....come up with other ways of keeping us distracted while they bugger up the country.

Although they may not need to bother any more as they seem to have succeeded in that department rather nicely.

I'm curious does the UK numbers include stuff like that muslim girl who wrote pro Al Quaeda poetry?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=492460&in_page_id=1770

Seems they're justifying their own inflated budgets, just like the USA has 1 million USA people on the domestic terrorist watch list. Gotta justify that 20 billion budget somehow...

I agree with everything but the manner of delivery; came of my motorbike outside a building site (mud on road) and my bike hit the car in front after skidding some 20 yards, me narrowly missing it as it stopped. Who came to see if I was ok? A Polish chap working on the site. Didn't speak much English, but the concern on his face told me what he meant.

Who didn't bother? The people behind me who drove around my bike on it's side, the car it hit (lightly, but they still stopped), and MY BODY IN THE ROAD.

A truely sickening state of affairs.

"Lastly success should not be measured in number of arrests but length of time between attacks. "

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that our counter-terrorism people we're far more effective before the 7/7 bombings than they were after. Ergo, all the extra "security measures" that have been brought in have made us *less* safer.

In other news: scientists develop rock that wards off tigers...

I can see why they don't break the numbers down... it's because it weakens their case.

See, we have

'committing a terrorist act' and...

'conspiracy to commit a terrorist act' and now with the new Blair laws,....

'planning to commit a terrorist act' and 'conspiracy to plan to commit a terrorist act' and now even....

'saying stuff that might inspire someone to conspire to plan a terrorist act' and last but not least, lets not forget the eCommerce/terrorism bill....

'not removing stuff on a website that a police constable doesn't like is tantamount to saying it yourself which is tantamount to inspiring someone to plan to commit a terrorist act....'

The claim is that these are all the same thing, if they broke up the cases into types they're automatically accepting that they're different, which defeats the argument. For the argument to work, writing bad goth poetry *must* necessarily lead to terrorism that they nipped in the bud.

I'd love to see how many of those UK arrests were actually turned into prosecutions (i.e. the authorities demonstrated that they had enough evidence to actually move forward in a case, rather than quietly letting go the islamo-goth (thought all Muslim chicks wore black?) or random poor sap guilty of being brown in the wrong house).

And then see how many of these prosecutions actually resulted in a guilty verdict.

That, maybe, is a reasonable reflection of terrorist activity. Accusation /= guilt.

Over 50 people in London? While it's terrible that over 50 people died, that number is dwarved by the number of innocent civillians dead in Iraq and Afghanistan because of us. Also, I don't have the figures so I'm not going to do a comparison, but I imagine that the casualties from IRA bombings over a 10 year time period (when we were told they were most active) is probably greater than Islamic terrorism in the last 10 years. Bear in mind the police and the army were doing their utmost then to prevent it.

It's a good thing that T5's in such a bad state- BA would be for the high jump if aircraft could actually get off the ground... [reference to 9/11 using planes, of course]

Also, are they banning the use of fertiliser [omagh]?

Cars? [Flaming Muppet attacks]?

How about Rucksacks- you can covertly carry loads of explosive in one of those and get it into very public areas (like busses) can't you [London Bombings]? Remote Controlled Cars [I can't imagine it'd be impossible to blow up a bus with one]?

How far are they going to take this? Banning the sale of Bicarbonate of Soda and Vinear in the same week, in case you make a bang outside an old-folks-home and shock them to death?! How about banning air in aircraft- all terrorists so far use air!

We're finding more "terrorists" because we're looking for them. And creating more of them.

because there weren't that many in the first place.

Please Mr Government give me something new to be afraid of.

What's that Mr Government? I should read the Daily Mail.

Ok then.

Is that the government has drawn the definition of 'terrorism' so broadly that anything much beyond dropping a crisp bag is going to fall foul of one or another pieces of terror legislation.

Matt, methinks you should get your head out of your a**e long enough to do some basic fact checking.

First, a quick reminder : islamic terrorist != AQ.

As far as France is concerned, I'd think the demographics are largely similar to those in the UK.

Second and third generation immigrants ? Check. The high point of immigration from Northen Africa was during the 60s and the 70s, following the economic boom of the time, the need for cheap labor, and the independence of our former colonies.

Education and cash to get internet access ? Check. Although earning levels are lower than average for that demographic group (as in the UK, I suspect), it's still plenty enough to afford ADSL; and although they don't usually have stellar academic records, they still go to school long enough to learn how to read; and, more importantly, to become disillusioned with their prospects if they stick to school and try to make something of themselves.

