Terror arrests in Cheltenham

#1
Two men arrested in Cheltenham over terror offences - Telegraph

Two men have been arrested on suspicion of terrorism offences after suspected explosives were found in garage in Cheltenham and more than 100 homes had to be evacuated.
Why is it these arrents happen and then follow up news of what explosives were found, outcome of investigations, convictions at court, etc. drop off the radar? Maybe I am not following the right news sources?
 
#2
#3
Let me guess Argentine polo players from Beaufort?
 
#4
Pretty much anything can be "explosive" if used (in)correctly. Flammable gases, aerosolised petrol, compressed gases, combustible dusts, micro/nanothermites. And we haven't even gotten to explosive chemicals.

Pardon my ignorance of follow-up details of past cases but can you please point me to some past terrorism-related raids + arrests which led to convictions and a description of exactly what explosives were found?
 
#5
Pretty much anything can be "explosive" if used (in)correctly. Flammable gases, aerosolised petrol, compressed gases, combustible dusts, micro/nanothermites. And we haven't even gotten to explosive chemicals.

Pardon my ignorance of follow-up details of past cases but can you please point me to some past terrorism-related raids + arrests which led to convictions and a description of exactly what explosives were found?
As the crocodile said to the elephants child, "why do you ask such things?"
 
#7
Blimey, I drove through there the other day. Or was it Chippenham, I always get them muddled up.

I think I'm going to stay in more.
 
#9
Blimey, I drove through there the other day. Or was it Chippenham, I always get them muddled up.

I think I'm going to stay in more.
If you don't know you wern't in Nham. Maaan.
 
#12
AFAIK other than Richard Reid, the Underwear Bomber, the 7/7 bombers and the failed Glasgow clowns, the explosive used is not in the news. IIRC further the arrested people seem to get released without charge.
Maybe it is not in the news for a reason?

Is that not a genuine public protection rationale? Or should we all have the recipe for a good home made explosive?

What other arrests are you referring to that get released without charge?
 
#14
Maybe it is not in the news for a reason?
Excuse my naivete, but what reason can that be?

Is that not a genuine public protection rationale?
Depends on the reason.

Or should we all have the recipe for a good home made explosive?
So do you think it is reasonable that information from GCSE and above Chemistry/Physics should be regulated?

What about all the recipes floating around the 'net? Censor them Iran style too?

What other arrests are you referring to that get released without charge?
For example:
BBC News - Sellafield nuclear site terror suspects released
All 12 men arrested during anti-terror raids released without charge | UK news | guardian.co.uk
Aid convoy terror suspects released without charge - Crime - UK - The Independent
 
#15
AFAIK other than Richard Reid, the Underwear Bomber, the 7/7 bombers and the failed Glasgow clowns, the explosive used is not in the news. IIRC further the arrested people seem to get released without charge.
IB, go on google and type in 'terrorist convictions in uk explosives found' it gives you loads of hits which can be looked at. However, the majority (all faik) are HME. They are not going to say what explosives were created in my view despite the fact that most of the information is already available on the web, as it would be irresponsible.

BBC NEWS | UK | Three guilty of airline bomb plot
This is just one and the links take you to various parts of the trial. If you think they are going to tell you exactly what kind and the constituent chemicals involved, initiation devices etc I'm sorry but you may be a tad niave.
 
#16
IB, go on google and type in 'terrorist convictions in uk explosives found' it gives you loads of hits which can be looked at. However, the majority (all faik) are HME. They are not going to say what explosives were created in my view despite the fact that most of the information is already available on the web, as it would be irresponsible.

BBC NEWS | UK | Three guilty of airline bomb plot
This is just one and the links take you to various parts of the trial. If you think they are going to tell you exactly what kind and the constituent chemicals involved, initiation devices etc I'm sorry but you may be a tad niave.
Now, please do not for a moment think that I advocate anything other than the authorities coming down like a ton of bricks on those who would seek to cause carnage to innocents.

However, the facts, as I see it are:
1) Authorities raid houses of terror suspects.
2) Usually it is claimed that explosives are found, and controlled demolitions take place.
3) Loads of everyday things can be "explosive"
4) Of those arrests, the follow up story doesn't appear in the news, the suspects are released or further details are scarce. Convictions are rare.

