Terror Plot Foiled

Borris said:
If there have been so many foiled attacks, why is there no supporting evidence (today's events notwithstanding, as it is too early, the event if 7/7 notwithstanding, as there is limited capacity for falsehoods when there is a real event).
Click to expand...

You do realise that the majority of the work carried out in the name of national security doesn't get put into the public domain until 50 years after the event when records get released? It does seem to be the case you don't have a good idea how the security services operate, well, I say good idea, what I mean is what is available knowledge to the general public.

At the end of the day national security is more concerned with thwarting internal and external threats, they're not a propaganda machine so why do you think there should be evidence?
 
I came to this country 16 years ago and throughout that time worked really hard and never claimed any benefits. Now that I have children my first priority is to bring them up as patriotic British citizens first. Anybody who does not want to integrate should be deported straight away. Britain - you are becoming too soft and the paranoia regarding human rights will result in a great country loosing all your integrity and greatness. If these home grown terrorists want to be martyrs so much why not re-introduce the capital punishment in this country?

Posted by: Jo, Guildford 10 Aug 2006 10:48:17
 
Nexus said:
My mistake. I always thought MI6 was fictional based on MI5.
Click to expand...

Well, technically there isn't an MI6 or MI5, people just like to go by the old names :D

Good job all the other MI departments were disbanded or amalgamated into other organisatons, it was confusing trying to remember what each one was for.... Wow, nice tangent for me to off on...
 
Pudney@work said:
You do realise that the majority of the work carried out in the name of national security doesn't get put into the public domain until 50 years after the event when records get released? It does seem to be the case you don't have a good idea how the security services operate, well, I say good idea, what I mean is what is available knowledge to the general public.
Click to expand...
I explicitly stated that I didn't expect public disclosure, but that processes exist to oversee such activity, and if such activity is jusitication for fundamental shifts in our rights, then there should certainly be publicly available justification, even if in the form of a recommendation from an independent committee.

I would suggest that I know more about it than you do, at any rate.

Pudney@work said:
At the end of the day national security is more concerned with thwarting internal and external threats, they're not a propaganda machine so why do you think there should be evidence?
Click to expand...
Do I really need to bang the acccountability drum again? The cloak of security is a convenient way to mitigate responsibility and having to answer to anyone when it still matters.
 
JonRohan said:
I bet poor Scuzi is busy. :S
Click to expand...

To be honest I spent most of the day scratching my arse! At about 7 this morning I was working the Lambourne sector which normally takes around 35-40 aircraft an hour, most of which are inbound to Heathrow. In the hour that I sat there I worked one Heathrow inbound, all others had turned around and went back to their departure points or diversion airfields. The problem was that there was no room on the ground for all the planes in Heathrow since none were departing.

We had a poor Lufthansa get to within 15 miles of Heathrow, only to be told to go back to Dusseldorf, poor guy :p

Even though the skies were relatively empty, the traffic that was there was causing a lot of headaches due to diversions and other technical defficulties associated with the delays. It's all fun though! :D

I've no idea how long this is going to carry on, the amount of delays was staggering.
 
I guess we should all be grateful that these guys (probably including Mr Bond or some people very like him) are out there quietly protecting us from who knows what, and they did so today
 
Borris said:
I explicitly stated that I didn't expect public disclosure, but that processes exist to oversee such activity, and if such activity is jusitication for fundamental shifts in our rights, then there should certainly be publicly available justification, even if in the form of a recommendation from an independent committee.

I would suggest that I know more about it than you do, at any rate.

Do I really need to bang the acccountability drum again? The cloak of security is a convenient way to mitigate responsibility and having to answer to anyone when it still matters.
Click to expand...

Just to make things clear I'm not getting into the whole fair trial part of this. What I'm pointing out is that as part of the role they play in security the general public shouldnt be aware of the work the carry out, and that you calling the security services incompetent is unfair. The public has no need to get involved or be aware of what they do, when they find threats they should seek to eliminate them (in a legal way of course, which includes sending suspects through a fair process of law). On account of this, just because you're not aware of their successes does not mean they aren't effective at what they do, ergo your supposition that they're incompetent is based on no factual information.
 
Terror crackdown at UK airports

The Register

The armed forces have been deployed at at least one airport, The Register has heard. Security personnel have apparently been taking a very hard line with anyone who isn't taking the situation with anything other than utter seriousness, with reports of airline staff being fired on the spot for being abusive to security personnel.
Click to expand...
 
Pudney@work said:
Just to make things clear I'm not getting into the whole fair trial part of this. What I'm pointing out is that as part of the role they play in security the general public shouldnt be aware of the work the carry out, and that you calling the security services incompetent is unfair. The public has no need to get involved or be aware of what they do, when they find threats they should seek to eliminate them (in a legal way of course, which includes sending suspects through a fair process of law). On account of this, just because you're not aware of their successes does not mean they aren't effective at what they do, ergo your supposition that they're incompetent is based on no factual information.
Click to expand...
I've not accused the services of incompetence at all (that I'm aware of).

Neither am I suggesting that the public needs operational knowlege of their activities.

However, I have stated categorically that the public has the right to oversee the framework of their operation (think of it in terms of the shareholder, the public, and the manager and workers - one has a vested macro interest, the other, a micro interest in the daily running), and that if one branch of government is going to base its decisions on the results or failures of the other, they need to make those results known.

(There is, within reason, the assumption that this does not expose the security services to any operational risk.)
 
Borris said:
I've not accused the services of incompetence at all (that I'm aware of).

Neither am I suggesting that the public needs operational knowlege of their activities.

However, I have stated categorically that the public has the right to oversee the framework of their operation (think of it in terms of the shareholder, the public, and the manager and workers - one has a vested macro interest, the other, a micro interest in the daily running), and that if one branch of government is going to base its decisions on the results or failures of the other, they need to make those results known.

(There is, within reason, the assumption that this does not expose the security services to any operational risk.)
Click to expand...


I may have mixed you up with someone else in this thread who said the security services were incompetent, in which case I apologise, it's a large thread to keep track of :D

And on an interesting side note, the security services are crown servants not civil servants, thus ultimately they're not accountable to the government.
 
Tri-Woo-Ox said:
yep, it's a shame that people dont relise that al Qaeda is a goverment run terrorist group.
Click to expand...
Do you have any justification for that claim? I'd love to see documents from reputable sources (Not propaganda videos such as "Loose Change" (debunked) or "Terrorstorm") which can categorically confirm that al-Qaeda is a fictional organisation. In particular, what do politicians have to gain out of this particular terror plot (which doesn't exist, according to you)? All I can see is airlines losing a lot of money and passengers having to go through a lot of hassle. I can't see this leading on to the government cutting down on civil liberties (a la Patriot Act) in the name of national security...

P.S. Sort your signature out (FAQ: Signature guidelines)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom