Tag Archives: Terrorism

Who funds the cost of terrorism?

Posted on by

On the BBC there is a news/vote item about the “spiralling costs” of airport security. Apparently the airports industry is complaining that complying with the security restrictions imposed by the government (or the US government in some instances) is destroying their profits and they want the Government to contribute to offset some of the burden. The BBC writes:

The aviation industry has said it can no longer afford the spiralling costs of security at Britain’s airports.
Costs have risen by 150% since new security measures were brought in after the 11 September attacks in 2001.

Security now costs a quarter of major airports’ income. Airports cover all security costs themselves, but say this is simply not sustainable.

The industry now wants the government to contribute, but ministers insist the aviation industry must foot the bill.

Since the 11 September attacks, the government has introduced restrictions on hand baggage, a ban on liquids on board and, more recently, measures to move vehicles further away from terminal buildings.

It is interesting that the airports feel having to abide by government legislation is not something they should have to pay for, it strikes me as being the same as if car manufacturers decided to make the government pay for seatbelts, but that is a debate for another day.

Likewise, the idea that losing a bit of profit to improve upon safety is a “Bad Thing” is open to all manner of arguments – you could easily complain that airports only spend a quarter of their income on security…, but I will leave that as well.

Oddly, I will also avoid the farcial nature of the security measures – they are, by and large, pointless and designed for nothing more than pandering to peoples crackpot fears, but I will rant about that another time. (Phew 😉 ) I will even leave the nonsense comments alone today.

The main thing which piqued my interest, were the options in the vote. Before you shout at me, I know these “votes” are more for fun than anything else, I haven’t taken it seriously – however, the news debate on TV, Radio and online seems to realistically consider these three choices as the only options.

Who should pay for airport security?
The aviation industry
The government
Passengers

The survey has most voters saying “The Government” and this has been reflected by the TV news coverage and the comments attached to this news item. Personally, I would have said it is the aviation industry’s responsibility but I am used to holding a minority viewpoint.

The issue I have with the choices here, and this is something which is often reflected in public debate, is the crazy idea that the Government has “money” in any realistic sense.

It strikes me that people seem to be massively unaware of the fact that making the government pay for something (even the constant stream of “Public Inquiries” we seem to need now) actually means everyone pays for it. If, for example, the UK government is forced to subsidise the airports, the money will either come from reducing other sectors of public funding (so we get worse hospitals or roads for example), cutting back on the money given to local authorities (so we pay more council tax for example) or by increasing the basic tax rates – so we pay more. What ever the option, it is the population of the country who will lose out.

Comically, the airports are on shaky ground here, as they do not bear the full costs of airport security really. Since 2001, the charges levied on airlines and travel operators has increased to offset the costs of anti-terror methods – which in turn has the effect of either reducing their profits or translating into higher travel costs. So in effect, the passenger has already been paying for the costs and now the airports want more.

Really, there are only two choices as to who bears the costs – the public as a whole, or people who use air travel. Personally, given that choice, I think it realistically has to be the people who chose to fly. Shame really. I fly a lot. 🙁

Annoyingly, despite some of the claims that all the measures are in response to demands by the UK government this is not the case. In some instances they are extra measures that the US government has demanded, in some they are demanded by international organisations. So, in effect, we have to subsidise the fears (real or otherwise) of foreign nations. Such is life, post-Empire…

[tags]Philosophy, society, culture, air travel, Security, Terrorism, Government, Industry, Taxation, Airlines, Airports, Flight Safety[/tags]

Over-reaction

Posted on by

Media hysteria again, which will inevitably lead to more and more repression, giving Brown a free pass for not undoing any of the civil liberties damage of the past few years.

This country is under more or less blanket surveillance. We are supposed to be a democracy. We are supposed to adhere to values of freedom of expression and movement and so on.

WTF are all these cctv cameras, biometric data collection, interception of comms for if they don’t protect us yet? We all know that any professional criminal or terrorist just regards these things as nuisances that they have to pay to get round.

What about the rest of us? We may have mistakenly thought we could rely on Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and things like that. (If you asking what they were, you probably left school when the History syllabus was made more idiot-friendly. And no, don’t ask me. How much do I know about them.? More or less nothing.)

As the UK abandons centuries of constructing “liberal” political values, as soon as it’s faced with a few determined groups, what will remain that is even worth defending in our way of life?

I’m going through one of those phases where I want to go up to 80 odd year old men and women in the street and apologise.

“I know you were part of the opposition to fascism. I know you helped create the welfare state. I know you went through Blitzes and rationing and so on. But look, sorry, we just can’t be arsed keeping up with that stuff, when we have shopping and reality shows and celebs to worry about.”

The history of all conflict – not just the UK’s history – suggests that, in the end, there is no alternative but to sort out the basic causes. If this doesn’t happen soon, anything recognisably sane about our society will have been put in a straitjacket.

(To borrow Trevor Phillips’ memorable phrase and mess about with it a bit) Why are we sleepwalking into tyranny?

Terror Returns to London

Posted on by

Once more, the actions of the insane, cruel, evil and disturbed make headline news in the UK. Even though I am almost as far from London as you can get in the UK, the news of the Car Bomb outside a London nightclub has been pretty big stuff. Quite understandable as well really, as this is the “purpose” of terrorist attacks – create terror.

Putting a bomb made up off “60 litres of petrol, gas cylinders and nails” outside a busy London nightclub on a Thursday night (often one of the busier nights in the city), strikes me as a pretty effective way to make people frightened. That the bomb did not detonate is certainly amazing (invoke god of choice if you wish, I will stick to the wonders of the bombers ineptitude), and it seems reasonable to assume the police comments about possible casualties are accurate.

