Official Britain to be Paralysed by fear

This is very sad: Fortress Britain: Brown unveils tough new laws.

Mr Brown conjured up visions of "Fortress Britain" as he unveiled measures covering the transport network, sports venues and other public places in a speech to the House of Commons on Wednesday.

More than 250 stations, airports and seaports, plus 100 "sensitive" installations such as power stations and electricity substations, will be given extra security.

There will be an increase in armed police patrols at high-profile targets such as the new Eurostar station at St Pancras.

More buildings will have barriers to repel car bombs, with extra blast-proofing, vehicle exclusion zones and metal detectors.

Under plans to control borders through electronic checks, travellers will have to provide up to 90 pieces of information, including credit card details, travel plans, email addresses and contact telephone numbers. Police, customs, immigration and security services will have access to the information, requested when travellers buy tickets.

Looks like holidays in Britain will go to hell then doesn't it?

NINETY!

For EVERY traveller. Clogging up their systems for what? Will a terrorist, of, you know, LIE? Have their story clear?

And has anyone noticed that there have been no (as in ZERO) foreign based attacks on British soil since WW2?

Mr Brown said Britain was now spending more than £2.5 billion ($5.7 billion) annually on security, triple the amount spent in 2001.

So its working then. All they have managed to do is FAIL to prevent the subway bombers, FAIL to anticipate the 4 stooges with their Mercedes car bombs and shoot an innocent man, Jean Paul de Menezes 8 times in the face.

Spending more billions supporting the same kind of dumb thinking that lead to those fiascos will produce about the same; only bigger. Meanwhile British society is being robbed of many billions that it will need to deal with Peak Oil, climate change and H5N1, which isn't going that well either.

But he said he was revoking one highly unpopular security measure - the one carry-on bag rule on flights taking off from Britain. The policy, imposed after police uncovered an alleged plot in 2006 to blow up trans-Atlantic aircraft, will be lifted in January.

So that's alright then. All will be forgiven because we can take an extra bag on a plane? yoohhoo! Anyone home?

Holy cow, this is a country that managed to be bombed to pieces in 1940 and survived, that withstood the IRA bombing campaigns for years without batting an eyelid. And it has come to this; Fortress Britain.

Or more probably, Prison Britain.

But wait, there's more.

As part of the £400 million crackdown, there will be a "hearts and minds" drive to divert young Muslims away from the influence of fanatics.

Notice? "hearts and minds" as part of the "crackdown". 

That is the language you use when talking about an enemy. The fear and hatred are encoded in the very language he is using to "reach out".

Lets see, competition between "fanatic" who preaches self sacrifice, pride and the rejection of a system that denigrates you and "tremble-knees" who is "cracking down" on you while wanting to occupy your heart and your mind and turn your island home into a prison for all.

Ummmmmm.

Comments

[Branedy]

He must have missed the movie V for Vendetta ultimately it does not work.

[Earl Mardle]

That's the problem Brane, they think that, because its fiction, it doesn't apply to their "real" world.

Ack!

The driver is paralysed with fear, has his foot hard on the gas and we are heading for the cliff.

To quote another movie "Pop quiz, what would YOU do?"

Interestingly, the answer is "shoot the hostage in the leg"

[Jon Husband]

"Gobsmacked" seems appropriate, somehow.

[Earl Mardle]

Aye, totally.

[Dave Snowden]

I think you might be going a little bit to the opposite extreme here. It is worth remembering that the population of London is around that of Australia and concentrated into a very small area. We also have the history of IRA terrorism behind us which showed the vallue of surveilance and monitoring to prevent outrages. 90 items is a bit of a newpaper headline figure, you would be suprised how many items of information an airline already has when you travel and how it is used.

Hearts and minds is unfortunate language, but the danger of indiginous terrorism is high in the UK, interestingly as well as the politicised generation of young muslems there are also the animal rights guys and an incipient group of Gaia terrorists. Removing some of the issues of disadvantage and other influencing factors is going to cost a lot of money.

Part of the problem here is the need (engendered by a certain australian media mogul) for sensational headlines. We need to read under the headlines and in context. I would still prefer to be in Britain under Brown, than Australia under Howard, or worst still the USA under Bush.

[Earl Mardle]

Thanks Dave and yes, there's probably a big chunk of hyperbole per Murdoch. And you are dead on about domestic terrorism, which is why targeting foreign terrorism rather than dealing with the isuses of the domestic cause is not smart.

