Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They said we may have 400 from Islamic state in Syria, Iraq. UK citizens and maybe some 400 more in the region on BBC
None of those people should ever set a single foot back on UK soil.

Far as I care. They gave up that right when they enlisted with them. They knew who they where joining and what they did yet still went to fight for them.

I do wonder how reliable those numbers are. I'm sure I'll be on watch lists for travelling back and forward to Iraq as a civilian. I'll definitely be on Shin Bet's radar because I also travel back and forward to Israel with Iraqi stamps in my passport. I'm not sure how much they can conceivably know about what I do in Iraq, though. So how much can they know about other UK nationals? Maybe people that aren't white get considerably more lengthy interviews at passport control...

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They said we may have 400 from Islamic state in Syria, Iraq. UK citizens and maybe some 400 more in the region on BBC
None of those people should ever set a single foot back on UK soil.

Far as I care. They gave up that right when they enlisted with them. They knew who they where joining and what they did yet still went to fight for them.

I do wonder how reliable those numbers are. I'm sure I'll be on watch lists for travelling back and forward to Iraq as a civilian. I'll definitely be on Shin Bet's radar because I also travel back and forward to Israel with Iraqi stamps in my passport. I'm not sure how much they can conceivably know about what I do in Iraq, though. So how much can they know about other UK nationals? Maybe people that aren't white get considerably more lengthy interviews at passport control...

If you have any digital footprint, work for anyone big enough or done it enough times its a fair guess they know and did checks into you.
These people are professionals and very very detailed and careful.

Its likely they checked and put you on the not threat pile.
If they thought something was up they would of surely had a longer chat about things.

With the times we're living in, and with only May and Corbyn to choose between...Jesus. We're in a very bad place.

 jhe90 wrote:

If you have any digital footprint, work for anyone big enough or done it enough times its a fair guess they know and did checks into you.
These people are professionals and very very detailed and careful.

Its likely they checked and put you on the not threat pile.
If they thought something was up they would of surely had a longer chat about things.

Possibly. I mean, I get asked why I I've been to Iraq (and the Gulf States) at passport control a lot, but no one has ever asked me to prove anything, and whilst I get paid and/or funded for these trips I buy all the tickets and get squared up later. I've always been quite surprised at how little attention I get.

When I went to the US embassy to get a visa (ESTA doesn't apply if you've been to Iraq) the entire interview was literally:

'Why do you go to Iraq'
'I'm an archaeologist. I work on Ancient Near Eastern rel...'
'OK. We'll get your passport back to you in 10-15 days.'



I had a folder full of proof. No interest in any of it. Like I say, I imagine there are a fair few extra questions if you're not white. I certainly have some collegues who do not enjoy traveling to the UK and US for conferences.

May and the Tories on the ropes over cuts to police numbers. Corbyn is putting the boot in.

The chickens are well and truly coming home to roost for May.

That may be, but do you think a Corbyn government will handle it any better?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
May and the Tories on the ropes over cuts to police numbers. Corbyn is putting the boot in.

The chickens are well and truly coming home to roost for May.

She was an absolute mess in her press conference. Looked like she just wanted to put everyone asking about the 'stop scaremongering' lines in the gulag.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
That may be, but do you think a Corbyn government will handle it any better?

Can't do any worse, when you consider how low the bar is set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
May and the Tories on the ropes over cuts to police numbers. Corbyn is putting the boot in.

The chickens are well and truly coming home to roost for May.

She was an absolute mess in her press conference. Looked like she just wanted to put everyone asking about the 'stop scaremongering' lines in the gulag.

Yeah, it was borderline car-crash.

nfe wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

If you have any digital footprint, work for anyone big enough or done it enough times its a fair guess they know and did checks into you.
These people are professionals and very very detailed and careful.

Its likely they checked and put you on the not threat pile.
If they thought something was up they would of surely had a longer chat about things.

Possibly. I mean, I get asked why I I've been to Iraq (and the Gulf States) at passport control a lot, but no one has ever asked me to prove anything, and whilst I get paid and/or funded for these trips I buy all the tickets and get squared up later. I've always been quite surprised at how little attention I get.

When I went to the US embassy to get a visa (ESTA doesn't apply if you've been to Iraq) the entire interview was literally:

'Why do you go to Iraq'
'I'm an archaeologist. I work on Ancient Near Eastern rel...'
'OK. We'll get your passport back to you in 10-15 days.'



