Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[UK] Gordon Brown reveals 'Fortress Britain' plan

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by pro-pilot, Nov 16, 2007.

  1. Here we go. The long awaited next stage in the 1984 proposition.
    It just keeps getting better! :roll:


    By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor

    Train passengers face routine airline-style bag checks and body searches as part of a new counter-terror crackdown announced by Gordon Brown.

    He conjured up visions of ''Fortress Britain" as he unveiled a succession of security measures at airports, railway stations, sports venues and other public places.

    In 2003 tanks were deployed to Heathrow Airport because of a suspected plot to shoot down an airliner
    There is also to be a huge "hearts and minds" drive aimed at diverting young Muslims away from the influence of fanatics.

    The Prime Minister said a review of vulnerable buildings and crowded spaces like shopping centres had led to a rethink of the way they are protected.

    More than 250 busy railway stations, airports and seaports as well as 100 "sensitive" installations like power stations and electricity substations will be given extra security.

    This could include screening luggage at major stations like London King's Cross or Manchester Piccadilly using mobile checking devices that can be moved around the country.

    More buildings will be defended by barriers to stop car bomb attacks, extra blast-proofing, vehicle exclusion zones and metal detectors.

    Curb on cabin baggage to end in January
    New security guidance is being sent out to sports venues, pubs, clubs and bars, shopping centres and tourist attractions together with thousands of cinemas and theatres, restaurants and hotels.

    Advice will also be given to hospitals, schools and places of worship on how to keep visitors safe.

    Some 160 counter-terrorism advisers will train civilian staff to identify suspect activity and ensure premises have adequate emergency facilities and make best use of their CCTV footage.

    At the same time, however, restrictions on aircraft hand baggage - introduced after an alleged plot to blow up trans-Atlantic flights last year - are to be eased.

    The one-bag limit and tougher screening of luggage will be progressively lifted, starting with several airports from Jan 7.

    In a wide-ranging Commons statement, Mr Brown outlined elements of a new national counter-terrorist strategy being drawn up in Whitehall.

    Extra protection for so-called ''crowded places" is planned following a review by Lord West, the Security Minister.

    It was prompted by the summer terrorist attacks in London and at Glasgow airport.

    Mr Brown said that no "major failures in our protective security" had been uncovered by Lord West's review.

    However, the results will not be published to avoid alerting the terrorists to the country's weak spots.

    Mr Brown conceded there had to be a balance between excessive security and public protection against terrorism.

    ''We must ensure that the travelling public are able to go about their business in the normal way," he said.

    ''In the most sensitive locations, for example some large rail stations - and whilst doing everything to avoid inconvenience to passengers - we are planning additional screening of baggage and passenger searches."

    It is currently unclear who will bear the costs of any security improvements.

    Downing Street suggested that Ministers were advising - rather than ordering - railway stations and other facilities to adopt new measures.

    A spokesman said the protection of individual buildings ''is the responsibility of the people who own them" and the Government's main role was to offer advice.

    Architects and planners will be encouraged to 'design-in' protective security measures, including safe areas, traffic control measures and the use of blast resistant materials, into new buildings,

    Mr Brown also outlined a ''hearts and minds" assault to counter the influence of radical fundamentalists in Britain's schools, universities, mosques, youth clubs and prisons, as well as on the internet.

    The move follows the warning last week by Jonathan Evans, the MI5 chief, that al-Qa'eda was systematically "grooming" children as young as 15 to carry out attacks in Britain.

    A new forum of headteachers will be convened to find ways to protect pupils from extremist propaganda.

    A police and security intelligence and research unit will be set up to identify, analyse and assess youngsters at risk of falling under the influence of extremists.

    Global technology and internet companies are being asked to help stop the spread of jihadist propaganda on the internet.

    ''This is a generational challenge which requires sustained work over the long term and by a range of actions in schools, colleges, universities, faith groups and youth clubs," Mr Brown said.

    "There is no greater priority than the safety and security of our people and building the strongest possible relationships across all faiths and communities," he said.

    "I believe it possible to build a stronger consensus that will both root out terrorist extremism and build more vibrant and cohesive communities."

    Mr Brown's statement followed an abrupt U-turn from Lord West who appeared to question Government plans to seek an extension to the 28-day limit for holding terrorist suspects without charge.

    The minister - a former head of the Royal Navy - told BBC radio that he had yet to be see evidence to convince him that the limit should be raised.

    Ninety minutes later - after meeting Mr Brown - he said he was convinced.

    Lord West denied he had changed his mind, but was rather a "simple sailor" who had not chosen his words well.

    David Cameron, the Tory leader, said Mr Brown's statement contained "a number of good ideas".

    He accepted tougher measures were needed because the terrorist threat was now of "a completely different order" to that faced in the past.

    But he added: "As a nation we also need the hard-nosed defence of our liberties."

