It is also clear that, unlike UK, France has been singled out as the main EU target by the terrorists. Spain has been safe even longer than UK, and Italy has never been attacked, although both countries experience a constant flux of migrants from northern Africa and it's hard to think of their Intelligence agencies as better than the French one.

simbalion 10y ago
regarding the shootings, "gun free zones" are actually "safe for terror zones" and should be referred to as such.

EGreg 10y ago

Terrorism is a problem of technology. As technology gets better so does the ability for a small group of people to inflict damage. A quiet surveillance state is the inevitable response, and this is what's being described. AI and drones are the next step, because they are autonomous. It is not known yet how to deal with that. States may soon try to lock down all code for drones and AI from being used by the public.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

known 10y ago

I think it's due to 1 million CCTVs http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8159141.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8159141.stm

simbalion 10y ago

There's no such thing as 'safe places'. They're certainly picking and choosing their data.