I had a folder full of proof. No interest in any of it. Like I say, I imagine there are a fair few extra questions if you're not white. I certainly have some collegues who do not enjoy traveling to the UK and US for conferences.

To be fair, id guess that anyone with a folder full of proof and willing to expose it to scrutiny, id more reliable.
You don,t rxpose a fake anything to more investigation than you can, and anyone can check back on degree, or your institution your working for easily to confirm your genuine if asking questions..

Honestly. Its pretty was to check someone is legitimately what they say are.

Yeah.. Profiling despite what they say is rather regular.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
That may be, but do you think a Corbyn government will handle it any better?

Better... Not sure.
My only thing is he never been on front bench before this, never had a ministerial position.
He kinda untested but true, if he faces a crisis, and utterly fails then he will be quickly attacked by the waiting Brutus of the labour party so that Il deal with that one way or the other.

Long as he has guts needed to order the shoot to kill etc in a terror attack.
I mean it not nice, but when it comes down to it. The PM has to authorise some things for the good of the nation, things that are less pleasant.
We need a leader who may not like it. But will give such orders if to save lives.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.

This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.

It started long before that. Anyone remember British lack of kit in Iraq? Or the shell scandal in the Boer War?

It's a sad, age-long truth of British politics, that since there's been a centralised government, practically every one of them has cut defence spending. The only exceptions were the ones who were either in wars, or thought they were shortly about to be. There's always constant cheese-paring with money hived off to alternative projects or 're-classification' of what counts as defence spending to make it seem higher than it is.

Then when war is announced, suddenly the Armed Forces are told money is not an issue, and they have to scramble around and desperately try and source whatever they can from wherever they can.

I don't think this is a May specific problem. More one of the normal British desire to get maximum milk for minimum moo in defence expenditure. It's amazing how well they've always done on what they have, the Americans usually spend twice as much as to get similar results on any given project.

What Ketera said.


We had loads of issues going into Iraq back in 2003 during our golden age of spending. The army had under armoured vehicles and plenty of issues with kit and arms.

We've also had to retire many of our older vessels in the navy as the carriers reached the end of their lives and the mk22 and mk23 frigates are in a similar position.

I don't care if the army is only 100,000 strong provide it is adequately equipped and ready to go. It's fair better than having a poorly equipped army 1,000,000 strong.

 welshhoppo wrote:
What Ketera said.


We had loads of issues going into Iraq back in 2003 during our golden age of spending. The army had under armoured vehicles and plenty of issues with kit and arms.

We've also had to retire many of our older vessels in the navy as the carriers reached the end of their lives and the mk22 and mk23 frigates are in a similar position.

I don't care if the army is only 100,000 strong provide it is adequately equipped and ready to go. It's fair better than having a poorly equipped army 1,000,000 strong.

The army is struggling to hit 90,000 strong. God hep us if the Russians invade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.

This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.

It started long before that. Anyone remember British lack of kit in Iraq? Or the shell scandal in the Boer War?

It's a sad, age-long truth of British politics, that since there's been a centralised government, practically every one of them has cut defence spending. The only exceptions were the ones who were either in wars, or thought they were shortly about to be. There's always constant cheese-paring with money hived off to alternative projects or 're-classification' of what counts as defence spending to make it seem higher than it is.

Then when war is announced, suddenly the Armed Forces are told money is not an issue, and they have to scramble around and desperately try and source whatever they can from wherever they can.

I don't think this is a May specific problem. More one of the normal British desire to get maximum milk for minimum moo in defence expenditure. It's amazing how well they've always done on what they have, the Americans usually spend twice as much as to get similar results on any given project.

I don't dispute the historical narrative here, but in the last 7 years, the problem has become more severe. If you're a Private Eye reader, then you'll know that the privatization of police forensics centres was one of the biggest acts of self-harm this nation has ever suffered.

That happened under May's watch. For me, she should do the honourable thing and resign.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
What Ketera said.


We had loads of issues going into Iraq back in 2003 during our golden age of spending. The army had under armoured vehicles and plenty of issues with kit and arms.

We've also had to retire many of our older vessels in the navy as the carriers reached the end of their lives and the mk22 and mk23 frigates are in a similar position.

I don't care if the army is only 100,000 strong provide it is adequately equipped and ready to go. It's fair better than having a poorly equipped army 1,000,000 strong.

