Deployment of troops following Manchester bombing
I initially wrote this for the Manchester bombing thread in the General Forum but I don't think it sits well in there (too far off topic), hence:In addition to the up to 5,000 troops now widely reported as being deployed under Operation Temperer following the Manchester bombing, it's also being reported that there is to be a national police mobilisation to transfer police from county rural areas to big cities. All of this seems to point to far more going on than what happened in Manchester.
Not just one lone wolf but more a wolf pack seems to be what is being considered. Troop deployment under Operation Temperer was designed for situations of multiple Paris/Mumbai type attacks taking place at the same time.
What is striking is the reported Military personnel may also be seen at other events over the coming weeks. The only two other times that the risk level was at critical it only lasted for several days before dropping. This seems to be planned for a much longer period like Operation Sentinelle in France.
The threat level has only twice before been raised to critical since the system of official threat levels was introduced in 1 August 2006. It was raised for three days from 10 August 2006 at the time of the transatlantic airliner plot, and on 30 June 2007 when the security services uncovered the plot to bomb a nightclub on London’s Haymarket. Decision to raise terror level to critical will see 5,000 troops on streets
And previously troops were deployed under cover in civilian clothing
The last time troops under Operation Temperer were deployed was immediately after the terrorist attacks in Brussels last year. But they were only used covertly as backup for the visible armed police presence at railway stations and airports (from above link).
The framework this operates under is:
2015 to 2020 government policy: Military Aid to the Civil Authorities for activities in the UK - GOV.UK
and in detail:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...file/591639/20170207_JDP02_Resilience_web.pdf
(an interesting read. "I commend this publication to the widest audience" Vice Chief of the Defence Staff)
2.13. All MACA operations must be conducted within the law. Service personnel
are subject to Service discipline (the Armed Forces Act 2006) and military command
at all times. Failure to comply with the law may result in criminal charges against
an individual, and/or civil proceedings being brought against the MOD. Unlike the
police, Service personnel simply have the same powers of arrest as ordinary citizens.
Of course this may just be budgetary in nature (a robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario): while the MOD seems to be able to do chargeback to the civil authorities for military aid and thus spending from it's dosh pile, that doesn't seem to apply to this situation although this may also depend on how long the troops are deployed for (from the above linked document).
2.28. Context.
HM Treasury rules direct that government departments must charge for services that do not form part of their funded tasks and that departments must not profit from activity carried out on behalf of another department. With a few exceptions, MACA activity is not funded within the MOD budget and is conducted on a repayment basis.
So potentially 5,000 extra bodies for armed policing/security duties at zero cost, a near doubling of the 5,647 Authorised Firearms Officers (2014 figures). Although it's not clear so far what rules of engagement the troops will operate under. Also, as noted above, they have very limited policing powers of arrest (about the same or less as a PCSO).
So, are the troops being deployed to reassure the public/deter terrorists? or ????? Bear in mind the security level is decided by the Joint Terrorism Centre, a group of experts and not politicians.
IMO it's best not to over-think this or come up with conspiracy theories or proportion blame.
There will be plenty of that stuff on the social media, especially from pop stars and other celebrities who are experts on everything. If it makes us safer, then it has to be. No problem with it.
To 99%, it won't make any difference as we won't see any difference in our every day lives. Sky news this morning uses the word 'may' several time when reporting this. So I'm not sure it's a definite as yet? I think it's too little too late, and now Sky are reporting the troops will be used but only in London!
All the security in France hasn't stopped the attacks. If anything, all these troops will do, is provide extra and ideal targets for the terrorists.... Note Op Temperer can be called for other things. Last year we did a scenario where flooding was imminent and the story was troops were being hurriedly called in to help fill sandbags. Also its name was kept secret, though I was amused when the Daily Mail found out and ran with it in 2015.
Secret plan to put troops on streets of Britain to fight jihadis in a terror attack | Daily Mail Online It's to reassure public and so as may appears strong and stable. (does anyone really believe this response won't be mentioned and used before the 8th)
Reality is it's meaningless.
There could have been a million troops in Manchester on Monday and it wouldn't have stopped the bombing. The troops have to know what area to check to be able to do that, and even then it's questionable.
Northern Ireland was full of troops and armed police in the 70s to 90s and there was still plenty of bombings.
The only way to have a chance at stopping things like this is the mi5 etc and the loss of more civil rights.
Anything else is window dressing
However is the price of the mi5 etc a price to far? It can do several things.
It could mean an armed soldier patrolling with a policeman. Policeman handles legal side, soldier provides a weapon under instruction from the policeman.
It can mean areas currently guarded by armed police could be freed up for elsewhere.
The soldiers could be unarmed. After a Paris shooting the bad guys went to ground. Unarmed soldiers clear nearby houses and put in a cordon. Armed police go in and shoot.
It means more disciplined people on the ground, trained in first aid and good at organisation. If nothing else it means more people to bring order to chaos.
They could be used, unarmed, to do bag searches into areas, again freeing up police. As with the London Olympics.
Little disappointed it's not Op Templar though. Then we could wear a tabard with a big red cross on it.
Or Op Tempura, then we can cover everything in batter. I think many would be prepared to accept that.
Wonder if the National ID card thing will rear it's head again?
Personally, I wouldn't mind it.If you've nothing to hide, nothing to worry about.
Far to many undesirables in this country as it is with the open border system.Let's have an ID card system and deport a whole load of undesirables in the process of setting it up.