10,000 full-time special constables versus Afghan deploy?

#1
I was listening to Brown talking about the need for the Afghan mission to prevent terrorism on our doorstep. Suppose we withdrew and swore in all the troops as special constables and deployed them as watchers (which the Security Service admit they can't cover), at ports and airports to aid immigration checks, as a visible presence at high profile sites....

Would security be reduced or increased?

If the non-wage costs of Afghan deployment are far higher than the non-wage costs of UK policing might it be 20,000 "full-time specials" rather than 10,000? What difference would it make to increase the English police force by 20%, and that 20% (how can I put it) conditioned to be pretty remorseless?
 
#3
Pointless, most of the terrorists already live in Brum and Bradford
 
#4
gobbyidiot said:
I was listening to Brown talking about the need for the Afghan mission to prevent terrorism on our doorstep. Suppose we withdrew and swore in all the troops as special constables and deployed them as watchers (which the Security Service admit they can't cover), at ports and airports to aid immigration checks, as a visible presence at high profile sites....

Would security be reduced or increased?

If the non-wage costs of Afghan deployment are far higher than the non-wage costs of UK policing might it be 20,000 "full-time specials" rather than 10,000? What difference would it make to increase the English police force by 20%, and that 20% (how can I put it) conditioned to be pretty remorseless?
Well that's a non-starter; Watchers have to be carefully selected(For example, MI5's website states there is a height limit for Surveillance Officers). They must be capable of blending in, the Gray Man/Woman. And that's before all the specialist training you would have to give the soldiers who were being re-tasked. :roll:

For what it's worth, I do agree that the police and security services need more boots on the ground. As you say, 7/7 happend because 5 simply did'nt have the manpower to watch all potential threats all the time. :evil:
 
#5
Werewolf said:
For what it's worth, I do agree that the police and security services need more boots on the ground. As you say, 7/7 happend because 5 simply did'nt have the manpower to watch all potential threats all the time. :evil:
As long as we keep welcoming these 'potential threats' into our country with open arms then I can't really see us getting a grip of it. personally I think the 2012 Olympics is going to be the decider on this issue.
 
#6
Total staff of MI5 is just under 3500 people
 
#7
Fallschirmjager said:
Werewolf said:
For what it's worth, I do agree that the police and security services need more boots on the ground. As you say, 7/7 happend because 5 simply did'nt have the manpower to watch all potential threats all the time. :evil:
As long as we keep welcoming these 'potential threats' into our country with open arms then I can't really see us getting a grip of it. personally I think the 2012 Olympics is going to be the decider on this issue.
You think there's going to be a terrorist spectacular at the 2012 Olympics, Fally?
 
#8
tropper66 said:
Total staff of MI5 is just under 3500 people
IIRC, the official report into 7/7 stated that MI5 would need approx. 15, 000 personel to keep watch on every potential terrorist. 8O
 
#9
Werewolf said:
You think there's going to be a terrorist spectacular at the 2012 Olympics, Fally?
I think there will be quite a few suicide bombers trying to get in on the act considering it is a world wide event. If the security services haven't covered all angles I believe we'll be in for some spectacular firework displays and not the Nov 5th sort.
 
#10
Fallschirmjager said:
Werewolf said:
You think there's going to be a terrorist spectacular at the 2012 Olympics, Fally?
I think there will be quite a few suicide bombers trying to get in on the act considering it is a world wide event. If the security services haven't covered all angles I believe we'll be in for some spectacular firework displays and not the Nov 5th sort.
Fair one.

TBH, I'm surprised they have'nt taken a shot at the Edinburgh New Year Party in Princess St before now; up to 100, 000 people, many of them Americans, packed into a fenced off area. Extensive news coverage. And L&B Police, with all due respect, are'nt in the same league as MI5 or CO19... :roll:
 
#11
When the nevt attack happens in the UK the fact is that those taking part as in 7/7 will be known to MI5." But the fact we know of an individual and the fact that they have had some assosiation with extremists doesn't mean we are going to be indefinitly in a position to be confident about ecerthing that they are doing, because we have to prioritise" Jonathan Evans DG MI5 Jan 2009
 
#12
gobbyidiot said:
I was listening to Brown talking about the need for the Afghan mission to prevent terrorism on our doorstep. Suppose we withdrew and swore in all the troops as special constables and deployed them as watchers (which the Security Service admit they can't cover), at ports and airports to aid immigration checks, as a visible presence at high profile sites....

Would security be reduced or increased?

If the non-wage costs of Afghan deployment are far higher than the non-wage costs of UK policing might it be 20,000 "full-time specials" rather than 10,000? What difference would it make to increase the English police force by 20%, and that 20% (how can I put it) conditioned to be pretty remorseless?
The major problem when any polllie opens his or her gob, they put their foot right in it. Others in the thread are correct, radicals/terrorists/insurgents, whatever you want to call them are alive and well in GB and all other states.

The simple fact is that intelligence agencies aren't as intelligent as they make out, which is largely due to ineptness on the part of those we elect to government. Strangely enough your 'grey man' senario will not help a great deal unless you have feet, eyes and ears on the ground who are linguistic specialists, most intelligence agencies lack this resource. If I were 2nd generation British Indian/Pakistani or whatever I would speak on average 2 to 3 languages. Most agencies lack this ability. To put it simply they need to recruit from within the community. Look at the cold war as the example. If you weren't a Russian, German or slavic language specialist, you weren't recruited for the real ground work. Even in NI (and they speak a English), recruitment was always from within the community.

I suppose the 'special constable' is one of Gordy's cost cutting recession approaches !! looooooooooooooool.
 
#13
tropper66 said:
When the nevt attack happens in the UK the fact is that those taking part as in 7/7 will be known to MI5." But the fact we know of an individual and the fact that they have had some assosiation with extremists doesn't mean we are going to be indefinitly in a position to be confident about ecerthing that they are doing, because we have to prioritise" Jonathan Evans DG MI5 Jan 2009
Correct. When, not if. :evil:
 
#14
Werewolf said:
tropper66 said:
When the nevt attack happens in the UK the fact is that those taking part as in 7/7 will be known to MI5." But the fact we know of an individual and the fact that they have had some assosiation with extremists doesn't mean we are going to be indefinitly in a position to be confident about ecerthing that they are doing, because we have to prioritise" Jonathan Evans DG MI5 Jan 2009
Correct. When, not if. :evil:
I didnt write that, Christopher Andrew did in Defence of the Realm
 
#15
tropper66 said:
Werewolf said:
tropper66 said:
When the nevt attack happens in the UK the fact is that those taking part as in 7/7 will be known to MI5." But the fact we know of an individual and the fact that they have had some assosiation with extremists doesn't mean we are going to be indefinitly in a position to be confident about ecerthing that they are doing, because we have to prioritise" Jonathan Evans DG MI5 Jan 2009
Correct. When, not if. :evil:
I didnt write that, Christopher Andrew did in Defence of the Realm
Is that the official history of MI5?
 
#16
Werewolf said:
tropper66 said:
Werewolf said:
tropper66 said:
When the nevt attack happens in the UK the fact is that those taking part as in 7/7 will be known to MI5." But the fact we know of an individual and the fact that they have had some assosiation with extremists doesn't mean we are going to be indefinitly in a position to be confident about ecerthing that they are doing, because we have to prioritise" Jonathan Evans DG MI5 Jan 2009
Correct. When, not if. :evil:
I didnt write that, Christopher Andrew did in Defence of the Realm
Is that the official history of MI5?
Yes,a very heavy read all 1032 pages but a cracking reference book
 
#17
In addition to gendarmes (who are technically part of the armed forces), CRS and local police it is commonplace to see small patrols of armed troops in any major airport or railway station in France.
 
#19
zazabell_012 said:
gobbyidiot said:
I was listening to Brown talking about the need for the Afghan mission to prevent terrorism on our doorstep. Suppose we withdrew and swore in all the troops as special constables and deployed them as watchers (which the Security Service admit they can't cover), at ports and airports to aid immigration checks, as a visible presence at high profile sites....

Would security be reduced or increased?

If the non-wage costs of Afghan deployment are far higher than the non-wage costs of UK policing might it be 20,000 "full-time specials" rather than 10,000? What difference would it make to increase the English police force by 20%, and that 20% (how can I put it) conditioned to be pretty remorseless?
The major problem when any polllie opens his or her gob, they put their foot right in it. Others in the thread are correct, radicals/terrorists/insurgents, whatever you want to call them are alive and well in GB and all other states.

The simple fact is that intelligence agencies aren't as intelligent as they make out, which is largely due to ineptness on the part of those we elect to government. Strangely enough your 'grey man' senario will not help a great deal unless you have feet, eyes and ears on the ground who are linguistic specialists, most intelligence agencies lack this resource. If I were 2nd generation British Indian/Pakistani or whatever I would speak on average 2 to 3 languages. Most agencies lack this ability. To put it simply they need to recruit from within the community. Look at the cold war as the example. If you weren't a Russian, German or slavic language specialist, you weren't recruited for the real ground work. Even in NI (and they speak a English), recruitment was always from within the community.

I suppose the 'special constable' is one of Gordy's cost cutting recession approaches !! looooooooooooooool.
I venture to suggest that you do not need linguists actually on the ground, although this would be the best scenario. But if you can keep someone under close enough surveillance that you can hear what they are saying, you can record it. And the linguists back at HQ can translate the recordings.

It's hard enough to recruit people with the right skills to be Watchers or Linguists, without trying to find someone who can do both.
 
#20
hackle said:
In addition to gendarmes (who are technically part of the armed forces), CRS and local police it is commonplace to see small patrols of armed troops in any major airport or railway station in France.
Yep, I was quite shocked to see a patrol outside the railway station at EuroDisney
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Unknown_Quantity Current Affairs, News and Analysis 2
F Current Affairs, News and Analysis 16
Gunner_ear Army Pay, Claims & JPA 42

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads