Yes. Some careers must end. ::: UK's security chiefs must answer for their failure to prevent this wave of terrorism https://t.co/2Wm2yNKNhy— Gabriel Elefteriu (@GElefteriu) June 6, 2017
Con Couglin, The Telegraph: Britain's security chiefs must answer for their failure to prevent this wave of terrorism
No fair-minded person doubts the professionalism of the thousands of British intelligence, security and police officers battling to defeat Islamist terrorism. It is by dint of their efforts that, when other European capitals were suffering horrendous attacks, attempts to visit similar atrocities upon the streets of Britain were thwarted.
Theresa May says that counter-terrorism officials have disrupted 18 significant terror plots since 2013. And when Britain did come under attack, those on the front line displayed heroic courage. PC Keith Palmer lost his life trying to prevent Khalid Masood from causing carnage in the Palace of Westminster, and in last weekend’s London Bridge atrocity, a transport police officer suffered serious injury tackling three knife-wielding terrorists armed with just his standard issue baton.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The above Telegraph commentary by Con Coughlin is behind a pay-wall. As to what is my take .... my understanding is that there are only a few thousand British counter-terrorism officers overseeing a file that includes over 20,000+ possible suspects/sympathisers/known Islamic radicals/etc.. In short .... Britain's security departments are overwhelmed. Should the security chiefs be blamed .... yes definitely .... but also the politicians and their policies who produced this mess in the first place .... and their complete failure (and I say cowardice) to present a plan/strategy/policy to the public on how to defeat it.
Hat tip Gabriel for this story.
3 comments:
They literally can't monitor everyone 24/7. It takes easily 10 personnel to safely and reliably monitor (shadow) one person around the clock. Plus laws don't allow prolonged monitoring. Eventually they fall off. Don't see the fault with the security chief. People are mad to just call for the end of the career of someone just because people slipped through the net. It's a sign of the scale of the problem mostly.
To monitor each person 24/7 it costs 2 million pounds/year with 9 officers per shift or 27 people per day.
It is not the security chief's fault.
"To monitor each person 24/7 it costs 2 million pounds/year with 9 officers per shift or 27 people per day."
It is the fault of a the MOTHER FUCKER politicians!
They set up the problem which has no tractable solution.
Import More?
Really?
Post a Comment