"See it, say it, sorted"

[farleigh]

Do the TOC sever judge the effectiveness of announcements?

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Heard it, snubbed it, sorted.

Yes, that's a much better catchphrase than "SISISI"!

Though personally I reckon a more appropriate catchphrase would be " See it, sort it? No, ignore it!"

 

[Llanigraham]

And there's the difference. I can turn the radio off but I can't do the same to the claptrap on the train.

Heard it, snubbed it, sorted.

Subconsciously of course you haven't snubbed it, as you are still mentioning it. Therefore the message is still working.
Clever isn't it?

 

[mpthomson]

Do the TOC sever judge the effectiveness of announcements?

It'll be more down to BTP to assess effectiveness, they'll have requested the announcements initially I would have thought.

 

[Bromley boy]

Yes, that's a much better catchphrase than "SISISI"!

Though personally I reckon a more appropriate catchphrase would be " See it, sort it? No, ignore it!"

It would do your credibility a world of good if you got Professor Calculus to come on and give us his thoughts on the matter.

 

[mpthomson]

It would do your credibility a world of good if you got Professor Calculus to come on and give us his thoughts on the matter.

Or Snowy, as his views might make more sense...

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Do the TOC sever judge the effectiveness of announcements?

I'm not sure how you would measure it? The sort of busybody who would report something trivial and harmless would probably do so regardless of whether they'd heard an announcement telling them they could.

The rest of us who have tuned out the announcement will continue to use our common sense. For example, if I saw a swarthy looking bearded chap running through the station with wires poking out of his rucksack then yes I'd be straight on to a member of staff, but if I saw an unattended bag I'd just assume the owner had gone for a smoke or to the toilet and mind my own business.

 

[EM2]

...but if I saw an unattended bag I'd just assume the owner had gone for a smoke or to the toilet and mind my own business.

Unattended, like at North Greenwich and Parson's Green?

 

[Raul_Duke]

For example, if I saw a swarthy looking bearded chap running through the station with wires poking out of his rucksack then yes I'd be straight on to a member of staff.

What if you saw a blonde haired, blue eyes aryan guy doing the same thing?

 

[Chris M]

I don't get how people are only linking this to terrorism. The message also allows people to report anything they don't think is right, and the text shortcut has been promoted as something to report things like anti-social behaviour.

The only times I've seen or heard the text shortcut being promoted are in the context of the "see it, say it, sorted" message and a couple of newspaper articles about sexual assault.

Despite what people on this thread are claiming is it's intent is, the SISIS message is clearly interpreted as directly related to terrorism by many people, myself included. The DMI on the Didcot to Paddington stopper last night even preceded it with "This is a security message.".

Unlike some others on this thread I do appreciate the intent of the message, and while I might disagree with some of the detail I can't fault the general goal. That said, the method is clearly not working as intended. SISIS doesn't work as a catch phrase - that would be see it, say it, sort it (not what is wanted) and as I related up-thread when I have seen something and said something it wasn't actually sorted. It might need sorting but not be sortable, sorting it might take more resources than management have allowed, it might be something that doesn't need sorting. What happens if you hear something that doesn't sound right? What if (as is frequently the case) there isn't actually anybody to say something to (even if they were interested)?
It's similar to the Project Servator (iirc) the BTP have that puts armed officers on stations. That actually makes me feel less safe than I would normally.

The methods used tell me that far from not letting terrorists win, we have already let them win. And that's without going into all the politics around how Britain (in concert with the US and others) is actually spending more on breeding terrorists than fighting them.

 

[ooo]

Personally, I only found out about texting the BTP from this message and I imagine I'm not alone in this.

 

[Bromley boy]

as I related up-thread when I have seen something and said something it wasn't actually sorted. It might need sorting but not be sortable, sorting it might take more resources than management have allowed, it might be something that doesn't need sorting. What happens if you hear something that doesn't sound right?

It’s just supposed to be a quick, memorable message to encourage people to report anything out of the ordinary.

Why is that so difficult for people on this forum to understand?

 

[farleigh]

It’s just supposed to be a quick, memorable message to encourage people to report anything out of the ordinary.

Why is that so difficult for people on this forum to understand?

What do you mean?

 

[Chris M]

It’s just supposed to be a quick, memorable message to encourage people to report anything out of the ordinary.

Why is that so difficult for people on this forum to understand?

Indeed, that's what it's supposed to be. That doesn't mean that it's succeeding or that there aren't better ways of achieving that goal.

Personally, I only found out about texting the BTP from this message and I imagine I'm not alone in this.

But did you understand from the message that you can text them about anything not just suspicious people/circumstances? It's only because I knew of the text message number from other circumstances that I know this. The SISIS message really doesn't say that to me.

 

[mpthomson]

The rest of us who have tuned out the announcement will continue to use our common sense. For example, if I saw a swarthy looking bearded chap running through the station with wires poking out of his rucksack then yes I'd be straight on to a member of staff, but if I saw an unattended bag I'd just assume the owner had gone for a smoke or to the toilet and mind my own business.

So you’d have ignored the scenarios that were what happened in the the two most recent attempts to blow up trains in the UK? Both within the last 18mths? That’s good to know.....

The Parson’s Green bomber is on trial at the moment. That he didn’t kill a significant number of people is down to a mix of luck and lack of skill. There have already been articles in ISIS magazines about how not to make his mistakes again.

 

[mpthomson]

What do you mean?

It’s what’s known as an earworm. Repitition stores it in your sub-conscious and the hope is that you remember it if anything happens to trigger it.

 

[farleigh]

It’s what’s known as an earworm. Repitition stores it in your sub-conscious and the hope is that you remember it if anything happens to trigger it.

Thank you

 

[mpthomson]

I’d add that it’s clearly worked in some respects as some people would have you believe that they’d actively ignore it. To do that you have to have remembered it in the first place if that makes sense?

You can draw your own conclusions as to why someone would actively ignore it.

 

[Leo1961]

Latest incident at London Victoria

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tra...evacuated-due-to-security-alert-a3786456.html

See it, Say it, Stand around a bit...

 

[HowardGWR]

The rest of us who have tuned out the announcement will continue to use our common sense. For example, if I saw a swarthy looking bearded chap running through the station with wires poking out of his rucksack then yes I'd be straight on to a member of staff, but if I saw an unattended bag I'd just assume the owner had gone for a smoke or to the toilet and mind my own business.

Did you just write 'common sense'? If I saw the said beardy, I would be 'straight out of the station' never mind seeking a member of staff! As for your second example, it beggars belief that you think that.

 

[sheff1]

I’ve spoken to the BTP quite a few times and always found them very professional. They’re also uncannily good at spotting a wrongun amidst hundreds of people milling about on a station

The fact you didn’t even complain, yet feel strongly enough to moan on an internet forum, indicates to me either that it never happened, or that there’s something about your behaviour you aren’t telling us.

I was not "moaning" I was commenting on a post which said some people may not report things because they feared being "told off". My point was that, based on my experience, being told off might not be the worst of it.

Feel free to continue suggesting I am a lying wrongun with behavioural issues if you want, it won't alter the facts of the matter.

 

[Bromley boy]

Feel free to continue suggesting I am a lying wrongun with behavioural issues if you want, it won't alter the facts of the matter.

I think you’ll find you suggested the above, all by yourself.

If you aren’t, why did the BTP threaten to arrest you?

 

[mpthomson]

T
And that's without going into all the politics around how Britain (in concert with the US and others) is actually spending more on breeding terrorists than fighting them.

And your evidence for this ludicrous assertion is what precisely? Which ‘others’? How are they doing so?

 

[tsr]

Latest incident at London Victoria

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tra...evacuated-due-to-security-alert-a3786456.html

See it, Say it, Stand around a bit...

Erm, no.

I can't say too much, but the reaction wasn't over the top and involved very little "standing around a bit".

Given what happened, the fact that the item turned out not to be suspicious was probably a surprise to all concerned...

Once the incident was over, priority was then immediately given to the task of getting all booked passenger services out of the station, which was done quite well, albeit with some moderate delays.

 

[Chris M]

And your evidence for this ludicrous assertion is what precisely? Which ‘others’? How are they doing so?

Bombing civilians in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. If you bomb someone's home or overthrow their government don't act all surprised if they don't like you overly much. Combined with other actions in that part of the world, we (as a country) and the other countries that are doing similar things, are providing many of the terrorist organisations with plenty of people who are ripe for being recruited to their cause.
This is blindingly obviously not the only reason there are terrorists but it is one source.

 

[Bromley boy]

Bombing civilians in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. If you bomb someone's home or overthrow their government don't act all surprised if they don't like you overly much. Combined with other actions in that part of the world, we (as a country) and the other countries that are doing similar things, are providing many of the terrorist organisations with plenty of people who are ripe for being recruited to their cause.
This is blindingly obviously not the only reason there are terrorists but it is one source.

Ah ok so your saying because you think some terrorism* is the fault of foreign policy, we shouldn't be taking steps to protect ourselves from it?

*although your hand-ringing statement about "bombing someone's home" causing terrorism is immediately exposed as simplistic nonsense when applied to the 7/7 bombers (who were 3 Brits and one Jamaican), or the London Bridge attackers (one Pakistani and two Moroccans). Whose home countries haven't been bombed by the west/or had their governments overthrown (in the case of Pakistan military action has been with the approval of the Pakistani government).

I think you'll find their motivation was Islamic fundamentalism.

 

[mpthomson]

Ah ok so your saying because you think some terrorism* is the fault of foreign policy, we shouldn't be taking steps to protect ourselves from it?

*although your hand-ringing statement about "bombing someone's home" causing terrorism is immediately exposed as simplistic nonsense when applied to the 7/7 bombers (who were 3 Brits and one Jamaican), or the London Bridge attackers (one Pakistani and two Moroccans). Whose home countries haven't been bombed by the west/or had their governments overthrown (in the case of Pakistan military action has been with the approval of the Pakistani government).

I think you'll find their motivation was Islamic fundamentalism.

Indeed and Islamic fundamentalism as supported/funded in part by rich Saudis, most of whom are rich because of USA/Europe/other first world nations’ use of oil. Bin Laden was a very wealthy Saudi.

 

[mpthomson]

Bombing civilians in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. If you bomb someone's home or overthrow their government don't act all surprised if they don't like you overly much. Combined with other actions in that part of the world, we (as a country) and the other countries that are doing similar things, are providing many of the terrorist organisations with plenty of people who are ripe for being recruited to their cause.
This is blindingly obviously not the only reason there are terrorists but it is one source.

As it happens, and having been to some of the places listed, it isn’t blindingly obvious at all. Your reasons are grossly over-simplistic. Islamic terrorists kill orders of magnitude more of their own populations than people in Europe or elsewhere, and that has nothing whatever with UK ‘bombing civilians’.

 

[farleigh]

Do they use SISIS in other countries?

 

[mpthomson]

Do they use SISIS in other countries?

Not that exactly, but i’m sure they’ll have similar kinds of campaigns reminding the public to be vigilant, other large European countries are at their equivalent of Severe in terms if threat level.