Preventing Terrorism

[cyprusgrump]

Which tax increases were these then?

What? You think the cash for the anti radicalisation programmes, the increased security, the increased intelligence services, etc. comes from shaking the magic money tree...?

Okay, so there hasn't been a specific 'terrorism tax' but it all costs money. Money that comes from tax. Money that could be better spent elsewhere - like locking up the 3,000 that pose a significant threat for instance and other suggestions from the OP.

[Dominic]

Okay, so there hasn't been a specific 'terrorism tax' but it all costs money. Money that comes from tax. Money that could be better spent elsewhere - like locking up the 3,000 that pose a significant threat for instance and other suggestions from the OP.

This is precisely my point. It all costs money. Services have already been stripped back, and police forces cut. While they are recruiting the required extra police, and building the required detention centres, they will still need to be paying for the existing preventative measures.

I'm not saying the money shouldn't be spent. I'm saying that the public are going to have to accept that it will cost money, and the only way to raise that money is to have, as you coined it, a Terrorism Tax.

[cyprusgrump]

Okay, so there hasn't been a specific 'terrorism tax' but it all costs money. Money that comes from tax. Money that could be better spent elsewhere - like locking up the 3,000 that pose a significant threat for instance and other suggestions from the OP.

This is precisely my point. It all costs money. Services have already been stripped back, and police forces cut. While they are recruiting the required extra police, and building the required detention centres, they will still need to be paying for the existing preventative measures.

I'm not saying the money shouldn't be spent. I'm saying that the public are going to have to accept that it will cost money, and the only way to raise that money is to have, as you coined it, a Terrorism Tax.

Except the police haven't been drastically cut, services haven't been stripped back and public spending has increased incessantly.

But my point is that we are spending extra cash on methods that simply haven't worked, show no signs of working, are blocked by those that they target, etc. London and Manchester demonstrate that it simply isn't working.

And so, instead of spending ££££££s trying to track 3,000 who pose some serious risk - hoping that they do something bizarre like looking up 'how to make a bomb' or showing a sudden interest in 'how to fly a passenger aeroplane' on the interwebs - while simultaneously spending millions on anti-radicalisation programmes and millions more in security, armed police, army on the streets, etc. we simply round the 3,000 up.

It is unpleasant but necessary.

[PeteandSylvi]

But they don't tend to elect governments who put up taxes. That is my entire point. All this rhetoric is fine, but until the public accept that they WILL have to pay for it, then it is meaningless.

I don't think it is much of a point. At any time there is an elected government who could carry out this task. You don't need to elect a government to do it. Nor does any government need to ask permission of the people to do it.

During my lifetime there have been Labour and Conservative governments elected. Both have put up taxes, Labour rather more I fear, so to say people don't tend to elect Governments who put up taxes can't be correct.

Pete

[Firefly]

We could start to save money by stopping interpreters for immigrants, which we have to finance. If anyone needs an interpreter, then THEY should pay for one. If the Government published the figures of all interpreters we finance, at every hospital, every doctor's surgery, every dental surgery etc. plus the extra time of the professional has to spend at consultations, I think we would be in for a shock.

All immigrants should be able to finance themselves, providing proof, before being allowed entry to the UK. All those on the suspected terrorist lists to be deported, no matter where they were born, back to their country of origin, and passports destroyed. If found guilty of a terrorist attack, (if they haven't already been shot by police) to receive the death penalty, no prison, no cost to us.

Stop allowing places of worship, abattoirs, etc. to be built on our soil, i.e. IF you enter the UK you adopt OUR laws and way of life, if they're not prepared to, they will be refused entry. Anyone guilty of FGM also to be removed from the UK forthwith. No more than one wife allowed, and no benefits, they must be either able to support themselves, or have a job to go to.

Some will find that harsh, but after the Manchester attack, quite frankly, to coin a phrase, I don't give a damn !

Jackie

[Dominic]

Except the police haven't been drastically cut, services haven't been stripped back and public spending has increased incessantly.

