We generally don't hear about the successes. For a lot of reasons.
Domestically, I'd argue we hear about basically all of them, since we don't have a secret court system. The federal government has prosecuted 796 people for terrorism since 9/11. Of those 50% of those are of the somewhat vague "material support" category, and 37% were via FBI stings, which while not technically entrapment are probably not great predictors of prevented attacks.
We generally don't hear about the successes. For a lot of reasons.
Domestically, I'd argue we hear about basically all of them, since we don't have a secret court system. The federal government has prosecuted 796 people for terrorism since 9/11. Of those 50% of those are of the somewhat vague "material support" category, and 37% were via FBI stings, which while not technically entrapment are probably not great predictors of prevented attacks.
This isn't from a news source. The guy tweeting is a trade union official with the fire brigade's union. But since this is video of a police conference with Theresa May it pretty much speaks for itself.
That would be a senior community policing officer from Greater Manchester Police warning Theresa May, then Home Secretary and now Prime Minister, from whom he received a community policing award, that policing cuts were crippling their ability to proactively police Manchester in tandem with the Greater Manchester community.
TWO FUCKING YEARS AGO!
On the other hand, it seems like after every one of these events there's a string of "Know to police" or "was reported to security services by uncle/friend/etc " or "was previously investigated" etc. I'm sure a lot of it is confirmation bias, but no one seems to actually be very good at proactively policing these things. The FBI will get a few people every year with their not quite entrapment schemes, but it seems like its rare they are actually getting to these people before at least 1 person in the 'cell' acts.
Except in this case we HAVE someone ON CAMERA from the VERY police force involved TELLING Theresa May that their police force has become ENTIRELY REACTIVE because their proactive policing has been CRIPPLED by her cuts.
TWO FUCKING YEARS before this attack happens.
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks. The Single Intelligence Account is roughly 2x what it was in 2005.
Yeah, maybe counter factually, if they had just kept the extra 50k in the Manchester budget to keep officer Jones on the street, maybe they would have tumbled to this guy in some sort of action-thriller movie series of events. Instead they stopped at the extra billion pounds a year the SIA has grown over the last decade and for want of that last nail the war was lost and all that.
But some guy from a police agency was banging the old TERRORISM drum in response to a budget cut like they do every time their budget is cut, doesn't strike me as some sort of damning prescience.
Maybe it's different over in the UK, but here we have every podunk police department in some random suburb or rural town sucking down "anti-terrorism" equipment grants like piglets at the tit. And every time anyone try's to trim the police budget, it's nothing but fearmonger about terrorists or if you are in a more diverse area, terrorism plus some Death Wish style 80s New York criminal hellscape. With relatively little evidence that even for the ones where this threat is realistic(or federal agencies) are actually any good at catching these people before an attack takes place.
The Pulse Nightclub shooter was the subject of a 10 month FBI investigation, The Boston marathon bombers had been investigated after a warning from the FSB. The Westminster attacker was peripherally connected to an MI5 terrorism investigation in 2010, as was one of the killers of Lee Rigby.
I know after several of the other terrorist attacks in Europe(2015 Paris attacks, and Brussels Bombings in particular) it turned out the suspects had been known by security services to have links to Islamist groups of various sorts prior to the attacks.
And if you have footage of a police officer who has won an award for community policing telling you that they can't proactively police anymore because the guts have been cut out of their budget, you might want to listen to them. And if an attack happens later, you might want to NOT jump to the conclusion that the same police force is at fault.
I honestly don't understand what is so confusing about this.
Who said anything about at fault?
What about every other city who's police budget decreased and didn't suffer a terrorist attack?
What about the general increase in security services budgets over the same time period?
What if police agencies- and especially local ones- are not terribly effective at stopping terrorist attacks at any funding level?
I just don't think this is anything more to that video than like how whenever the market takes a dive, you can always find a guy who predicted it before hand. Because if you have enough guys making enough predictions one of them will be right at some point.
0
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks.
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks.
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks.
As I understand it, every component of the bomb is legal to own individually. Last i heard expressing frustration and grief over a friend's death is not a crime, as this bomber did, even if the expressions were violent fantasies. Yes there were signs something could happen, but until something actually provably illegal did happen you can't arrest someone.
To stop this guy it would probably take 24 hour surveillance, and even then it would probably be because he didn't do anything because he was under surveillance and not because he was arrested for something.
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks.
As I understand it, every component of the bomb is legal to own individually. Last i heard expressing frustration and grief over a friend's death is not a crime, as this bomber did, even if the expressions were violent fantasies. Yes there were signs something could happen, but until something actually provably illegal did happen you can't arrest someone.