My questions are:
Who provides oversight to the anti-terror raids?
Is the evidence vs. threat sufficient to justify a raid?
Are we getting too many false negatives?
Is the public being sufficiently informed of what is going on?
Has anyone done a cost-benefit analysis of the extreme measures we are taking to beef up security vs. the hassle/economic/freedom costs?
Has the public been asked whether they consent to paying for all the additional security measures?

Now it may seem naive to ask for more detailed reporting in the news but the public pay for the security apparatus.
 
#17
Now, please do not for a moment think that I advocate nothing other than the authorities coming down like a ton of bricks on those who would seek to cause carnage to innocents.

However, the facts, as I see it are:
1) Authorities raid houses of terror suspects.
2) Usually it is claimed that explosives are found, and controlled demolitions take place.
3) Loads of everyday things can be "explosive"
4) Of those arrests, the follow up story doesn't appear in the news, the suspects are released or further details are scarce. Convictions are rare.

My questions are:
Who provides oversight to the anti-terror raids?
Is the evidence vs. threat sufficient to justify a raid?
Are we getting too many false negatives?
Is the public being sufficiently informed of what is going on?
Has anyone done a cost-benefit analysis of the extreme measures we are taking to beef up security vs. the hassle/economic/freedom costs?
Has the public been asked whether they consent to paying for all the additional security measures?

Now it may seem naive to ask for more detailed reporting in the news but the public pay for the security apparatus.
4. It's not as sensational as the arrests, depends what else is going on and it would seem to me you're not paying attention.

I'd suggest you direct most of your questions to your MP. Not because they aren't valid, but you're asking questions which have multiple answers and I'm up early tomorrow.

As for the penultimate one, that's why we have elections unless you're advocating every CT Op has a referendum on it? Personally, I don't think enough money is going into CT.

The final one should be directed to CMD and I recommend you start off by saying you pay his wages, and that of the security services. Ensure you tell him that the security services should send you a weekly bulletin with major operations highlighted and a breakdown on the cost benefit analysis for each one. After all, you're his employer ;-)
 
#19
Thanks for the links. Sorry if it was not clear, but I am not so interested in individual cases ("each one" as you put it) or short term ("weekly bulletins" as you put it) as I am on the long term, broader impacts "CT zeal" has had on things that affect our daily lives like an unbalanced budget.

My point is that clearly there is a trade-off between expense and security. Expense being financial, hassle and our freedoms.

There comes a point of diminishing returns when stopping >99.99% of terror attacks will cost 1e6 times more than stopping >99%. These are just illustrative numbers out of the air, but diminishing returns do apply here.

Is the government interested in stopping every possible attack at any expense? In which case may I suggest its CT budget will never be enough.
If the government seeks to want to stop premature death may I suggest they start with banning all automotive transport?
 
#20
Now, please do not for a moment think that I advocate anything other than the authorities coming down like a ton of bricks on those who would seek to cause carnage to innocents.

However, the facts, as I see it are:
1) Authorities raid houses of terror suspects.
2) Usually it is claimed that explosives are found, and controlled demolitions take place.
3) Loads of everyday things can be "explosive"
4) Of those arrests, the follow up story doesn't appear in the news, the suspects are released or further details are scarce. Convictions are rare.

My questions are:
Who provides oversight to the anti-terror raids?
Is the evidence vs. threat sufficient to justify a raid?
Are we getting too many false negatives?
Is the public being sufficiently informed of what is going on?
Has anyone done a cost-benefit analysis of the extreme measures we are taking to beef up security vs. the hassle/economic/freedom costs?
Has the public been asked whether they consent to paying for all the additional security measures?

Now it may seem naive to ask for more detailed reporting in the news but the public pay for the security apparatus.
The inference from your post is that too many raids take place without justification and that the teams carry out controlled explosions and get them in the press to help justify them.

My view is quite the reverse
- I don't imagine they carry out controlled explosions unless absolutely necessary and it would take plenty more than simply finding 'explosive materials'. Pretty sure they wouldn't detonate the two gas canisters and petrol in my garage if raided my place.
- I also think a lot more raids happen than those that make the news. Interestingly, this particular raid made the news in the States and yet quickly dropped off the national news here on the BBC. But then I don't think it's in our interests to publicize our work in CT, particularly in the same town as GCHQ and with 10 weeks to go to the Olympics.

In this particular instance, there is a 200 metre cordon in place - that doesn't sound like everyday explosive substances have been found...
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top