The army is struggling to hit 90,000 strong. God hep us if the Russians invade.

Wars aren't waged with conscripts with rifles any more. Training, morale, technical force multipliers etc. are the deciding factors nowadays.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.

This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.

It started long before that. Anyone remember British lack of kit in Iraq? Or the shell scandal in the Boer War?

It's a sad, age-long truth of British politics, that since there's been a centralised government, practically every one of them has cut defence spending. The only exceptions were the ones who were either in wars, or thought they were shortly about to be. There's always constant cheese-paring with money hived off to alternative projects or 're-classification' of what counts as defence spending to make it seem higher than it is.

Then when war is announced, suddenly the Armed Forces are told money is not an issue, and they have to scramble around and desperately try and source whatever they can from wherever they can.

I don't think this is a May specific problem. More one of the normal British desire to get maximum milk for minimum moo in defence expenditure. It's amazing how well they've always done on what they have, the Americans usually spend twice as much as to get similar results on any given project.

Yes, it is an age-old problem. The fleet that fought the Spanish Armada had a problem with lack of rations.

Not just British, either. In the Bible, Joseph doesn't have any proper sling ammo and has to pick through pebbles to find a good one to shoot at Goliath.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Not just British, either. In the Bible, Joseph doesn't have any proper sling ammo and has to pick through pebbles to find a good one to shoot at Goliath.

David. Joseph was a big poncy pacifist.

EDIT: Well, the Hebrew Bible one, anyway. New Testament Joseph is pretty much just a name.

A lot of people are missing the point here: the country is going to the dogs!

Yeah, I've banged that drum before, but where I live, a spate of post office robberies has left this area reeling. Criminal gangs are operating in my area with impunity.

If rural areas in the middle of nowhere are suffering a crime wave, then God knows what is happening in our cities.

In these instances, the police have been useful as an ice cube maker on the Titanic!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I don't dispute the historical narrative here, but in the last 7 years, the problem has become more severe. If you're a Private Eye reader, then you'll know that the privatization of police forensics centres was one of the biggest acts of self-harm this nation has ever suffered.

That happened under May's watch. For me, she should do the honourable thing and resign.

Speaking purely on the matter of defence (not police), it tends to become more pronounced the longer it goes on. We haven't been engaged in a serious war since the 80's. Iraq and Afghanistan were done on shoestring budgets. Thirty years of peace means that capabilities and reserves have become seriously ground down, and will continue to be so long as we continue to not be at war. What party is in power is not likely to change that.

If there's one good thing Cameron did do in that field, it was insisting we kept both aircraft carriers. It is easier to obtain planes (of whatever make) at short notice than it is warships.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I don't dispute the historical narrative here, but in the last 7 years, the problem has become more severe. If you're a Private Eye reader, then you'll know that the privatization of police forensics centres was one of the biggest acts of self-harm this nation has ever suffered.

That happened under May's watch. For me, she should do the honourable thing and resign.

Speaking purely on the matter of defence (not police), it tends to become more pronounced the longer it goes on. We haven't been engaged in a serious war since the 80's. Iraq and Afghanistan were done on shoestring budgets. Thirty years of peace means that capabilities and reserves have become seriously ground down, and will continue to be so long as we continue to not be at war. What party is in power is not likely to change that.

If there's one good thing Cameron did do in that field, it was insisting we kept both aircraft carriers. It is easier to obtain planes (of whatever make) at short notice than it is warships.

The strategic defence review is supposed to take a long term view of things (20-30 years) but we seem to have convinced ourselves that Soviet tank divisions are still massing on the West German border.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
And... Guess what's coming out.
The attackers where known to police.. Watch lists...

If your running that program. Can we replace them with someone new, maybe try and get this gak nailed down and tightened up.

Seems the security net had holes in it.

Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.

This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.

As a counterpoint, I would ask who has the capability to invade the UK in the first place, and would the UK be able to do anything about it either way? Because about the only power that could do so without significant obvious and lengthy years long buildup is...the US.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
And... Guess what's coming out.
The attackers where known to police.. Watch lists...

If your running that program. Can we replace them with someone new, maybe try and get this gak nailed down and tightened up.

Seems the security net had holes in it.

Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.

This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.

As a counterpoint, I would ask who has the capability to invade the UK in the first place, and would the UK be able to do anything about it either way? Because about the only power that could do so without significant obvious and lengthy years long buildup is...the US.