It is certainly remarkable that this device was discovered (prior to it announcing itself in a big way) and it is a tribute to the bomb disposal teams who had to render it safe, while retaining forensic evidence. A big well done all round there. Continue reading →

The Evolution of Fear

Posted on by

Again, sorry this is a long rant – I am in a bad mood. Comments are welcome though.

Once upon a time, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was renowned the world over for the way the population handled hardship and adversity. The “Stiff Upper Lip” was such a powerful stereotype it still endures today.

During the first three quarters of the twentieth century, the British Stiff Upper Lip was heavily put to the test. The century began with a hammering in Africa, followed by the loss of almost an entire generation on the fields of Flanders and the Somme. The interwar years were wrought with economic depression which was only relieved when the deaths of the second world war reduced the population enough for there to be more jobs. Entire cities were destroyed (Coventry) and most major population centres endured nightly bombing raids.

The end of the war only brought limited respite for the British handling of adversity. Crippled by economic debt and the ravages of the war, the Empire collapsed piece by piece. Britain was quickly over taken in the world power stakes by the upstarts (America for example 🙂 ), and to all intents and purposes became a secondary nation on the world stage. The somewhat anomalous status as permanent member of the UNSC is down to possession of nuclear weapons and nothing else. The break up of empire was accompanied by various military defeats (Suez, Korea), while the victories were sometimes hollow (Borneo, Malaysia). The apparent collapse spurred domestic agitators into more and more violence until by the mid 1960s, Northern Ireland was not dissimilar to Bosnia thirty years later.

Throughout this all the stiff upper lip remained. The ideas about what made “British” society were upheld and, generally, life went on. If you had proposed a national identity card scheme in 1970 you would have been laughed at for the rest of your life.

Continue reading →

The wonders of commenters

Posted on by

As always, after reading an inflammatory post somewhere like the BBC or the Times, reading through the comments is even more entertaining, if equally infuriating. It shows that while there are significant number of people who realise the implications of the policies (i.e. they agree with me, that’s all I ask … 😀 ), there are a lot live up to the life rather than liberty mantra. As always the tried and tested “If it keeps us safe it is good” routines are brought out with sickening regularity.

Take this little chestnut from “Don Roberts, London” for example:

We live in world full of people who are determined to destroy our way of life and impose their own set of values, prejudices and beliefs on us not to mention kill as many of us as possible. I just wonder how those who freely oppose tough legislation would like to live under such people. Any law abiding citizen of this country should have nothing to fear from such legislation. If the price of our freedom is a little inconvenience, that has to be preferable to mass murder on our streets.

Where do I start with this… The first sentence is just a statement of the (apparently) obvious and bears little or no relation to what comes next. If this is true, it is true with or without the proposed legislation. The next sentence is funny. It is saying the poster wonders how those who oppose draconian, authoritarian states would like to live under a draconian, authoritarian state. Madness.

Continue reading →

The New State Of Fear

Posted on by

Long rant – not really atheist if you want to skip it!

Today’s headlines on the BBC news page are a touch disconcerting, even though they are pretty predictable. At the moment, the lead article is headlined “Brown plans new anti-terror laws” which shows that Gordon Brown is intending to take the reins of government with a firm hand. Sadly, this firm hand seems unconcerned with what is good for the nation, society or pretty much anything other than stealing the Conservatives thunder on the “Tough on Crime” issues.

Terrorism is a wonderful bugbear for UK political parties. We have lived with the constant spectre of terrorist attacks for longer than I have been alive now – I remember from my youth regular news items about bombings in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Guildford and the like. Every Christmas there was a new IRA terror campaign aimed at scaring people away from the shops. Litter bins were removed from public places. The troubles across the water in Northern Ireland were an order of magnitude greater, to the point at which attacks which only killed a few people were two routine to mention on the news.

During the years of the troubles (probably counted as late 1960s to the end of the millennium), all the UK political parties thought they knew how best to deal with the terrorist threat. There were more than just the IRA though, numerous Marxist, socialist, or other crackpot groups with some form of agenda had a go – the IRA (or Provisional IRA to be more accurate) were just better at it and got more publicity. Many methods were tried – increased military presence in Northern Ireland, decreased military presence, negotiations, “tough tactics” and even internment with out trial. Generally, most were unsuccessful and what seems to have been the most historically successful tactic seems to have been public acceptance. When the terrorists stopped getting media coverage they had to resort to more “spectacular” outrages, this had the knock on effect of removing the grass roots support they had in the past and eventually they began to run out of steam. Obviously, the US deciding to declare War on Terror probably played a large part, but by 2001 it was nearly over.

Continue reading →

Blame the scapegoat

Posted on by

I know it hasn’t been long since I ranted about the craziness in the UK media nowadays, but listening to local and national radio tends to have this effect on me. One of the main headlines over the last few days have been the revelations from the Terrorism Trial which found five British Citizens guilty of terrorism charges. Part of the surveillance footage showed the now-convicted terrorists in conversation with two men who later (a year or so later) went on to bomb the London underground (7 Jul 05).

This “find” has motivated the survivors (or at least a media-friendly subset of them) of the London Tube Bombing to call for an “Independent Inquiry” into the Security Service (MI5) investigation. As with lots of things which become news items in the UK it has the air of self evident truth and “justice” but on second glance it really is pointlessly mad.

The radio news I have been listening to has been crowing over the “outrage” the survivors have felt that MI5 had two of the bombers under surveillance a year before the blast, with the implication (often stated) that if the Service had acted against them earlier they would have disrupted the bombing and the 55 odd people would not have died. Sounds reasonable enough, doesn’t it? Continue reading →