As someone who depends on foreign tourists for a living, I am really annoyed that the media has seen fit to warn everyone of new terrorist threats to tourist destinations in Europe but especially in London. Great! So now all the tourists will sit at home and I'll be without work next year. My point is what earthly good does it do to issue these warnings? Doesn't it just raise the fear levels? Mind you, I suppose that if we are all vigilant and we catch some terrorists in the act then it will have been worth it. But really I deplore this methodology. Blanket warnings like this are surely pointless. After all everyone still has to go to work in these hotspot locations. How will it make them feel?:mad:
xxx
I remember the period of the IRA bombing campaign when acts of terrible violence were perpetrated regularly; bombs in Oxford street, Lord Mountbatten being killed, and even Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet being targeted. With all that going on I don't remember anyone ever being told to avoid Britain. Certain macho Hollywood stars did stay away but were labeled wimps by the British media.
I often wonder why, in comparison with the disruption and death caused by the IRA, we are meant to be so much more fearful nowadays. It does seem as if we're constantly being reminded to be afraid of something, if not swine flu, then terrorists again.
So true, Barafundle. But anyway, those of us who live in Britain can't avoid being here - what are we supposed to do? Hibernate until the threat has passed?
I assume that they only give these warnings when there is something genuine to be warned about. I saw the news a little while ago and apparently there have been several arrests made in Paris with arms and all kinds being found. Yes it affects people financially but rather that than deaths of innocent people. Unfortunately people have short memories!
I understand where you're coming from Aspire but my question is what good does it do to send waves of alarm through the general public? Is it to make people more alert? How does it prevent the deaths of innocent people?
I understand where you're coming from Aspire but my question is what good does it do to send waves of alarm through the general public? Is it to make people more alert? How does it prevents the deaths of innocent people?
You have answered your own question.
Ah but I wonder if it does.
Ah but I wonder if it does.
Well, clearly you don't think it does. Surely your company encourages people to be aware of potential threats, I am really quite surprised by your take on the matter.:confused:
I am self employed, Aspire. I work with many companies. IMHO a far better way to have gone about putting the appropriate people on the alert would have been to use lower key methods. For example, in my own case, that of tourist guiding, bulletins and warnings could have been sent out to our professional institutions for dissemination to the membership. Likewise hotels could have been notified, coach companies etc. This blanket non specific threat will not have IMO the desired effect. People will read the newspaper, watch the news and dismiss it as being nothing to do with them. What do you think I'm saying, BTW, that you find so surprising? (Mind you, my take is ultimately 'what will be will be' and a lot of people find this surprising but this is down to my long held beliefs rather than in response to the present warnings.)
IMHO a far better way to have gone about putting the appropriate people on the alert would have been to use lower key methods.
I agree. If we all go around constantly terrified then the terrorists have succeeded.
I am self employed, Aspire. I work with many companies. IMHO a far better way to have gone about putting the appropriate people on the alert would have been to use lower key methods. For example, in my own case, that of tourist guiding, bulletins and warnings could have been sent out to our professional institutions for dissemination to the membership. Likewise hotels could have been notified, coach companies etc. This blanket non specific threat will not have IMO the desired effect. People will read the newspaper, watch the news and dismiss it as being nothing to do with them. What do you think I'm saying, BTW, that you find so surprising? (Mind you, my take is ultimately 'what will be will be' and a lot of people find this surprising but this is down to my long held beliefs rather than in response to the present warnings.)
Warning's to the general public make millions aware of the potential threat. They may well think it has nothing to do with them (very narrow minded view) but it will still cross their minds when they see an unattended bag. Do you want to be the one who ignores it and then have to live with it for the rest of your life knowing that you could have saved the lives of many. It has everything to do with all of us. Lucky most people don't bury their head in the sand. Could you imagine having this debate with a survivor of 7/7 or a loved one of the one of the innocent people that died on that day. I don't think I could look them in the eye. Reply as you will, you have your opinions I have mine.:banghead:
Most of us who live/work in London are already on alert for odd behaviour, unattended bags etc so I'm not sure yet another warning is going to change our routine.
At least if visitors know there is an increased possibility of attack they can choose not to come here which is a pity for the economy but I guess they should be given the information & allowed to make their choice.
Jx
For heavens sake, Aspire, where have I said that I would ignore an unattended bag???
As Jinx so rightly says, most of us who live and work in London are well aware of the possibility of terrorist action and are alert to possible dangers. I have reported loads of bags in my time and I really think you should take a moment before you add 2 and 2 and come up with 5! I find your post, if I'm frank, a tad sensationalist - just like the current media histrionics.
I too remember the IRA days. However, there wasn't the litigation culture we have now. There was such an outcry over 7/7. The security forces had been aware of the bombers, but they were considered low risk and so many were saying "Why weren't we warned of them?" "Why weren't they stopped?" etc. of course, a couple of weeks later, the wrong man was stopped - with tragic consequences.
I rather wondered why there is this huge blanket coverage given to the danger (which isn't in a higher category than it's been for months). I would have thought the security forces would have more chance of catching people if they weren't warned that they were onto them. We'll probably never know. But then, I remember the outcry on HP a few years ago, when the flights were stopped and all the restrictions on hand baggage and everyone was saying it was a cynical excuse to go into Iraq - yet, years later we learn that there was a good reason for it all.
Just my two pence worth!
Judy
I'm with Sunanda on this one... I honestly can't see any point at all in blanket warnings.
I read a version of this story a couple of days ago, and thought: "Eh? What are they trying to say? Are they suggesting that Americans (or anyone else) should try not to be alert, unless they have received a specific warning to BE alert??"...
It's so vague that it's completely meaningless.