Touch a big fucking piece of wood with that title, BBC.<p>Guns are much rarer in the UK than on the continent. This obviously doesn't make attacks impossible but it does make life harder for terrorists. For example, the maniac who murdered Lee Rigby with a knife tried to get a gun first. All he could get was a modified starter pistol that jammed on the first shot. The right wing terrorist who murdered Jo Cox apparently had a home made single shot pistol. Imagine if they'd been able to get Glocks or Kalashnikovs.<p>I would like to see more restrictions on high strength peroxide as TATP seems to be the explosive of choice for terrorists.
Attributing all this to intelligence sharing alone seems an oversimplification. I suspect the difference in the level of assimilation between British Muslims and their French counterparts is the biggest factor.
Maybe the lack of coordination between intelligence agencies is to blame (it cannot help anyway) but it cannot alone explain the difference.
First we (I am French) have a larger muslim population: 3-3,5 millions for UK the double in France mainly from North Africa. So statistically speaking there's a higher chance of having islamists in France.
Also many of French of Arabic origin just hate or despise France and the causes have different roots: historical (Algerian war), cultural and societal (high unemployment rate especially among arabic population). For UK, I don't think their population of muslims origin "have a grudge" on their host. Every Bastille day, new year's eve or big event does not go without burning cars and policemen attacked by young people with many of them being of North African origin, and it's getting worse with time. Of course relations between the different ethnic group are not going to get any better now .<p>I am very pessimistic about the future of my country. I see a lot of educated young people wanting to leave it (and not only for business opportunities) and the level of violence raising up. Bad time for being French.
I would be very careful in publishing such "pat-in-the-back" articles.<p>I remember reading a NYT article shortly after the Paris attacks that said something like "this could never happen in the US" (because of better intelligence and integration), and then the San Bernardino shootings happened soon after and the Orlando shooting later...<p>(found it: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/opinion/could-paris-happen-here.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/opinion/could-paris-happen...</a>)<p>While UK DOES have probably a better Intelligence than most European countries, it also has the advantages of being an island and being outside the Schengen area, so entry in the country is much easier to monitor by the authorities.<p>It is also clear that, unlike UK, France has been singled out as the main EU target by the terrorists. Spain has been safe even longer than UK, and Italy has never been attacked, although both countries experience a constant flux of migrants from northern Africa and it's hard to think of their Intelligence agencies as better than the French one.
Intelligence sharing is a good idea, but the Nice attacker appears to have been an individual with mental health issues and no known fundamentalist tendencies.<p>His family and associates probably knew something was wrong with him; he threatened his ex and was violence prone at times. Unfortunately, there's not a lot you can do, especially in a free society, unless the person runs afoul of the law. If they stay out of trouble, they can plan horrific attacks at a time of their choosing.<p>The only thing I can think of is to have more available mental health services including residential treatment facilities, and make it easier for concerned families to get someone the help he needs before a tragedy occurs. Probably in an immigrant community, there's the shame factor to deal with as well; so discretion and confidentiality would be highly important.<p>Beyond that, France and other countries taking in large numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers from troubled regions need to obviously limit the numbers and scrutinize each applicant more carefully. Easier said than done, but they have to try.
Being safe from terror attacks is 9 parts not being attacked, and 1 part catching people beforehand.
If you state you are safe, because you're doing the 10% right, you're mistaken.<p>Would you also state there's no planes blowing up because the TSA or UK equivelent? It is because they are not trying. So find out why they aren't trying, and you'll find out why you're "safe."<p>Maybe you are killing less people with drones? Maybe your local assholes are bad at recruiting human meat sacrifices.<p>If it was because information sharing, you'd have jails full of bad dudes right?
> Forty terrorist plots have been disrupted since 2005 (in Britain) - including seven in the past 18 months.<p>Does anyone know where these numbers come from? Are the information to the individual cases available?
I expected much more from the BBC than some stupid "our intelligence is better you see !!" article. No it's not the intelligence which prevented anything, it's the fact that strategically, the UK is a much less desirable target than France. No amount of intelligence could have prevented what happened in Nice and Paris and saying the opposite is trying to rewrite history.
If you have various groups working a problem and they don't communicate, they are significantly disadvantaged relative to groups that talk. Each of these groups have their particular specialties, and it could only be beneficial for them to communicate. Now whether this communication is THE standout factor preventing attacks...that seems a stretch.
I think it's due to 1 million CCTVs
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8159141.stm" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8159141.stm</a>
Terrorism is a problem of technology. As technology gets better so does the ability for a small group of people to inflict damage. A quiet surveillance state is the inevitable response, and this is what's being described.<p>AI and drones are the next step, because they are autonomous. It is not known yet how to deal with that. States may soon try to lock down all code for drones and AI from being used by the public.