But remember, the IRA had a deal with the British Government that enabled them to live with an extended period of low level, occasionally spectacular, violence. That deal (however it was negotiated) was that the IRA would attack buildings and give enough "coded warnings" to enable timely evacuation of people.

In essence, the British government colluded with the terrorists to damage property instead of killing people - a wholly acceptable tradeoff given the impossibility of actualyl stopping the attacks.

As one who lived through one IRA campaign in the UK I am very grateful for that.

But that level of pragmatism appears to have gone out the window; in part I suspect because the UK Govt doesn't get the cross cultural communication stuff and the rest because of the rampant paranoia of the US influence.

As for where you'd rather live, I agree, its another reason we shifted back to NZ from Australia. But its also slippery slope terroritory and, as we have seen in all the above-mentioned countries, including NZ, the application of these laws has been pretty well universally inept, irrelevant to actual law enforcement and, in the case of De Menezes, has turned the cops into the criminals.

As fgar as I can see, a successful security strategy will depend not on identifying and catching the attackers before they strike, although decent (effectivem, uncorrupt) policing will help, but will instead make sure that the highest proportion of citizens have the greatest stake in the status quo.

That will mean that some who currently do egregiously well in that system will have to be satisfied with less. They will do that one way or another, either by sharing the rewards more equitably, or by paying through the nose for a lifestyle that resembles a prison.

In the end you have to walk in the real world, however terrifying and ugly that has become. This ain't the way.

[Dave Snowden]

Good points although its worth remembering a few things.
1 - the arrangement with the Provos stabilised after a more destuctive period (remember the Birmingham Bombings) and there were factions subsequently (and still are).
2 - the treat is very different from the IRA, they has a known objective which also had legitimate support (Sinn Fein allowed negotiation). The current terrorist threat (and as I said I am more worried long term about eco-terrorism than "islamic") is very different, and the same sort of pragmatism is not possible.
3 - I would disagree on the cross cultural bit. People I know in the security services are amongst the most sophisticated I have met in cross cultura understanding.
4 - The foreign influence on British terrorism is high. The IRA funding all came from the USA and we had (as I said once to a conference in Washington and just about survived) the same right to bomb boston that they claimed as justification for bombing afganistan. Ireland was not domestic (as a republican myself).
5 - The number of prevented terrorist attacks in the UK is high, its a miracle to my mind that more have not gone through so there is some argument for suveliance.
6 - However the real point about suvelance is rapid capture of networks POST an attack. This is key to preventing future attacks and also to preventing domestic take up

Its an area where I have changed my views radically over the last decade as I have worked in anti-terrorism. Not only becuase the people I have worked with do not match the steriotypes I held in thye 70's, but also becuase trying to deal with the issues makes you realise the complexities.

The key point you make is that you cannot predict or prevent actual events, but you can change the landscape and surveliance is a part of that.

[Dave Snowden]

Apologies, I wrote this after having several pints of beer with (ironically given that he also commented) Jon Husband here in Vancouver. Item 2 line one should read:
2 - the threat is very different from the IRA, they had a known objective

[Jon Husband]

My bus home took a bit longer than Dave's elevator ride. Ah, the lovely blogs. Look how much I have learned today, along with a reminder-to-self to keep mind open, always.

[Earl Mardle]

Dave.

Beer influence excused.
=)

The other points
1 - the arrangement with the Provos stabilised after a more destuctive period.
True. In retrospect, maybe it would have been better to talk honestly with the Republicans instead of trying to maintain the inequity of Belfast to protect the people who say they support you.

2 - The current terrorist threat (and as I said I am more worried long term about eco-terrorism than "islamic") is very different, and the same sort of pragmatism is not possible.
I'd bet that the biggest eco-terrorist will be the planet herself as she visits on us all the kind of treatement being handed out to Bangladesh right now. And there will be no negotiating there.
On the "Islamic" front, you may be right, especially when the minimal negotiating position of both sides is "we get everything we want" it looks like a fight to the death. When your declared enemy is already part of your body politic, however, the options appear to be various levels of self harm. It starts to look like the social fabric itself is suffering from schizophrenia and part of that syndrome is the paranoia that you are constantly being watched and have constantly to watch others.
The outcome is at best paralysis and at worst suicide. Doing better than that is pretty well mandatory

3 - I would disagree on the cross cultural bit. People I know in the security services are amongst the most sophisticated I have met in cross cultura understanding.
No argument. But the people who make the policy based on advice from those people are not necessarily the brightest bulbs - Bush comes to mind - and his and Howard's and Blair's willingness to lie to get their way rather than practise evidence based politics raises the valid argument that the end has been set in stone and all we are doing is finding the shortest, least cost, simplest-sound-bite method for getting there. Panem et circenses; the final phase.

