Wall of silence over terror threat - TV alert

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, May 16, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3713049.stm

    Panorama: London under attack will be broadcast on BBC One on Sunday, 16 May 2004 at 22:15 BST

    So watch it and decide if it's a load of old bollies , or whether you should be handing the RQMS extra beer vouchers for some S10's for the loved ones..
  2. I have to admit, i don't see the point of showing this stuff, it is just simply scare mongering and serves no benefit to anyone. They harp on about how Britain isn't prepared for an attack, well name me one country that is!

    Problem with this country is we like to have our cake and eat it, too little obvious changes to security and we moan that the Government is doing shit all and the threat is too real, too much change and we moan that we are too restricted and that the threat isn't real.

    People are going to have to realise that we are never really safe, and if we all worried about what would happen next, we would never get out of bed in the morning. People are very good at fooling themselves, i suppose it is better that way.

    Reference 3.7a: GQ.
  3. I agree. When it comes down to it, nothing much is going to change because there is little public appetite for the kind of security measures which might make a difference and s*d all government appetite to spend the necessary cash. Instead, we get fobbed off with plans for national ID cards and so on, which may improve our ability to control illegal immigration, but will have next no effect on security.

    Whenever there is a security threat, all we ever seem to see are PR measures, like deploying the HCR to Heathrow, as if that was going to have any effect. IMHO, the effective way to improve security is to follow the Septics' and Isrealis' examples, and ruthlessly target the people who organise and inspire terrorists.

    A bit like Monty Python's ancient Welsh martial art of Llap-Goch - get your retaliation in before your opponent has even thought of attacking you.
  4. I frequently have my missus wearing an S10, and she isn't even in the forces :twisted:
  5. There are multiple attacks taking place on our society all day, every day: conducted by the BBC and the tabloids.

    Much more insidious and effective than the odd bomb or two.


    Andrew Gillibollocks
  6. Spot on really,
    The terrorists work by inflicting fear upon a population that is often out of proportion to the attack itself. Panorama appear to be doing their job for them.
  7. As i said, is any country prepared for it? Should we waste more money on something that might not ever happen, and if it does may not be in the form we expect? I seriously doubt throwing more money on it will help until your average Joe wises up to the threat and the press stop making it out to be something it isn't.

    You really think preparing for the event is a good thing? I would rather have it prevented in the first place, which i am sure the Government are doing right now.

    On the whole, i would rather not find out what would happen if we were attacked, with or without this country being prepared (Whatever that means).
  8. What bizarre behaviour in this climate of the chameleon-like 'War on terrorism' that the BBC would make a programme that discusses potential vulnerablilities and projected problems should terrorists target London.
    This is scaremongering at best ( In the same mould as the 'nuclear threat' programming that was rife in the 70's) and Top tips for the boyos at worst.
    Loopy :roll:

    The irresponsible twats are running a large percentage of this programme as 'Breaking News' stories. There will be thousands of viewers who unwittingly turn the box on tonight to a realistic 'news story' of a chemical attack in London with many dead.
    There should be 'reconstruction' or suchlike on the edge of the screen throughout the programme.
  9. As proved by the post above. :!:
  10. The programme seemed to be a year out of date:

    They stated the armed forces can't communicate with the Blue light services, why not we now have the same radios.

    Blue Light radios don't work underground - Partly true, but the radios in police cars can be turned into repeaters/gateways to extend the coverage of the handheld radios.

    CCRF is under manned (1000 of 7000 CCRF is currently in Iraq). Is it likely that the local CCRF would be mobilised, it'd be a lot easier to use a local regular unit. (As they were for foot and mouth and floods)

    Unlikely TA could be mobilised in 6 hours. No I'd put that figure at about 3-4 hours max (for a couple of comms dets), probably true for a Coy size formation, so how long for a full CCRF?? (So I'd reckon on regular regts being used)
  11. Surely that must be the equivalent of a double-bagger! :twisted:
  12. Not having watched the programme, I can't comment on it's content but I got the gist from the TV mags etc.

    Personally I really couldn't care less what happens in the smoke and I shall admit that that's a wholly outrageous comment to make but there you go. Did it do any good… don't know only time will tell.

    Historically this type of "pre-threat analysis / action" has proved effective. Subsequent Governments debated long and hard (pre WW2), over whether to tell the nation what was likely to happen if the country went to war. Would it do more harm, raise panic among the nation to tell them what might happen or just wait until it actually happened. It was decided to tell all (well almost everything), to have the nation as prepared as possible.

    So by informing the people little by little, it brought the nation together, it focused the mind and had everyone pulling in the right direction. (Those who could afford it went to America and those who couldn't stayed - courtesy of my Dad).

    Did last nights programme do any good - you tell me!

  13. scaryspice

    scaryspice LE Moderator


    This is because the MOD decided (probably quite rightly) not to co-operate with the programme makers. You not have that memo come round your unit? Not sure we want to reveal all the ins and outs of our military contingecy planning to the BBC.

  14. LFB can communicate on the underground via leaky feeder, however for rescue and de con the training is mickey mouse and the gas tight suits are impractical