Historically, Britain has always been a hard place to invade, and yes, the USA is probably the only nation that could do it, and yes, it's unlikely to happen.

But I've always believed that a nation needs to act as though it has no friends in the world when it comes to defence.

Trust and respect your allies, but never rely on them entirely.

Pursuing a strategy of running down defence because we're unlikely to be invaded, is the sort of strategy that will spell disaster for this nation.

 Ketara wrote:
If there's one good thing Cameron did do in that field, it was insisting we kept both aircraft carriers. It is easier to obtain planes (of whatever make) at short notice than it is warships.

You would think, but it really isnt. The Typhoon, for example had been in development since the 80s, and taken an astronomical amount of cash. Buying off the shelf is cheaper than developing your own, but is also ridiculously expensive, and attracts all sorts of other costs. It takes years, and millions of pounds to train a single fighter pilot, much less the hundreds of personnel required to keep the thing in the air. A squadron of about 20 jets will have hundreds of people working to keep them going, that is not quick and easy to set up. Off the shelf purchases are also politically unpopular as they cost British "jobs", as well as the product you buy not being the full package, usually having a limited software package. They usually also attract all kinds of tied in contracts to the seller, a minimum spend and maintenance schedules and costings dictated to you etc.

Admittedly those boats* cost about £6 billion, and take years to build, but building the f35 squadrons that will fly from each carrier carry a stupifyingly high amount of tax payer commitment, and take just as long, especially as they will be built pretty much from scratch.

Nothing in Defence, just like in every government branch is simple, easy or cheap, definitely not cheap.






*just seeing if there are any closet fisheads lurking.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of people are missing the point here: the country is going to the dogs!

Yeah, I've banged that drum before, but where I live, a spate of post office robberies has left this area reeling. Criminal gangs are operating in my area with impunity.

If rural areas in the middle of nowhere are suffering a crime wave, then God knows what is happening in our cities.

In these instances, the police have been useful as an ice cube maker on the Titanic!

The police will always be underfunded and overstretched given the size of the population they police. Even at the best of times the police don't have an impressive rate of solving crimes. What keeps crime down is the fact that most people choose not to commit crimes not that the police have high closure rates on cases because that's never been true.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
And... Guess what's coming out.
The attackers where known to police.. Watch lists...

If your running that program. Can we replace them with someone new, maybe try and get this gak nailed down and tightened up.

Seems the security net had holes in it.

Like I said on the other thread, the first duty of government is defence of the realm. Our armed forces would struggle to defend Britain from invasion as they have been run down. Our police force struggles to maintain law and order.

This has happened after 7 years of Tory government. They have failed the nation. It's dereliction of duty. For that reason alone, they should be voted out on Thursday.

As a counterpoint, I would ask who has the capability to invade the UK in the first place, and would the UK be able to do anything about it either way? Because about the only power that could do so without significant obvious and lengthy years long buildup is...the US.

Historically, Britain has always been a hard place to invade, and yes, the USA is probably the only nation that could do it, and yes, it's unlikely to happen.

But I've always believed that a nation needs to act as though it has no friends in the world when it comes to defence.

Trust and respect your allies, but never rely on them entirely.

Pursuing a strategy of running down defence because we're unlikely to be invaded, is the sort of strategy that will spell disaster for this nation.

all fair points to be sure, just wanted to play devils advocate there and just make sure that the understanding of the threat was realistic.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of people are missing the point here: the country is going to the dogs!

Yeah, I've banged that drum before, but where I live, a spate of post office robberies has left this area reeling. Criminal gangs are operating in my area with impunity.

If rural areas in the middle of nowhere are suffering a crime wave, then God knows what is happening in our cities.

In these instances, the police have been useful as an ice cube maker on the Titanic!

The police will always be underfunded and overstretched given the size of the population they police. Even at the best of times the police don't have an impressive rate of solving crimes. What keeps crime down is the fact that most people choose not to commit crimes not that the police have high closure rates on cases because that's never been true.

True, the police can't solve every crime, but the numbers don't lie, and the crisis is summed up best in this article.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/theresa-may-police-cuts-margaret-thatcher-budgets

Long term it won't be the police taking the fight to Islamic terrorists it will be special forces. Police have a role but it will be undercover operatives and units who will defeat and infiltrate these gangs.

May's back in Scotland on the campaign trail. Translation: hidden away in some stage managed event.