As a sidenote, the biggest French blog site is run by Skyrock, a hiphop / rap radio mostly popular in poor suburbs and housing estates (IIRC they pride themselves on being the rap radio with the most listeners *in the world*).

Chip on their shoulder ? Check. They've been brought up with a culture that doesn't mesh with the society they live in; they see themselves as unfairly put upon; they couldn't give a toss about lawful behaviour; they see the rest of France as racists peasants who'd toss them out given half a chance, not that they may be far wrong on that count unfortunately.

Islamic background ? Check. Algeria has been having problems with fundamentalist groups for more than 20 years now, and some of that has spilled over into France. AQ may have done a marketing coup recently by rebranding those terrorists as their Algerian branch, but they were along long before the world had heard of Osama. The biggest islamic terrorist attack in France dates back to 1995, when a couple of subway stations were blown up by these same Algerian radicals. 1995 ? The US was probably still selling weapons to OBL at that time.

Honestly, I think the main difference comes from government attitude towards radical preachers. You have a metric sh*tload of them in London; we have few if any. They find safe haven in the UK, so they settle there and do their thing. Most of the French blowhards who've been arrested in Irak or elsewhere under suspicion of terrorist activities have spent time and been coached in the English mosques.

So when French yoof want to fight back against society or become confused with their life of loafing around and selling drugs, they stand less chance of becoming indoctrined by radical preachers and learning how to make bombs. They keep dealing drugs instead, or try to ambush police and firefighters in street guerillas...

And that behaviour isn't yet classified as terrorism (whether it should be is another question entirely)

will feed next year's statistics. I'm talking about the non-believers who posted comments minimizing the threat, therefore encouraging muslim nutcase to "do better" while discouraging law-abidding Daily Mail readers to beat the crap out of their tanned neighbours (a tanned complexion indicates terrorist inclinations nowadays -10 years ago, it was red hair and nasal accent, the times they are a-changing)...

Y'all are guilty of expressing ideas that might lead to independant thinking, which in turn might lead to scepticism and might encourage disrespect towards the authorities and at some point in the future might lead to increased free speach, which is the ground on which terrorism blooms, as we all know. So you're terrorists. So to G-bay you go, you filthy enemy combattants!

I live in the US and as such am familiar with the middle finger gesture. It essentially means 'Up Yours' in an abbreviated form(with finger indicating the proverbial phallus), since the original involved using the whole forearm with clenched fist. Or so I think.

What exactly does this two fingered 'V' gesture signify ?

I worrying thought - as terrorism has fallen down the public's 'fear list' (now well behind a possible house market collapse, global warming, the English Premier League's 39th game suggestion and the forthcoming release of Carry on London), no-one is paying propper attention to the fact that the government is trying to sneak through its police state-esque legislation to increase the length of time suspects can be detained without evidence.

It now seems that the only people interested in anti-terrorist laws are the police (who are instinctively favourable towards any laws that reduce the freedoms of the citizens) and Gordon Brown (who seems to think its his job to turn the UK into a weird cross between the USSR and a Tesco megastore). All the human rights protestors are worrying so much about Zimbabwe and Nepal, they've forgotten about the proto-despot we have at home.

Philistine,

The 2 fingers are those a bowman would use to draw the string back. Hence around the time of Agincore the French would amputate those fingers from any English bowman they caught. So this particularly English gesture was used towards the French to indicate "You haven't caught me and you are likely to get an arrow through you shortly as a result".

Not that the English like a good grudge or anything.

I understand that attributing anything good to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is anathema to Europeans but have any of you considered the possibility that the low level of terrorism is a direct result of these wars? I imagine that the groups that are organized enough to launch successful terror campaigns have their hands quite full fighting coalition forces right now and therefore aren't up to making mischief beyond their borders.

There ya go, confusing the issues with facts...

The Afghanistan war was generally popular in Britain, it was the frankly f*cking stupid invasion of Iraq that created tensions with an ally that backed you, truly, to the hilt.

The Iraq war was cited by the 7/7 bombers as their reason, although without it they would have had some other reason.

Laws and their application are not a good indicator of the risk of terrorist attack.

The thing I think that people sometimes forget is that the perception of the British public of islamist terrorism has been skewed by the politicians in recent years. Britain has had a good working relationship with the Islamic world for years. Not always the friendliest relationship admittedly, but usually Britain was seen as largely neutral in it's dealings.

The fight against the Taliban had by and large a general level of cross community support. It was not until Blair and his cronies decided to support Bush in his illegal war in Iraq that the UK was really made into a target. Then once he successfully made the terrorist nut jobs consider the UK as a threat, Blair had to be seen to be doing something about it. Hence the idotic restrictions that only affect the law abiding people of the UK.