To stop this guy it would probably take 24 hour surveillance, and even then it would probably be because he didn't do anything because he was under surveillance and not because he was arrested for something.
No, this entire tangent is mostly just about how the twitter video of a Manchester cop saying budget cuts will cause terrorism and OMG he was right! is complete crap.
All the reasons you listed, explain the why the security services don't seem to be very good at this, and maybe they can't be good at it - or we would prefer they be bad at it versus living in a society where they are good at it. Are just reasons why the budget cut probably had zero effect on this.
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks.
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks.
As I understand it, every component of the bomb is legal to own individually. Last i heard expressing frustration and grief over a friend's death is not a crime, as this bomber did, even if the expressions were violent fantasies. Yes there were signs something could happen, but until something actually provably illegal did happen you can't arrest someone.
To stop this guy it would probably take 24 hour surveillance, and even then it would probably be because he didn't do anything because he was under surveillance and not because he was arrested for something.
No, this entire tangent is mostly just about how the twitter video of a Manchester cop saying budget cuts will cause terrorism and OMG he was right! is complete crap.
All the reasons you listed, explain the why the security services don't seem to be very good at this, and maybe they can't be good at it - or we would prefer they be bad at it versus living in a society where they are good at it. Are just reasons why the budget cut probably had zero effect on this.
Few months old now but 13 attacks stopped since 2013:
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks.
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks.
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks.
This isn't from a news source. The guy tweeting is a trade union official with the fire brigade's union. But since this is video of a police conference with Theresa May it pretty much speaks for itself.
That would be a senior community policing officer from Greater Manchester Police warning Theresa May, then Home Secretary and now Prime Minister, from whom he received a community policing award, that policing cuts were crippling their ability to proactively police Manchester in tandem with the Greater Manchester community.
TWO FUCKING YEARS AGO!
On the other hand, it seems like after every one of these events there's a string of "Know to police" or "was reported to security services by uncle/friend/etc " or "was previously investigated" etc. I'm sure a lot of it is confirmation bias, but no one seems to actually be very good at proactively policing these things. The FBI will get a few people every year with their not quite entrapment schemes, but it seems like its rare they are actually getting to these people before at least 1 person in the 'cell' acts.
Except in this case we HAVE someone ON CAMERA from the VERY police force involved TELLING Theresa May that their police force has become ENTIRELY REACTIVE because their proactive policing has been CRIPPLED by her cuts.
TWO FUCKING YEARS before this attack happens.
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks. The Single Intelligence Account is roughly 2x what it was in 2005.
Yeah, maybe counter factually, if they had just kept the extra 50k in the Manchester budget to keep officer Jones on the street, maybe they would have tumbled to this guy in some sort of action-thriller movie series of events. Instead they stopped at the extra billion pounds a year the SIA has grown over the last decade and for want of that last nail the war was lost and all that.
But some guy from a police agency was banging the old TERRORISM drum in response to a budget cut like they do every time their budget is cut, doesn't strike me as some sort of damning prescience.
Maybe it's different over in the UK, but here we have every podunk police department in some random suburb or rural town sucking down "anti-terrorism" equipment grants like piglets at the tit. And every time anyone try's to trim the police budget, it's nothing but fearmonger about terrorists or if you are in a more diverse area, terrorism plus some Death Wish style 80s New York criminal hellscape. With relatively little evidence that even for the ones where this threat is realistic(or federal agencies) are actually any good at catching these people before an attack takes place.
The Pulse Nightclub shooter was the subject of a 10 month FBI investigation, The Boston marathon bombers had been investigated after a warning from the FSB. The Westminster attacker was peripherally connected to an MI5 terrorism investigation in 2010, as was one of the killers of Lee Rigby.
I know after several of the other terrorist attacks in Europe(2015 Paris attacks, and Brussels Bombings in particular) it turned out the suspects had been known by security services to have links to Islamist groups of various sorts prior to the attacks.
And if you have footage of a police officer who has won an award for community policing telling you that they can't proactively police anymore because the guts have been cut out of their budget, you might want to listen to them. And if an attack happens later, you might want to NOT jump to the conclusion that the same police force is at fault.
I honestly don't understand what is so confusing about this.
Who said anything about at fault?
Was saying police don't seem to be good at this sort of thing not supposed to imply fault somewhere?
What about every other city who's police budget decreased and didn't suffer a terrorist attack?
Is that what we're going with? "Well sure this award winning community policing officer said two years ago he'd had to retire because their force has become entirely reactive due to budget cuts, but there have only been 22 deaths so far! What's the big fuss about?"
What about the general increase in security services budgets over the same time period?
What general increase? Are you looking at the raw numbers or something? Because the UK's spend isn't nearly keeping page with population numbers or inflation.
What if police agencies- and especially local ones- are not terribly effective at stopping terrorist attacks at any funding level?
On the other hand, what if you have DOZENS OF PEOPLE trying to warn their local police that they were worried about this guy, and that police force has no effective way of reaching about to prevent what happens? Is the anti-terrorism task force supposed to do better by jumping in all gung-ho? What's their arrest -to- conviction rate in the UK as of last December? Less than 20%? I think it might even have been less than 15%
I just don't think this is anything more to that video than like how whenever the market takes a dive, you can always find a guy who predicted it before hand. Because if you have enough guys making enough predictions one of them will be right at some point.
Except this is a local community officer who has won awards for community policing saying in a community where two years later community members cry and say they knew this young man in their community was being radicalised that they need to continue community policing to act on intelligence from the local community and that they can't because they have no budget.
You're REALLY telling me you think THAT is like some random person making a wild prediction and then going "See? Told you!"
This isn't from a news source. The guy tweeting is a trade union official with the fire brigade's union. But since this is video of a police conference with Theresa May it pretty much speaks for itself.
That would be a senior community policing officer from Greater Manchester Police warning Theresa May, then Home Secretary and now Prime Minister, from whom he received a community policing award, that policing cuts were crippling their ability to proactively police Manchester in tandem with the Greater Manchester community.
TWO FUCKING YEARS AGO!
On the other hand, it seems like after every one of these events there's a string of "Know to police" or "was reported to security services by uncle/friend/etc " or "was previously investigated" etc. I'm sure a lot of it is confirmation bias, but no one seems to actually be very good at proactively policing these things. The FBI will get a few people every year with their not quite entrapment schemes, but it seems like its rare they are actually getting to these people before at least 1 person in the 'cell' acts.
A significant factor in these failures is the current (last few years) shift towards intelligence led policing, which is meeting resistance in some agencies. It was very common not that long ago that police agencies would hire secretaries and book keepers who had been working with the agency for a long time to be crime intelligence analysts with no prior experience or training and no retraining given.
0
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks.
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks.
Sorry, I'm not that familiar with UK publications, but which of the events that they listed are you saying they made up?
Which are you saying proves underfunded, overstretched police forces operate just as well as bajillion-euro ones when it comes to preventing terrorist attacks?
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks.
As I understand it, every component of the bomb is legal to own individually. Last i heard expressing frustration and grief over a friend's death is not a crime, as this bomber did, even if the expressions were violent fantasies. Yes there were signs something could happen, but until something actually provably illegal did happen you can't arrest someone.
To stop this guy it would probably take 24 hour surveillance, and even then it would probably be because he didn't do anything because he was under surveillance and not because he was arrested for something.
Which I find interesting because in the US the BATFE can arrest and recommend prosecution for Constructive Intent.
This isn't from a news source. The guy tweeting is a trade union official with the fire brigade's union. But since this is video of a police conference with Theresa May it pretty much speaks for itself.
That would be a senior community policing officer from Greater Manchester Police warning Theresa May, then Home Secretary and now Prime Minister, from whom he received a community policing award, that policing cuts were crippling their ability to proactively police Manchester in tandem with the Greater Manchester community.
TWO FUCKING YEARS AGO!
On the other hand, it seems like after every one of these events there's a string of "Know to police" or "was reported to security services by uncle/friend/etc " or "was previously investigated" etc. I'm sure a lot of it is confirmation bias, but no one seems to actually be very good at proactively policing these things. The FBI will get a few people every year with their not quite entrapment schemes, but it seems like its rare they are actually getting to these people before at least 1 person in the 'cell' acts.
A significant factor in these failures is the current (last few years) shift towards intelligence led policing, which is meeting resistance in some agencies. It was very common not that long ago that police agencies would hire secretaries and book keepers who had been working with the agency for a long time to be crime intelligence analysts with no prior experience or training and no retraining given.
To clarify, the failure isn't that intelligence led policing is taking over but that there is resistance to it and it wasn't the norm (and still isn't in many agencies).
I guess bomb squad checking for something, it could be proved false like the one in Hulme (part of Manchester) earlier on. I remember seeing the bomb squad about a year or two ago.
It looks like they may have found bomb-making ingredients or bombs at various stages of construction.