    Vincent Cable, the acting Liberal democrat leader, said: "Our main concern remains the issue of pre-charge detention."
  2. So more poor foreigners in England are more likely to get shot in the face while they have their hands up in surrender.
  3. As per usual, blame the people responsible for keeping the populace safe. Why don't you start blaming the scumbags who blew up the tube, or the assholes who tried to blow up Glasgow airport. These are the pricks that have forced the hand of the authorities to tighten things up. How many people have to die before people start accepting that the fight has been brought home and new laws, restrictions and inconvenience are the price we all have to pay for it.

    As for the assertion that most of the funds assigned to anti-terrorism go to ass-covering, there is a small element of truth in that. Why, because when the shit hits the fan and something goes wrong, while the victims are the first to get it in the neck, the politicians are almost always second. Why, because they failed. Imagine you are responsible for stopping terrorist attacks. At what point is enough security enough? At what point is enough spending enough. There is no way of truly knowing if you have it right until you find out the hard way that you haven't which is then too late.

    Remember that if they get it right and none of these assholes ever succeeds, then the result is a perceived lack of a need for the very security measures because nothing has happened. Australia is a prime example of this. The current threat groups haven't struck at home yet so a lot of people whinge about 1984-style oppressionism. But it is like air bags in a car. How do you know that they work? You don't until you really need them and then they save your ass. But if you don't have them then you will bloody well wish you did when you have that accident and faceplant into the steering wheel, especially when you knew beforehand that an airbag would have saved you.
  4. Any Brits who cared left a long time ago...a well back to the latte
  5. The more governments strip away civil liberties in the name of keeping us safe, the more successful the extremists are. So much for never letting them change our way of life.
  6. Great Britain has had domestic terrorism for over 30yrs. I know, I lived there. Being in the South East, there was a terror target in just about every town. And this was consistent terrorism, not one off attacks by Islamic extremists. But you know what, we managed withouth all this stuff being proposed by Brown.

    Greg, you don't seem to accept that there are governments and those that control them who have vested interests in controlling the populace, instead being convinced of the benevolence of government and the security agencies. I am afraid I don't share that opinion and sadly have decades of evidence to support my stance.

    Brown is in a battle in the UK with a resurgent conservative party. He smugly talked of having an early election (2yrs early) until he realised he would be soundly beaten, before taking it off the agenda. He wasn't elected PM, instead being gifted it by Blair in a deal that goes back over decade. He isn't universally liked and although Blair could be a prick, he had a style that lots of people liked. Brown is trying to out conservative the conservatives. He is talking about immigration (a no go area for some years), security and being 'tough on crime'. This fits into his general mantra.

    Personally, having lived with terrorism until I moved here, I don't think that half of what is being done in the name of our safety is required.
  7. Hear hear, Cejay.

    /rant mode=on

    The Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt (FUD) campaigns are all about keeping the population in general on edge about a 'perceived' threat, which has the added advantage of encouraging them to re-elect the incumbent government.

    It is obligatory to mention this technique was used by Hitler, Mousollini and other power-obsessed individuals like George Bush to subdue opposition.

    Terrible things are done to people and their liberties in the name of this shit. Shareef and Hicks are only local examples. The ninth court in the States has just ruled a (Muslim) organisation cannot enter evidence in its own defence that they have been wiretapped, because the Government6 there legislated that wiretapping "terror targets" was a secret, and therefore could not be discussed in a public court. We have essentially the same laws here. If you are under investigation for "terror" and find out, you cannot discuss it with anyone, even a lawyer.

    The pendulum will swing back again, it is just a matter of when. I can't wait for commonsense to return.

    Some of the things we have allowed to happen make me embarrassed to be Australian.

    /rant mode=off
  8. I'm not agreeing with Brown I think the surveillance and loss of rights in the UK has gone too far, but there is a difference the IRA were never suicide bombers maybe incompetent on occasion but never on purpose and the IRA learnt in the seventies that targeting civilians was never going to work after the pub bombings they stuck to mainly military/government targets on the mainland often with telephone warnings. don't get me wrong the IRA are murdering scum too but the come from a different mindset.
  9. The IRA in general were not out to cause mass loss of life, that is for sure. However Irish terrorism claimed over 3000 lives during the conflict and most were not soldiers. Mainland terrorism was directed at infrastructure and military, but the net result was that civilians were still being killed and maimed in the mainland, just not at the rate in N.I. So, the requirements for diligence and security were the same as today. My point, that living with terrorism is not a new thing still holds true, though the methods and outcomes are changed.

    Stig, were did you live and when did you come out here?
  10. I think we're probably agreeing??? I think the new laws etc are BS, but I think they get away with it because apart from the hysteria from the US who's people to be honest supplied a lot of support to the IRA were a very different animal after Birmingham they learnt a lesson which the Islamist (I hate that word) haven't yet. they are still in favour of killing civilians which gives the Government the leverage it needs.

    What I don't understand is where this government need for overarching control is coming from, unless it's just fear of seeming to fail against the current threat. I firmly believe the extensions on being detained is to attempt prevent the miscarriages of Birmingham and Guildford which were at least partly due to pressure to get a result before time ran out.

    In answer to your question I'm from London I've been here since 1999, (And I lost a cousin in the Birmingham Pub Bombings and 2 mate's in NI, just in case you wonder why I put the IRA in such a low light)