
How Britain has been kept safe for a decade - sjclemmy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803542
======
sevenless
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
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
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
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
As far as I know, we don't know the motivation of the Nice attack, so we can't
yet say it was certainly terrorism. It was certainly a deliberate act of mass
murder but that does not _necessarily_ mean it was a terrorist attack, which
implies a political or religious motivation to terrorize (as opposed to, say,
mental illness or general hatefulness). For example most US mass shootings are
not considered terrorism.

I realize this sounds a bit like hair splitting in the face of a horrible mass
murder, but terrorism has different policy implications from other kinds of
mass murder, so we should be careful about language.

~~~
bybjorn
You do not believe the reports that he was shouting "allahu akbar" then? Also,
check the latest news on the "cryptic sms's" sent from his phone.

~~~
sevenless
The information content of "Allah Ackbar" from an Arabic speaker is
essentially nil - it's used the same way English speakers use "Oh my god" \-
but him asking another involved party for "more weapons" via SMS, if true,
suggests it was a coordinated attack and most likely terrorism.

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

~~~
benmarks
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.

------
hliyan
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.

~~~
yardie
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
> 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
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
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.

------
bengalister
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
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
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.

------
Kurtz79
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...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/opinion/could-paris-happen-
here.html))

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

------
blisterpeanuts
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.

------
HappyFunGuy
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
When companies get hacked, their competitors don't say "we have better
security." Because they know that invites them to be hacked.

------
zimbatm
> 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
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.

~~~
cmdkeen
Given Erol Incedal, prosecuted in one of the few actual "secret trials", was
found not guilty I'd say that suggests a pretty decent basis for believing the
system isn't rigged. I'd even go so far as to say that secret trials are
likely to be the ones with higher acquittal rates as the further advanced the
plot is the less likely the need for secrecy as more conventional evidence can
be led by itself.

The judiciary and bar are still independent. The Court of Appeal regularly
sides against the government on issues relating to terrorism trials - for
instance why you can know the name of Erol Incedal.

Compared to Roman system on the continent, or the much more politicised US
system, I'd definitely contend the UK is one of the fairest judicial systems
on the planet to be accused of a serious crime.

~~~
mason55
Can you tell me about some of the differences in the Continental system? As an
American is love to learn the nuances

------
realusername
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.

~~~
PaulKeeble
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.

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

~~~
cmdkeen
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.

------
jkraker
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
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
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.

------
known
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)

------
EGreg
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.

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