Or they may have found a backpack with some guy's stash of barbacue sauce. When it comes to investigations like this one police tend to err on the side of caution. Hence some discarded clothing getting blown up by the bomb squad the night of the Manchester attack.
This isn't from a news source. The guy tweeting is a trade union official with the fire brigade's union. But since this is video of a police conference with Theresa May it pretty much speaks for itself.
That would be a senior community policing officer from Greater Manchester Police warning Theresa May, then Home Secretary and now Prime Minister, from whom he received a community policing award, that policing cuts were crippling their ability to proactively police Manchester in tandem with the Greater Manchester community.
TWO FUCKING YEARS AGO!
On the other hand, it seems like after every one of these events there's a string of "Know to police" or "was reported to security services by uncle/friend/etc " or "was previously investigated" etc. I'm sure a lot of it is confirmation bias, but no one seems to actually be very good at proactively policing these things. The FBI will get a few people every year with their not quite entrapment schemes, but it seems like its rare they are actually getting to these people before at least 1 person in the 'cell' acts.
Except in this case we HAVE someone ON CAMERA from the VERY police force involved TELLING Theresa May that their police force has become ENTIRELY REACTIVE because their proactive policing has been CRIPPLED by her cuts.
TWO FUCKING YEARS before this attack happens.
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks. The Single Intelligence Account is roughly 2x what it was in 2005.
Yeah, maybe counter factually, if they had just kept the extra 50k in the Manchester budget to keep officer Jones on the street, maybe they would have tumbled to this guy in some sort of action-thriller movie series of events. Instead they stopped at the extra billion pounds a year the SIA has grown over the last decade and for want of that last nail the war was lost and all that.
But some guy from a police agency was banging the old TERRORISM drum in response to a budget cut like they do every time their budget is cut, doesn't strike me as some sort of damning prescience.
Maybe it's different over in the UK, but here we have every podunk police department in some random suburb or rural town sucking down "anti-terrorism" equipment grants like piglets at the tit. And every time anyone try's to trim the police budget, it's nothing but fearmonger about terrorists or if you are in a more diverse area, terrorism plus some Death Wish style 80s New York criminal hellscape. With relatively little evidence that even for the ones where this threat is realistic(or federal agencies) are actually any good at catching these people before an attack takes place.
The Pulse Nightclub shooter was the subject of a 10 month FBI investigation, The Boston marathon bombers had been investigated after a warning from the FSB. The Westminster attacker was peripherally connected to an MI5 terrorism investigation in 2010, as was one of the killers of Lee Rigby.
I know after several of the other terrorist attacks in Europe(2015 Paris attacks, and Brussels Bombings in particular) it turned out the suspects had been known by security services to have links to Islamist groups of various sorts prior to the attacks.
And if you have footage of a police officer who has won an award for community policing telling you that they can't proactively police anymore because the guts have been cut out of their budget, you might want to listen to them. And if an attack happens later, you might want to NOT jump to the conclusion that the same police force is at fault.
I honestly don't understand what is so confusing about this.
Who said anything about at fault?
Was saying police don't seem to be good at this sort of thing not supposed to imply fault somewhere?
They are separate things. They could have made mistakes in this particular case, but also just not be particularly good at catching these things in general.
What about every other city who's police budget decreased and didn't suffer a terrorist attack?
Is that what we're going with? "Well sure this award winning community policing officer said two years ago he'd had to retire because their force has become entirely reactive due to budget cuts, but there have only been 22 deaths so far! What's the big fuss about?"
If a police officer in every city says their budget cuts will lead to terrorism, it's hardly predictive that a terrorist attack happens in a city. Considering the UK has averaged about one a year for the last decade.
What about the general increase in security services budgets over the same time period?
What general increase? Are you looking at the raw numbers or something? Because the UK's spend isn't nearly keeping page with population numbers or inflation.
It's surprisingly hard to find nice compiled budget numbers. But
in 07-08 the budget for SIA was 1.5 billion pounds
in 14-15 it was 2.6
for 15-16 it went up to 2.93
It's basically doubled in a decade, inflation has eaten about 25% of that 100% increase.
What if police agencies- and especially local ones- are not terribly effective at stopping terrorist attacks at any funding level?