4 - The foreign influence on British terrorism is high.
Which is exactly my point at the start. Its an influence, via media, money and email, its not about people crossing borders which is what they think they are trying to stop.

The IRA funding all came from the USA and we had (as I said once to a conference in Washington and just about survived) the same right to bomb boston that they claimed as justification for bombing afganistan.
Hat tip for courage. Are you on the No-Fly list?

Ireland was not domestic (as a republican myself).
Mhmm. Lets agree that British attempts to MAKE it domestic were the cause of the problem.

5 - The number of prevented terrorist attacks in the UK is high,
That's news to me. Got any links? The number of successful prosecutions across the globe (not least in the latest NZ fiasco) is pretty slim, which argues for pretty slender evidence for those prevented attacks.

its a miracle to my mind that more have not gone through so there is some argument for surveillance.
Agreed, the issue is how much and of what kind? The UK is already the most surveilled nation on earth yet the successful arrests appear to be in places like Germany and not in the anglophone world.

6 - However the real point about suvelance is rapid capture of networks POST an attack. This is key to preventing future attacks and also to preventing domestic take up
Except that a suicide attack model and a good cell structure will defeat that.

I still hold the main point, that the strategy depends far too much on grabbing the tip of the spear when its aimed at your chest, and depending far too much on being able to process vast amounts of information in real time, then make valid decisions on that basis, rather than getting the soldier on your side, or at least give him less reason to believe that you hate him and wantv to kill or oppress him.

[Dave Snowden]

Well we may not be too far apart but there again!
1 - I would go further here and say the failure of the British to fully understand the break between the Stickies and Provos and their refusal to engage was a major factor in the subsequent escalation of violene.
2 - It is critical not to demonise terrorists (Eagleton has a good phrase here, if you demonise terrorists you loose as no one wins a battle with Satan, you have to see the world through their eyes to win). That latter point is one of the big areas of our work by the way.
3 - Global warming is not fun, but add a bunch of "Human kind is a virus on the mother godess and must be wiped out" nutters and it gets a lot worse.
4- Civilian support for, or compliance with terrorism is one of the most important issues to monitor for and deal with. There I think the indiginous islamic terrorism is similar to compliance with Provo action in Ireland in the 70s&80s
5 - Fully agree your point 3, one of the most depressing aspects of all of this.
6 - British terrism is heavily dependent on cross border traffic, both out for training, in fo money support, materials etc. Its a part of the equation, not the only part, but part
7 - Prevented terrorism - well you can trust or not trust police and intelligence service statements here. I would not take their figures intact, but I know enough to know that they are substantially true. Its not about prosectution, that is very hard (the NZ case was a nonses) it is about creating conditions in which plans are disrupted, moving to make people aware etc. etc. Its one of the big civil rights issues that is not debated openly. Temporary arrest knowing that you will not be able to prosecute is one of the disruptive techniques available.
8 - In respect of 6 you are correct to a degree on suicide bombers, but we have not yet reached that level in the UK. Even then rapid ability to trace source and contacts are key.

IN respect of your final paragraph I agree, but the need to more of one does not invalidate the need to do the other professionally

[Martin MB]

Even in the Grauniad...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2213958,00.html

[Earl Mardle]

Martin, notice that STILL "We hadn't got the message right," said one senior official. He added: "We must talk in a language which is not offensive."

This is PR and its BS. If the "message" comes from the right place, the right understanding, the language will follow, you may occasionally tangle your tongue but usually the language tells me what you are thinking. And euphemisms eventually become infected by the offense they try to avoid.

There has been a relentless message of anger and hatred from both sides, each egging each other along for a long time.

And Evans is right when he says "we are tackling a threat which finds its roots in ideology, so words really do matter".

What he doesn't recognise is that the response too comes from an ideology, and unless that ideology is unpicked and rethought, the language will conceal its true intent only as long as it takes to decode the new sales pitch.

If the PURPOSE of the language is to isolate and condemn, that is what it will do, regardless of the words used.

The "Jewish Problem" has become the "Muslim problem" and until the thinking that drives that mindset is changed, the language will make not one iota of difference.