Police officer numbers drop by nearly 20,000 since 2009 (2016)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36857326

Austerity’s £18bn impact on local services (2015)
https://www.ft.com/content/5fcbd0c4-294 ... e?mhq5j=e1

Maybe in your cosy little world services haven't been cut back. But a lot of people in the UK have been badly effected.

And here's one from the IFS re public spending.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resour ... c_spending

[cyprusgrump]

Except the police haven't been drastically cut, services haven't been stripped back and public spending has increased incessantly.

Police officer numbers drop by nearly 20,000 since 2009 (2016)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36857326

Austerity’s £18bn impact on local services (2015)
https://www.ft.com/content/5fcbd0c4-294 ... e?mhq5j=e1

Maybe in your cosy little world services haven't been cut back. But a lot of people in the UK have been badly effected.

And here's one from the IFS re public spending.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resour ... c_spending

Reference Police cuts, it really depends where you choose to start the clock (rather like the EU nurses 95% claim. I posted this in another thread...

In 1994 there were 128,000 police in England and Wales. In 2016, 124,000. That’s not exactly a drastic cut over time, is it?

Population is up but I don’t think that includes 15,000 or so PCSOs. Invented in 2002.

Reference public spending, it is still at record high levels and forecast to grow further.

The link you listed showed it at £734.4 billion, or 40.6% of the UK’s national income. This translates into nearly £40,000 for every family in the UK in FY 214/215! hardly austerity is it...?

In fact, the graph you linked to shows a fall from £763Bn when Labour left power to £742Bn in 2016 - that is hardly crippling austerity is it...? Especially considering the massive deficit and crippling national debt.

And of course, local services have been cut. It suits local authorities to close visible services such as libraries, public toilets and 'vital services for 150,000 pensioners and child protection' while shouting about austerity and the nasty Tories...

But how many of them have chosen to cut their own numbers, trim the number of councilors to suit the budget, their perks and expenses, the diversity and smoking cessation officers on eye watering salaries...?

[Dominic]

Population rose from 57.87million in 1994 to 65.51million now. That's an increase of 13%

Now, with regards to police levels, what is especially telling is if you look at what they were when the Tories came to power in 2010, compared to now.

31 March 2010 244,497
31 March 2011 233,255
31 March 2012 220,121
31 March 2013 213,632
31 March 2014 209,362
31 March 20156 207,728
31 March 2016 200,922

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... -jul16.ods

If you look at table H3, it includes all policing, including support staff.

[cyprusgrump]

Population rose from 57.87million in 1994 to 65.51million now. That's an increase of 13%

Now, with regards to police levels, what is especially telling is if you look at what they were when the Tories came to power in 2010, compared to now.

31 March 2010 244,497
31 March 2011 233,255
31 March 2012 220,121
31 March 2013 213,632
31 March 2014 209,362
31 March 20156 207,728
31 March 2016 200,922

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... -jul16.ods

If you look at table H3, it includes all policing, including support staff.

It is only 'especially telling' if you wish to bash the tories...

You'd need to look at how Gordon Brown boosted civil servants (including police) under his watch if you wanted a full story. And how policing has changed generally. How for instance, police stations (in every town) used to be staffed with policemen doing manual tasks (admin, etc. not policing) whereas today many have been closed/centralised and the admin is carried out by civilians instead of policemen.

You'd also need to look at how policing itself has changed from walking the beat to prevent crime to whizzing up and down the street in patrol cars and investigating crime after the event.

It is complicated.

However, the bottom line is that even if there had been 20,000 more police or 50,000 or 100,000 they still wouldn't be able to prevent acts of terrorism as we have seen in London and Manchester. You'd just have 20,000 extra targets on the street.

[Dominic]

The former head of Counter-Terrorism in the UK disagrees with you.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... rity-chief

[cyprusgrump]

The former head of Counter-Terrorism in the UK disagrees with you.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... rity-chief

I'm always amazed at how these people manage to speak out once they have left the job. It is frustrating that it happens so often - not just in the police but in all areas of public life. Perhaps if they were more outspoken while actually in the job, on the front line real improvements could have been made?