Come on does anyone for one second believe that making laws to criminalise things will stop terrorists? Britain has had some of the most draconian anti-terror laws for decades. Up to and including internment without trial (GitMo is only copying the British authorities of 30 years ago). None of those laws stopped the IRA and that lot from their activities. None of the current laws will stop the current terrorists either.

The only way to stop terrorists attacking you is to remove their support and you cannot do that by shooting them. The only reason IRA stopped their activities is because the Americans stopped sending them money after after 9/11. Pity it took the horror of 9/11 to make the Americans realise what their support had meant over here.

But the result is a perfect example in how to stop terrorists, cut off their support, both monetary and their popularity base. Taking direct action against the terrorists and all you do is enable them and those you kill become martyrs to the cause. But if they have no money and no mandate from the people the claim to fight for. Then you have effectively removed the ability of the organisation to remain effective.

Terrorism generates far more heat than light (as many of the comments above demonstrate - for example, WTF has dangerous driving in Cambridge got to do with pan-European terrorism).

The story wasn't about motoring in university towns - it was about the different approach to law enforcement by European states and how the UK seems to be leading the way with action - or over-reaction.

I think we'd be wise treat most statistics and claims relating to terrorism with scepticism.

I do not deny there is a threat of so-called 'terrorism' here in the UK. But during the war with the IRA, we Britons faced an equal, if not greater, threat throughout the 1970s. We handled that problem without today's torrent of official FUD and without wide-ranging draconian legislation (or, more accurately, without legislation affecting mainland Britain - the law in Northern Ireland was a different matter).

As is often said, criminal actions by 'terrorists' only become terrorism if a population feels terrorised. So the government, the security services and the media should refrain from unnecessary scaremongering, hyperbole and totalitarian lawmaking - otherwise they become the terror-spreaders.

The madmen (be they Islamist, Basque, or Irish) murder people but it's the Daily Mail and the Home Office who fuel and spread widespread terror.

As I say above, be sceptical - in the sense of thinking about and questioning state-sponsored orthodoxies and special pleading by the police and security services.

And, of course, never drive to Cambridge ;)

creata a climate of fear, remover the barriers to freedom and individuallity, feed the willing and compalint media full of drivel, provide psudeo education for the masses, manipulate socia-economic facttors, removal of civil rights, ciminalise the marginals and dissenters...

....is this mugagbes zimbabwe, al quaidas afghanistan or browns britian?

You may be right about the Afghan intervention reducing the capability of "Al Qaeda" to develop new attacks post-World Trade Centre. That's the reason that that war has far more widespread support than the politically and economically motivated invasion of Iraq.

Lumping the two together in order to generate legitimacy for the Iraq action has succeeded only in eroding support for the dismantling of the Taleban.

A lot of things are unclear and debatable about the origin of the up yours/V sign gesture, but one thing can be stated with almost complete certainty: the idea that the French cut off longbowmens' drawing fingers when they captured them is complete bollocks. If you were a longbowman and the French captured you, they would kill you. Horribly. There was no percentage in merely mutilating you and then releasing you into the wild. The only captives who would be kept alive would be nobles so they could be ransomed, and as has been pointed out, longbowmen were peasantry and worth nothing.

The V-sign is probably just a variation on the 'up yours' gesture which has been documented in Roman times and has probably been around for ever. I believe in some places the gesture is to place one hand on the inside of the other elbow and make an upward thrusting motion with the fist clenched - even more painful.

At least no-one's trotted out the even more ridiculous story that 'f--- you' is a corruption of 'pluck yew'.

Shock horror - fabricated terror organisation turns out to be less than major threat. I think everyone knows the biggest threat is from inside, the secret services and the shit they start to try and further government agendas. Is this really a story?

Quote: "we think it's worth doing a corrective every now and again."

I'm bloody glad you do: we rely on The Register for a bit of sane analysis amid all the hype and spin.

Quote: "as far as we're concerned, yes, it's really a story."

Yup, I'd go along with that too.

As I've already commented, we're force-fed a diet of paranoia and FUD by the media quite out of proportion to the threat. And the debate is all too often skewed by vested interests and hypocrisy.

For example, I don't remember this degree of state-sponsored hysteria during the 1970s when the British people were faced with a barbarous and ultimately futile campaign of violence by Northern Irish protestant and catholic paramilitaries. That 'war' was tacitly supported by outsiders who took seriously the self-serving mythologies of both criminal factions. Today, we stand shoulder to shoulder with these outsiders against Islam - but when the boot was on the other foot, it was a different story as shown by the support radical republicanism received from Noraid.