On the other hand, what if you have DOZENS OF PEOPLE trying to warn their local police that they were worried about this guy, and that police force has no effective way of reaching about to prevent what happens? Is the anti-terrorism task force supposed to do better by jumping in all gung-ho? What's their arrest -to- conviction rate in the UK as of last December? Less than 20%? I think it might even have been less than 15%
Yes, the agencies whose purview is anti-terrorism are exactly who should be jumping in and investigating him. They run the hotlines that people report stuff to(Which Abedi was reported to at least twice by a community organizer, and also members of his own family). They have access to intelligence that your local cop doesn't(Like the Abedi had traveled to Syria, or that near where his family lived in Libya is near where Abd al-Baset Azzouz an AQ Group leader from Manchester is based).
I just don't think this is anything more to that video than like how whenever the market takes a dive, you can always find a guy who predicted it before hand. Because if you have enough guys making enough predictions one of them will be right at some point.
Except this is a local community officer who has won awards for community policing saying in a community where two years later community members cry and say they knew this young man in their community was being radicalised that they need to continue community policing to act on intelligence from the local community and that they can't because they have no budget.
You're REALLY telling me you think THAT is like some random person making a wild prediction and then going "See? Told you!"
No mostly I think its a police officer who's department lost funding banging the terrorism drum to try and keep/restore that funding, undoubtedly the same thing dozens of other officers did, and that there happen to be a successful terrorist attack there 2 years later is most likely coincidental.
Because those people reported Abedi to the various anti-terrorist task forces, with all those resources, who didn't find enough to warrant an investigation.
As a Canadian who only goes to the UK for tourism purposes, I think that I can nevertheless claim an encounter with community policing in the U.K., I believe. I was wandering around the City of London about half a decade ago, near St. Paul's, taking pictures. A police officer approached me and asked me my purpose in taking photos. I told him I was a tourist. We chatted. He apologized for the weather (about 15° and raining), and I laughed it off since it was snowing back home in Nova Scotia. He suggested a few notable places to take good pictures. It was a great, memorable moment on my trip!
The next morning, I was reading the Metro while riding the train into the city. There was a story there about a famous architect. He had been taking pictures near St Paul's, but refused to state his purpose. He ended up spending the night in jail after an altercation with the police officer.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
We greatly value the crucial relationship with our trusted partners around the world so we can collaborate and share sensitive information to defeat terrorism and protect the public at home and abroad. While we do not usually comment on information sharing arrangements with international law enforcement organisations, we want to emphasise that, having received fresh assurances, we are now working closely with our key partners around the world including all those in the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence alliance.
This isn't from a news source. The guy tweeting is a trade union official with the fire brigade's union. But since this is video of a police conference with Theresa May it pretty much speaks for itself.
That would be a senior community policing officer from Greater Manchester Police warning Theresa May, then Home Secretary and now Prime Minister, from whom he received a community policing award, that policing cuts were crippling their ability to proactively police Manchester in tandem with the Greater Manchester community.
TWO FUCKING YEARS AGO!
On the other hand, it seems like after every one of these events there's a string of "Know to police" or "was reported to security services by uncle/friend/etc " or "was previously investigated" etc. I'm sure a lot of it is confirmation bias, but no one seems to actually be very good at proactively policing these things. The FBI will get a few people every year with their not quite entrapment schemes, but it seems like its rare they are actually getting to these people before at least 1 person in the 'cell' acts.
Except in this case we HAVE someone ON CAMERA from the VERY police force involved TELLING Theresa May that their police force has become ENTIRELY REACTIVE because their proactive policing has been CRIPPLED by her cuts.
TWO FUCKING YEARS before this attack happens.
And? My point was that NONE of these security services with their bajillions in budgets seem to be PARTICULARLY GOOD at proactively stopping these attacks. The Single Intelligence Account is roughly 2x what it was in 2005.
Yeah, maybe counter factually, if they had just kept the extra 50k in the Manchester budget to keep officer Jones on the street, maybe they would have tumbled to this guy in some sort of action-thriller movie series of events. Instead they stopped at the extra billion pounds a year the SIA has grown over the last decade and for want of that last nail the war was lost and all that.
But some guy from a police agency was banging the old TERRORISM drum in response to a budget cut like they do every time their budget is cut, doesn't strike me as some sort of damning prescience.
Maybe it's different over in the UK, but here we have every podunk police department in some random suburb or rural town sucking down "anti-terrorism" equipment grants like piglets at the tit. And every time anyone try's to trim the police budget, it's nothing but fearmonger about terrorists or if you are in a more diverse area, terrorism plus some Death Wish style 80s New York criminal hellscape. With relatively little evidence that even for the ones where this threat is realistic(or federal agencies) are actually any good at catching these people before an attack takes place.
The Pulse Nightclub shooter was the subject of a 10 month FBI investigation, The Boston marathon bombers had been investigated after a warning from the FSB. The Westminster attacker was peripherally connected to an MI5 terrorism investigation in 2010, as was one of the killers of Lee Rigby.
I know after several of the other terrorist attacks in Europe(2015 Paris attacks, and Brussels Bombings in particular) it turned out the suspects had been known by security services to have links to Islamist groups of various sorts prior to the attacks.
And if you have footage of a police officer who has won an award for community policing telling you that they can't proactively police anymore because the guts have been cut out of their budget, you might want to listen to them. And if an attack happens later, you might want to NOT jump to the conclusion that the same police force is at fault.
I honestly don't understand what is so confusing about this.
Who said anything about at fault?
Was saying police don't seem to be good at this sort of thing not supposed to imply fault somewhere?
They are separate things. They could have made mistakes in this particular case, but also just not be particularly good at catching these things in general.
What about every other city who's police budget decreased and didn't suffer a terrorist attack?
Is that what we're going with? "Well sure this award winning community policing officer said two years ago he'd had to retire because their force has become entirely reactive due to budget cuts, but there have only been 22 deaths so far! What's the big fuss about?"
If a police officer in every city says their budget cuts will lead to terrorism, it's hardly predictive that a terrorist attack happens in a city. Considering the UK has averaged about one a year for the last decade.
What about the general increase in security services budgets over the same time period?
What general increase? Are you looking at the raw numbers or something? Because the UK's spend isn't nearly keeping page with population numbers or inflation.
It's surprisingly hard to find nice compiled budget numbers. But
in 07-08 the budget for SIA was 1.5 billion pounds
in 14-15 it was 2.6
for 15-16 it went up to 2.93
It's basically doubled in a decade, inflation has eaten about 25% of that 100% increase.
What if police agencies- and especially local ones- are not terribly effective at stopping terrorist attacks at any funding level?
On the other hand, what if you have DOZENS OF PEOPLE trying to warn their local police that they were worried about this guy, and that police force has no effective way of reaching about to prevent what happens? Is the anti-terrorism task force supposed to do better by jumping in all gung-ho? What's their arrest -to- conviction rate in the UK as of last December? Less than 20%? I think it might even have been less than 15%
Yes, the agencies whose purview is anti-terrorism are exactly who should be jumping in and investigating him. They run the hotlines that people report stuff to(Which Abedi was reported to at least twice by a community organizer, and also members of his own family). They have access to intelligence that your local cop doesn't(Like the Abedi had traveled to Syria, or that near where his family lived in Libya is near where Abd al-Baset Azzouz an AQ Group leader from Manchester is based).
I just don't think this is anything more to that video than like how whenever the market takes a dive, you can always find a guy who predicted it before hand. Because if you have enough guys making enough predictions one of them will be right at some point.
Except this is a local community officer who has won awards for community policing saying in a community where two years later community members cry and say they knew this young man in their community was being radicalised that they need to continue community policing to act on intelligence from the local community and that they can't because they have no budget.
You're REALLY telling me you think THAT is like some random person making a wild prediction and then going "See? Told you!"
No mostly I think its a police officer who's department lost funding banging the terrorism drum to try and keep/restore that funding, undoubtedly the same thing dozens of other officers did, and that there happen to be a successful terrorist attack there 2 years later is most likely coincidental.
Because those people reported Abedi to the various anti-terrorist task forces, with all those resources, who didn't find enough to warrant an investigation.
By SIA do you mean the Security Industry Authority? Because they regulate the private security industry. Police budgets come from spend on the Justice department, unless I'm wrong.
And we are not talking about a police officer in every city. We are talking about one award winning expert in community policing - who got that award from Theresa May - specifically complaining that they had no resources to act on intelligence from the local community in the city with the biggest Libyan community in the UK two years before a Libyan-allied terrorist conducted one of the worst terrorist attacks the UK has endured since the bad old days of the UDF and IRA.
If your response to that is "Pfft! I bet all of them say that! It's probably nothing to do with anything!" then we may as well finish up this discussion now because I honestly don't know how anyone could not be even slightly concerned about that.
*edit* I forgot to add that as of December 2016 those anti-terrorism forces you think would do much better have secured less than 10 convictions since 9/11.
Ariana Grande has released a stament about the attacks. She praises Manchester and her fans for their courage and pledges to come back to Manchester to hold a benefit concert for the victims' families.
