Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE UK’S INTELLIGENCE services are facing an “intense” challenge from terrorism, the chief of MI5 has warned.
Director general of the MI5, Andrew Parker has told the BBC that there is currently “more terrorist activity coming at us, more quickly” and that it is becoming “harder to detect”.
The UK has suffered five terror attacks since the start of this year and he said that MI5 staff have been “deeply affected” by them.
Parker said there are currently over 3,000 extremists being monitored in the UK who are “committed in some way to support or act in violent Islamist extremism”.
A total of 20 attacks have been found and stopped in the last four years, he said.
“The way we operate is on a daily and weekly basis to assess the risk presented as far as we know from each individual and to prioritise accordingly,” he said.
“One of the main challenges we’ve got is that we only ever have fragments of information, and we have to try to assemble a picture of what might happen based on those fragments.”
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/920387002423316480
The five attacks that slipped through this year include a suicide bomb attack in May after the Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena, killing 22 people.
In June, a man drove a van into a crowd of people near a mosque in north London, while a homemade bomb exploded on a tube train at Parsons Green station last month, injuring 30.
Parker said that when an attack happens, the likelihood is that it may be done by someone who “we know or have known”.
“Where that’s not so, it would mean that we were looking completely in the wrong place,” he said.
He added that over 130 British citizens who travelled to Iraq and Syria to fight with the Islamic State have died – but 800 people had left the UK for those countries.
“They are part of that 3,000 number I spoke about where they’re sifted and assessed on an individual basis for risk and we apply intelligence coverage and police coverage accordingly, based on the risk they present,” Parker said.
Some of the 800 had returned back to the UK, often many years ago, and had been subject to risk assessment.
He added that fewer than expected had returned recently and that those who were still in Syria and Iraq may not now attempt to come back because they knew they might be arrested.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
How about debating medical card holders not pension holders paying 10 euro per doctor visit. When your paying 55 quid per visit and you can’t see a doctor for 3 days because he’s booked solid with medical card holders with colds and aches blocking up the system.
If they were charged they wot be visiting until they need to like the rest of us.
@Funfair: that’s a question for the government to answer not a trade union conference
@Boganity: why is a trade union conference debating our drink driving laws then ?
@Funfair: because doctors are reminicing the old irish local junta system. The doctor, the priest and the garda seargent that kept all the peasants in their place. They still have the ear of government and think by virtue of a few years in trinity they should set policy. Drink driving needs to be tackled, but we have a government getting paid to do that.
@Funfair: it’s not pension card holder or medical card holder blocking up the waiting room..but women with there kids .kids with nothing wrong with them..except for a cough or runny nose..
@mad_fluffy: which are mostly medical card holders …
Why make these laws & then debate them, drink driving should be a ban at all times. People know the law & some people are willing to drink & drive. If they take the chance they should be prepared to take the punishment!
@Liam John Bradshaw: and what’s it got to do with doctors or their trade union conference
@Boganity: they brought it up
All EU countries ban drink drivers – and we should be no different.
Being tired behind the wheel is even worse than having one drink ,twelve hour night shifts ,!
@Gerard Heery: has this scientific finding of yours been peer reviewed ?
@Boganity: poking figurative holes in someone’s argument would be best backed up by an informed rebuttal of your own, Bog…
@Gerard Heery: as someone who works 12hr night shifts I completely agree..i put it in the same bracket as having about 6-7 drinks
@Boganity: it happens all the time but theres no prove ,only to say must of being speeding at three in the morning.
@Boganity: ok I will say in the early Ninetys worked shift and left work completely knackered after 12 hours as did other workers on the shift I’ll leave at that,
Ross should put more effort into enforcing the laws already in place. I’m all for zero tolerance, but what’s the point in this legislation when the guards don’t enforce the current laws with any real regularity (not in rural areas anyway). Not to detract from the issue of rural isolation (not that it’s any excuse for drink driving) but Ross needs to look outside the pale and sort out some decent rural transport links. But, knowing him, that’s probably outside his remit…
@Kian: one death saved is enough to justify the ban, 35 that’s a no brainer
@Boganity: it Is, but he’d save even more lives with better enforcement
@Boganity: the roads are busier than ever a road fatality is enviable.. nothing can avoid that
As the journal fact find article pointed out it uncertain whether the ‘lives saved’ would ever result in any of this kind of action. We have to remember we are addressing issues so infintesmally small in quantity we couldn’t't legislate to eradicate. Fatal outcomes represent 0.0000007% of road activity. Maybe concentrating on mental health issues would have greater effect on society. But sure the corporate which is the RSA, can’t get revenue from that.
@Martin Critten: so what’s an acceptable number of deaths from driving over the limit ?
When did doctors become law makers!
There should be breathalyser kits in each car. So drivers can test themselves before they drive. So no excuses.
If you fail both blood and urine tests then obviously drink drivers should be band. End of story, otherwise why bother testing in first place.
Like to remind Mr Ross and his supporters that text driving has been proven to be more dangerous than drink driving. So why not give them an auto ban? Or what about banning all drivers for distractive driving?
What’s to debate? Automatic ban is a good strategy. Revisit impact in five years to renew or abandon.
Funny thing about all these new laws ,if Kim Un Jong sets off a nuke these laws won’t mean a thing they’ll be alot more worrying issues come to mind like we’re did I put my 1995 iodine tablet.
have your say