Anyway, the problem as I see it is that many of the areas where terrorists come from are closed communities. It is simply inconceivable that significant numbers of extra police would be 'allowed' to patrol predominately muslim areas without hysterical claims of Islamaphobia. They aren't even 'allowed' to take in specialised police dogs...

I mean, to be fair we could try it of course. We could add more and more and more police to the beat until we couldn't move for them. We would naturally (in the name of political correctness) need to police non-threat predominantly white English areas to the same level as high risk predominantly muslim areas for fear of being called racist or islamaphobics or whatever but perhaps it would help...?

In addition, the terrorists are always 'known to the police' (mainly) through the efforts of the intelligence services. The Big Issue is that there are simply too many of them - the police don't have the specialised resources to monitor 3,000 of the most dangerous 24/7. Adding 10,000 or 20,000 or 100,000 community police wouldn't help that.

And how far would the 'missing' 20,000 plod go by the way...? That would be one extra policeman for every 3,250 low risk British/Sikh/Buddhist/Chinese, etc. and one extra policemen for every 3,250 in the significantly higher risk muslim community - assuming they were 'allowed' entry obviously. I can't see it making a difference to be honest.

[Dominic]

I'm always amazed at how these people manage to speak out once they have left the job. It is frustrating that it happens so often - not just in the police but in all areas of public life. Perhaps if they were more outspoken while actually in the job, on the front line real improvements could have been made?

Unfortunately looking after Number 1 is the first rule in climbing the public sector ladder.

[cyprusgrump]

I'm always amazed at how these people manage to speak out once they have left the job. It is frustrating that it happens so often - not just in the police but in all areas of public life. Perhaps if they were more outspoken while actually in the job, on the front line real improvements could have been made?

Unfortunately looking after Number 1 is the first rule in climbing the public sector ladder.

Yes, it was rhetorical....

[PeteandSylvi]

I think it fair to say that the lowering of police numbers had no effect whatsoever to the reaction to the last terrorist incident in London. The police dealt with the situation in seconds, another 20 would have added nothing but potential disaster.

But referring back to the outline I started this thread with, there would be some cost in administrating detention and monitoring but the level of intelligence on which the plan bases it's action already exists and vast numbers of extra police are simply not required. They may be desirable in other ways but I'm also aware that the UK has the most monitoring of the population of any country most of which is used to convict after the criminal activity. I'm looking for a way to emphasise and effectively implement prevention not further affect and restrict the lives of the majority.

Pete

[Dominic]

I think it fair to say that the lowering of police numbers had no effect whatsoever to the reaction to the last terrorist incident in London. The police dealt with the situation in seconds, another 20 would have added nothing but potential disaster.

But extra police may well have prevented the attack in the first place.

[PeteandSylvi]

I think it fair to say that the lowering of police numbers had no effect whatsoever to the reaction to the last terrorist incident in London. The police dealt with the situation in seconds, another 20 would have added nothing but potential disaster.

But extra police may well have prevented the attack in the first place.

It may have done but as we have seen time and time again under the current laws there is a huge difficulty in restricting the activities of those carrying out the atrocities. Extra police would not change this process which is why I made my suggestion.

Like it or not you don't have to look far or talk to many to realise that there is a genuine feeling of frustration that these events take place, that the police or intelligence services are aware of the perpetrators and that effective prevention is hampered. This frustration often vents itself in the nastiest of ways and causes racial hatred and is often perpetuated through social media. We've seen it to a degree on this thread. So I honestly believe a new approach is required and some of the namby-pamby, PC laws, regulations and conventions need to be put aside to address it. None of which is dependent on police numbers.

Pete

[cyprusgrump]

I think it fair to say that the lowering of police numbers had no effect whatsoever to the reaction to the last terrorist incident in London. The police dealt with the situation in seconds, another 20 would have added nothing but potential disaster.

But extra police may well have prevented the attack in the first place.

But we are talking about an attack where terrorists drove a vehicle into pedestrians. I simply fail to see how any number of additional policemen would have halted such an attack...?

Likewise with a lone suicide bomber. It is difficult to see how any number of extra police on the streets could prevent such an attack...?