We greatly value the crucial relationship with our trusted partners around the world so we can collaborate and share sensitive information to defeat terrorism and protect the public at home and abroad. While we do not usually comment on information sharing arrangements with international law enforcement organisations, we want to emphasise that, having received fresh assurances, we are now working closely with our key partners around the world including all those in the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence alliance.
While I fully agree that working together and sharing intel between allies, I am seriously skeptical that, going forward, massive leaks to the US media serves the best interest of potential victims of bombings that may happen in the future. Given the attitude of each news agency wanting to scoop all the other agencies and rushing out the door to get the most clicks, coupled with how frequent information (seemingly regardless of sensitivity) is going from supposedly official sources to the press, it's almost a certainty that this is going to happen again.
Posts
Domestically, I'd argue we hear about basically all of them, since we don't have a secret court system. The federal government has prosecuted 796 people for terrorism since 9/11. Of those 50% of those are of the somewhat vague "material support" category, and 37% were via FBI stings, which while not technically entrapment are probably not great predictors of prevented attacks.
https://trial-and-terror.theintercept.com/
I meant as major news stories. The Pulse massacres that didn't happen are not major headlines.
Who said anything about at fault?
What about every other city who's police budget decreased and didn't suffer a terrorist attack?
What about the general increase in security services budgets over the same time period?
What if police agencies- and especially local ones- are not terribly effective at stopping terrorist attacks at any funding level?
I just don't think this is anything more to that video than like how whenever the market takes a dive, you can always find a guy who predicted it before hand. Because if you have enough guys making enough predictions one of them will be right at some point.
And you know this how, exactly?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/693421/Terror-attacks-timeline-France-Brussels-Europe-ISIS-killings-Germany-dates-terrorism
Are you advocating we arrest people for precrime?
As I understand it, every component of the bomb is legal to own individually. Last i heard expressing frustration and grief over a friend's death is not a crime, as this bomber did, even if the expressions were violent fantasies. Yes there were signs something could happen, but until something actually provably illegal did happen you can't arrest someone.
To stop this guy it would probably take 24 hour surveillance, and even then it would probably be because he didn't do anything because he was under surveillance and not because he was arrested for something.
No, this entire tangent is mostly just about how the twitter video of a Manchester cop saying budget cuts will cause terrorism and OMG he was right! is complete crap.
All the reasons you listed, explain the why the security services don't seem to be very good at this, and maybe they can't be good at it - or we would prefer they be bad at it versus living in a society where they are good at it. Are just reasons why the budget cut probably had zero effect on this.
The Express, huh?
Few months old now but 13 attacks stopped since 2013:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39176110
So yes, whilst when they don't catch them the consequences are horrible but you can't really say they're not doing their job.
I don't see what your point is really. The budget cuts have absolutely had an effect on how well the UK police can operate.
Almost a year old but there are now 20,000 less police officers in the UK than in 2009 ( probably even less now as the article is a year old).
That doesn't include the number of civilian staff lost.
I don't see how you can say the budget cuts haven't hampered the effectiveness of the police.
Sorry, I'm not that familiar with UK publications, but which of the events that they listed are you saying they made up?
The Express is a right wing rag that blames everything on immigrants.
I'd not trust it to wipe my ass let alone pay any attention to it when it comes to a serious story.
It's down there with The Sun in terms of reliability.
I'm detecting a pattern.
How are there any brits left with all those migrants?
Was saying police don't seem to be good at this sort of thing not supposed to imply fault somewhere?
Is that what we're going with? "Well sure this award winning community policing officer said two years ago he'd had to retire because their force has become entirely reactive due to budget cuts, but there have only been 22 deaths so far! What's the big fuss about?"
What general increase? Are you looking at the raw numbers or something? Because the UK's spend isn't nearly keeping page with population numbers or inflation.
On the other hand, what if you have DOZENS OF PEOPLE trying to warn their local police that they were worried about this guy, and that police force has no effective way of reaching about to prevent what happens? Is the anti-terrorism task force supposed to do better by jumping in all gung-ho? What's their arrest -to- conviction rate in the UK as of last December? Less than 20%? I think it might even have been less than 15%
Except this is a local community officer who has won awards for community policing saying in a community where two years later community members cry and say they knew this young man in their community was being radicalised that they need to continue community policing to act on intelligence from the local community and that they can't because they have no budget.
You're REALLY telling me you think THAT is like some random person making a wild prediction and then going "See? Told you!"
A significant factor in these failures is the current (last few years) shift towards intelligence led policing, which is meeting resistance in some agencies. It was very common not that long ago that police agencies would hire secretaries and book keepers who had been working with the agency for a long time to be crime intelligence analysts with no prior experience or training and no retraining given.
