If you've not seen this yet...

[spudtater]

The British are feeling the pinch in relation to recent attempted bombings and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." Brits have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorised from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was during the great fire of 1666.

Comments

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

Eh? It's more about the British qualities of stoicism and understatement than anything else. I'm certainly grateful for the services of the police etc. in keeping the country safe, but I'm not going to get all melodramatic about anything — that would just be tacky. (i.e. American)   8^)

(I would put the danger from the wave of violence currently sweeping across Glasgow as more significant than that posed by incompetent terrorists, but this is another discussion entirely).

[scattergather.livejournal.com]

Or even competent ones for that matter (at least with availability levels of competent terrorists broadly in line with what they are now). The effort expended in countering terrorism within the UK is way out of proportion to the actual real physical damage it does or could do under a much more less invasive (and less expensive) security climate. Much of the money (including that lost due to excessive security measures) could be far more productively spent on other measures in terms of reducing deaths and injuries. There's a need for preventative measures against terrorism, but balanced ones.

Of course, this discounts the fact that many of the primary intended purposes of terrorism are psychological in nature (there's a clue in the name) and those are difficult to put an economic price on, but given what's been happening to civil liberties, I think I'd rather the shrinks took up a bit more of the slack than the securocrats.

I don't think this is a callous thing to say; considerations of cost and disruption are always going to feature in decisions about security measures; budgets are set, benefits are weighed. It is therefore entirely legitimate to question whether these assessments have been performed optimally. Gathering evidence (not the "for the prosecution" sort) relating to the effects and risks from terrorism to use in calibrating security measures is essential -- it can help establish a rational counter-strategy to terrorism, and it can be used to help counter the psychological effects. Pity it's less of a vote winner...