Here's the news, hated minorities live with their nerve endings about 10 metres outside their bodies. They are sensitive to stuff you don't even know you are doing because it is part of who you are and how you feel about them, not about what you want them to do.

The focus on criminality is one key. But "modifying language" and "reaching out to the Muslim community" ENTAIL the attitude.

It takes a VERY long time for new language to change minds and in the meantime those who think in the old language resist and at some stage the subjects of the new language adopt the old, offensive language for themselves.

I have a mate who is Maori and about 6 feet 6, in all directions. He is known in his family and by a very few close friends, as Nigger. They use it in the street to terrify the passers by.

Language NEVER has only one purpose or one effect.

And this is the absolute key

"But they admit that the counter-radicalisation campaign may be jeopardised if it is not reflected in the actions and operations of the security and intelligence agencies and the police, including how they use the powers the government plans to give them."

Now, why did the Garudani leave that till the very last paragraph?

[Dave Snowden]

Sounds to me from the Guardian article that there is at least some attempt to modify language (which I think can have a bigger and more radical effect that you suggest) which might deserve some support. Ideology will always meet ideology, you can't avoid that. it might be better if he recognised the nature of the ideology.

You may or may not be hinting at this, but until we deal with the issue of the State of Israel and the US "good guys" and "bad guys" approach we will not get anyway.

Yes minorities are sensitive, so changing langauge and attitude is key,

There is a real danger here, of (unintentionally) taking the moral high ground, when there is a need for engagement.

[Earl Mardle]

Dave, anyone who has a beer with jon is probably not far from me.Mine in []

1 - [Thanks for the stretch. Actually, I'd go another, the inherent bad faith of power politics makes these things almost inevitable. It takes seriously special people to even attempt to get past it, like Jimmy carter.]

2 - It is critical not to demonise terrorists (Eagleton has a good phrase here, if you demonise terrorists you loose as no one wins a battle with Satan, you have to see the world through their eyes to win). That latter point is one of the big areas of our work by the way.
[Glad to hear it. I'd like to hear more. How are you working with terrorists to do that? What have been the results? And Eagleton is right, not only do you not win, but satan has glamour to burn, and glamour attracts, aks Terry Pratchett about the Elves]

3 - Global warming is not fun, but add a bunch of "Human kind is a virus on the mother godess and must be wiped out" nutters and it gets a lot worse.
[Wholly agree. But there is also the matter of scale. The repellent fred Phelps syndrome is pretty well its own inoculation. The eco-terrorists are a tiny minority with no base in the community. They are criminals and a bloody nuisance and totally at odds with the need for collaboration. In fact their whole model is identical to the one they oppose, "we win and get our way".]

4- Civilian support for, or compliance with terrorism is one of the most important issues to monitor for and deal with. There I think the indiginous islamic terrorism is similar to compliance with Provo action in Ireland in the 70s&80s
[Totally agree. And that is where the whole "hearts and minds" mindset fails at the first hurdle. The old Christians used to say that Christianity is like a nail, the harder you hit it, the deeper you drive it in. But someone with only a hammer mindset literally cannot think of anything else to do.]

6 - British terrism is heavily dependent on cross border traffic, both out for training, in for money support, materials etc. Its a part of the equation, not the only part, but part
[Yep. But mostly its Brits travelling to train or a simple international bank transfer from a safe source, not nearly as much the international traveller bringing mayhem that the new rules target.]

7 - Prevented terrorism - well you can trust or not trust police and intelligence service statements here. I would not take their figures intact, but I know enough to know that they are substantially true. Its not about prosectution, that is very hard (the NZ case was a nonses)
[Along with Haneef in Aus and all the US cases] it is about creating conditions in which plans are disrupted, moving to make people aware etc. etc. Its one of the big civil rights issues that is not debated openly.
[I'd bet because people don't what to talk about what is actually being done in their name - a bit like rationing medical care]

Temporary arrest knowing that you will not be able to prosecute is one of the disruptive techniques available.
[But at its base both corrupt and corrupting. Letting people know they are being observed to disrupt their planning and sow FUD among the group is one thing, using the legal apparatus of the state to do it is to undermine the legitimacy of that apparatus and WILL lead to arbitrary arrest and unwarranted imprisonment, however short, without recourse.]

8 - In respect of 6 you are correct to a degree on suicide bombers, but we have not yet reached that level in the UK. [Except the 7/7 bombings of course] Even then rapid ability to trace source and contacts are key.
[and again, as locals their data are already in the system.]