Which says absolutely nothing about the success rate of these "Security services with their bajillions in budgets".
Which are you saying proves underfunded, overstretched police forces operate just as well as bajillion-euro ones when it comes to preventing terrorist attacks?
Which I find interesting because in the US the BATFE can arrest and recommend prosecution for Constructive Intent.
To clarify, the failure isn't that intelligence led policing is taking over but that there is resistance to it and it wasn't the norm (and still isn't in many agencies).
It looks like they may have found bomb-making ingredients or bombs at various stages of construction.
Or they may have found a backpack with some guy's stash of barbacue sauce. When it comes to investigations like this one police tend to err on the side of caution. Hence some discarded clothing getting blown up by the bomb squad the night of the Manchester attack.
They are separate things. They could have made mistakes in this particular case, but also just not be particularly good at catching these things in general.
If a police officer in every city says their budget cuts will lead to terrorism, it's hardly predictive that a terrorist attack happens in a city. Considering the UK has averaged about one a year for the last decade.
It's surprisingly hard to find nice compiled budget numbers. But
in 07-08 the budget for SIA was 1.5 billion pounds
in 14-15 it was 2.6
for 15-16 it went up to 2.93
It's basically doubled in a decade, inflation has eaten about 25% of that 100% increase.
Yes, the agencies whose purview is anti-terrorism are exactly who should be jumping in and investigating him. They run the hotlines that people report stuff to(Which Abedi was reported to at least twice by a community organizer, and also members of his own family). They have access to intelligence that your local cop doesn't(Like the Abedi had traveled to Syria, or that near where his family lived in Libya is near where Abd al-Baset Azzouz an AQ Group leader from Manchester is based).
No mostly I think its a police officer who's department lost funding banging the terrorism drum to try and keep/restore that funding, undoubtedly the same thing dozens of other officers did, and that there happen to be a successful terrorist attack there 2 years later is most likely coincidental.
Because those people reported Abedi to the various anti-terrorist task forces, with all those resources, who didn't find enough to warrant an investigation.
As a Canadian who only goes to the UK for tourism purposes, I think that I can nevertheless claim an encounter with community policing in the U.K., I believe. I was wandering around the City of London about half a decade ago, near St. Paul's, taking pictures. A police officer approached me and asked me my purpose in taking photos. I told him I was a tourist. We chatted. He apologized for the weather (about 15° and raining), and I laughed it off since it was snowing back home in Nova Scotia. He suggested a few notable places to take good pictures. It was a great, memorable moment on my trip!
The next morning, I was reading the Metro while riding the train into the city. There was a story there about a famous architect. He had been taking pictures near St Paul's, but refused to state his purpose. He ended up spending the night in jail after an altercation with the police officer.
They're having cuts of 20% as a few years ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/police-england-wales-budget-cuts-government-funding-austerity-bbc
SIA is the MI5/MI6/GCHQ budget.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4027/f68f2c7d9615c0de9910d2680d3f515f5e14.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/323826/S_IA_financialstatement_2013-14_web.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/540815/56308_HC_363_WEB.pdf
By SIA do you mean the Security Industry Authority? Because they regulate the private security industry. Police budgets come from spend on the Justice department, unless I'm wrong.
And we are not talking about a police officer in every city. We are talking about one award winning expert in community policing - who got that award from Theresa May - specifically complaining that they had no resources to act on intelligence from the local community in the city with the biggest Libyan community in the UK two years before a Libyan-allied terrorist conducted one of the worst terrorist attacks the UK has endured since the bad old days of the UDF and IRA.
If your response to that is "Pfft! I bet all of them say that! It's probably nothing to do with anything!" then we may as well finish up this discussion now because I honestly don't know how anyone could not be even slightly concerned about that.
*edit* I forgot to add that as of December 2016 those anti-terrorism forces you think would do much better have secured less than 10 convictions since 9/11.
While I fully agree that working together and sharing intel between allies, I am seriously skeptical that, going forward, massive leaks to the US media serves the best interest of potential victims of bombings that may happen in the future. Given the attitude of each news agency wanting to scoop all the other agencies and rushing out the door to get the most clicks, coupled with how frequent information (seemingly regardless of sensitivity) is going from supposedly official sources to the press, it's almost a certainty that this is going to happen again.
And I don't know what kind of "assurances" were given, but I doubt they were 100% on the up-and-up considering that the NYT editor-in-chief is absolutely unapologetic to publishing what they did and when they did it: http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-40067421/manchester-attack-editor-defends-publishing-leaked-photos