She's attacked the SNP for their record on taxation and VAT.

VAT is not devolved to the Scottish parliament

God help us on Friday if May wins...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Knockagh wrote:
Long term it won't be the police taking the fight to Islamic terrorists it will be special forces. Police have a role but it will be undercover operatives and units who will defeat and infiltrate these gangs.

There's always a role for the community police officer.

 Knockagh wrote:
Long term it won't be the police taking the fight to Islamic terrorists it will be special forces. Police have a role but it will be undercover operatives and units who will defeat and infiltrate these gangs.

That's unlikely I think. It appears the modus operandi for a lot of these attacks is small close knit groups. That means the undercover operations have limited effect because getting into the groups is more difficult (it's not a large criminal gang where there is more pathways) and even if they do their overall impact is limited because it, potentially, is one of many.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
.

As a counterpoint, I would ask who has the capability to invade the UK in the first place, and would the UK be able to do anything about it either way? Because about the only power that could do so without significant obvious and lengthy years long buildup is...the US.

Even the US would find it difficult. The problem with any invasion of foreign soil is that generally the populace as a whole don't want you there. Therefore your soldiers are not only fighting the countries military but also the annoyed populace. Despite everything if 45m people decided they want you out the way there is going to be little you can do about it. Yes it might be bloody but it's simply too many people to control. Whether that is the population feeding you poisoned bread to the soldiers armed resistance movements or simply radioing where all your positions are.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
Long term it won't be the police taking the fight to Islamic terrorists it will be special forces. Police have a role but it will be undercover operatives and units who will defeat and infiltrate these gangs.

That's unlikely I think. It appears the modus operandi for a lot of these attacks is small close knit groups. That means the undercover operations have limited effect because getting into the groups is more difficult (it's not a large criminal gang where there is more pathways) and even if they do their overall impact is limited because it, potentially, is one of many.

It's the communities that will be infiltrated. Agents throughout the Muslim communities will be recruited on the back of various misdemeanours they will be let off. A dirty war is already underway and it's heros will be unsung and abused but it will be the dirty war that will stop this eventually.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
May and the Tories on the ropes over cuts to police numbers. Corbyn is putting the boot in.

The chickens are well and truly coming home to roost for May.

She is struggling especially because she was in charge of the Home Office. That makes her position very difficult. She was getting more and more exasperated as the interview went on hardly showing those leadership qualities. She's being attacked by former aides (probably not a surprise because I think some can see an opportunity for a new leader of the Conservatives shortly). Her answer were also repeating the same over and over.

Bizarrely she criticises Labours ability to manage terrorism responses and then goes on to praise the mayor of London highly for his work (perhaps forgetting that he is Labour and making her point about Labour not really justifiable).

And I still don't think she really gets the issues. When she called British values 'superior' is arrogant in the extreme and is only likely to further reinforce a perception.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Knockagh wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
Long term it won't be the police taking the fight to Islamic terrorists it will be special forces. Police have a role but it will be undercover operatives and units who will defeat and infiltrate these gangs.

That's unlikely I think. It appears the modus operandi for a lot of these attacks is small close knit groups. That means the undercover operations have limited effect because getting into the groups is more difficult (it's not a large criminal gang where there is more pathways) and even if they do their overall impact is limited because it, potentially, is one of many.

It's the communities that will be infiltrated. Agents throughout the Muslim communities will be recruited on the back of various misdemeanours they will be let off. A dirty war is already underway and it's heros will be unsung and abused but it will be the dirty war that will stop this eventually.

You don't need infiltrators, there are already plenty of people willing to talk to the police with concerns over radicalised people. The last time the police used infiltration methods it didn't end well (there was case where they infiltrated an environment group and caused all of the cases to collapse).

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
May's back in Scotland on the campaign trail. Translation: hidden away in some stage managed event.

She's attacked the SNP for their record on taxation and VAT.

VAT is not devolved to the Scottish parliament

God help us on Friday if May wins...

I'm still pretty certain that May will win, despite the surge of support apparent on the Internet. Whilst I know personally of a few people who are now voting "not Tory", many appear to be sticking to what they perceive as the better option in what they think is a Sophies choice.

I don't agree with that position, but I understand it. I just don't think that there's enough support for "not Tory", but then my constituency is deeply blue, as is my workplace, so I'm finding it difficult to assess what the feeling is out there.