IN respect of your final paragraph I agree, but the need to more of one does not invalidate the need to do the other professionally
[to which I would add ethically and constitutionally, without destroying the freedoms we are asking the law to protect. So far the enactment of bad law, incompetently and unethically applied has been the hallmark of the GWOT. Stopping that first would be a good move]

[Earl Mardle]

Dave, lights going on all over the place. Thanks for the continued tackling

it might be better if he recognised the nature of the ideology.

You may or may not be hinting at this, but until we deal with the issue of the State of Israel and the US "good guys" and "bad guys" approach we will not get anyway.
[I wasn't as it happened, although they are both valid points. What I was getting at is that we always see other people's ideologies, (cultures, frameworks etc) but our own are pretty well invisible unless we make herculean efforts.

The British frame of reference includes a whole lot of (apparently still active) colonialist approaches and an economic underpinning that has had a nasty shock from the end of the UK as an Oil producer while still being addicted to the stuff right at the moment of Peak Oil.

Greenspan admitted a few weeks ago that Iraq is about oil and the security of a sufficient supply to maintain (I wont say SUStain) the "abundant oil" economy.

Until our politicians can deal honestly with the question of how OUR oil got under THEIR sand and what deals we have done to give us continued access to that (Blair and Howard especially) and what we need to do about that in terms of developing our economies out of this deep energy hole, then terrorism by people with their roots in countries with oil will continue to be a surprise and be dealt with in ways that stifle the conversation at every level and with everyone.

And underneath it all, I suspect it is driven in a large part that WE ALL KNOW the guilty secret.]

Yes minorities are sensitive, so changing langauge and attitude is key,
[yep, which is why I wanted the attitude part of it to be more prominent, that AND is huge.]

There is a real danger here, of (unintentionally) taking the moral high ground, when there is a need for engagement.

Here's the deal, give us a way to engage with the people making the decisions, honestly, openly, deliberatively, in ways that can make an actual difference, and I'll come down off the high ground so fast you'll flinch.

[Siona]

I can't imagine that treating even the healthiest, most well-meaning, kind-hearted human being in such a mistrustful fashion would do anything but instill in them a paranoid suspicion about the motives of all those around them. This whole project sounds like the systematized cultivation of a nation of alienated, frightened people who feel neither connected with their neighbors nor capable of trusting others. It's the perfect recipe for exactly what they're trying to prevent.

[Dave Snowden]

Siona, apologies but I think you are fundamentally wrong. A quick link to your web site indicates that we are likely not to agree anyway. I value intellect along with compassion and feel that equating truth with love is a very dangerous thing.

Earl - its an interesting exchange (maybe one that could continue over a beer in New Zealand when I am there in a couple of weeks time). You raise a lot of new issues as well as the old and in several of those areas I see no reason to disagree with you (most of your points about Oil for example) and anyone who reads Terry P is a friend of mine ....

- seeing things from another perspective. Yes we are (indirectly) working with terrorists there, in creating mechanisms to represent narrative from radically different perspectives. To be honest it is too much to explain in a comment and I would need to show you both the outcome and walk you through the process. If I can get people in the US and UK to see things from another cultures perspective I will consider the effort worth while. Happy to get you off the moral high ground but it will take a conversation and an ability to draw some pictures!.

- ecoterrorism is small now, but then all things start small, and we only pay attention to them when its too late to prevent bad outcomes other than at a very high cost.

- it is very difficult to handle terrorism without using morally corrupting technqiues hence the need for constraint. However the morally pure never defeat terrorism. Temporary arrest for limited time periods with some control review process seems to me a necessary aspect of dealing wiht the issue. Torture obviously not, inhumane treatment, obvioulsy not. The issue of constraint is however imperfect, but none of this is helped by the fact that politicians will not honestly explain why should powers are necessary and engage in debate with the public.

[Earl Mardle]

Siona. as I was reading your comemnt, something flashed through my mind.

The fortress scales.

If that is the mentality you embody at the nation state level, that will be the mentality you engender at the community and individual level.

The only question is whether the fortress mindset is the cause or the effect of a bottom up process.

[Earl Mardle]

Dave.

You're on for the beer, we can arrange offline.

Point about starting small is exactly an issue with me. It goes straight to the post yesterday about the Lucky Jew.

How do we detect significant things early enough in the process to take effective action? What is it about those who can spot them and can act on those tiny data points that appear as hunches that sets them apart from the rest of us who don't even see the problem.