"See it, say it, sorted"

[shredder1]

Ray Winstone would be ideal for the security message...

Haha perfect

 

[DarloRich]

Ray Winstone would be ideal for the security message...

would that help the experts here listen to and understand the reasons for such announcements?

 

[talldave]

I often don't listen because I'm struggling to ensure that I keep all my personal belongings with me .

 

[talltim]

I often don't listen because I'm struggling to ensure that I keep all my personal belongings with me .

I'm always leaving my impersonal belongings behind...

Isn't one of the main aims terrorism to affect day-to-day life with fear? Really the actual attacks are a means to an end. This sort of announcement is just helping the terrorists.

 

[Mojo]

I often don't listen because I'm struggling to ensure that I keep all my personal belongings with me .

I leave most of my belongings at home when travelling by train

 

[DarloRich]

Isn't one of the main aims terrorism to affect day-to-day life with fear? Really the actual attacks are a means to an end. This sort of announcement is just helping the terrorists.

What a preposterous statement. Because, of course, suggesting people contact the authorities with any concerns they may have is offering succor to terrorists. I assume you have missed the anti vehicle bollards erected at various key sites........

 

[mpthomson]

I'm always leaving my impersonal belongings behind...

Isn't one of the main aims terrorism to affect day-to-day life with fear? Really the actual attacks are a means to an end. This sort of announcement is just helping the terrorists.

Because there's no serious terrorist threat currently, including targeting modes of public transport, is there? Oh... wait...

 

[DarloRich]

Because there's no serious terrorist threat currently, including targeting modes of public transport, is there? Oh... wait...

Those biased MSM types at MI5 are bulling up the threat level to justify their own budgets and existence. Or something.


The current threat level for international terrorism in the UK is SEVERE.
The current threat level for Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Britain is SUBSTANTIAL.

That means sh$t is expected to go down. Soon. How about we give the security services a hand and feel comfortable calling in anything we see on the network rather than chuntering.

 

[shredder1]

I leave most of my belongings at home when travelling by train

I left girlfriend behind once, she was doing my head in though, so no great loss

 

[takno]

Because there's no serious terrorist threat currently, including targeting modes of public transport, is there? Oh... wait...

The current terrorist threat level has been much the same for nearly half my life now. There are hundreds of more likely ongoing threats to my life which I seem to be able to largely navigate without a reminder every five minutes. The "see it, shart it, run" campaign is roughly equivalent to putting loudspeakers along all roads booming out the message "This is a road. Roads contain traffic. Look both ways before crossing"

 

[atraindriver]

Or something.

<delurk>
I've just wombled back into the forum for the first time in ages and read this thread from start to finish, and I have questions: why are you and mpthomson so aggressive in your reactions towards any criticism of this campaign? Why are you so defensive about it? Why do you refuse to accept that, whilst it is clearly well-intentioned and important, the implementation means it's perhaps not as effective as may have been hoped?

As someone who knows neither of you, I find myself wondering if you are the authors of the campaign and can't handle the criticism.

Back to lurking. Toodle-pip!
<relurk>

 

[fowler9]

Apologies as I have mentioned this before but having pushed the alert button at Warrington Central to advise that I had left a metal frame 65 litre rucksack on a train and that it was not dodgy, and then being told off for wasting their time for telling them I think the whole campaign is a waste of time. Clearly no one else reported it on the train and the bag was half inched by someone.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

The current terrorist threat level has been much the same for nearly half my life now. There are hundreds of more likely ongoing threats to my life which I seem to be able to largely navigate without a reminder every five minutes. The "see it, shart it, run" campaign is roughly equivalent to putting loudspeakers along all roads booming out the message "This is a road. Roads contain traffic. Look both ways before crossing"

I agree - if you look at the terrorist threat level since MI5 introduced it in 2006, despite there being 5 levels of perceived threat, the lowest two of "low" and "moderate" have never been used. This suggests a ridiculous level of scaremongering that most people, quite rightly, are taking with more than a pinch of salt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Threat_Levels

I can only repeat what I said on the "unattended bags" thread last year;

Without any evidence to the contrary, it’s logical to conclude that the actual terrorist threat on the rail network is much lower than the security services would have us believe. When this subject came up on here a few months back, a google search revealed that the security services had prevented a mere 13 attacks in 4 years (in the UK as a whole, not just the rail network). (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39176110 ) and, as already mentioned, the last terrorist attack on the rail network was 24 years ago. Even this list is open to conjecture; no proof or details have been published. In order to believe such figures I would expect the security services to tell us who was behind the attacks and when and where were they going to occur, to hide behind the flimsy “there’s lots of terrorists planning to kill us but we can’t tell you about them for security reasons” is simply unacceptable and in the absence of proof how can they be believed?

Whilst if you live in London, it might be understandable for you to believe the terrorist threat is “severe”, when I’m waiting on a country station platform in rural Yorkshire, the chances of me being a victim of a terror attack are, as they have been for years, somewhere between “pretty remote” and “non-existent”!

 

[DarloRich]

I agree - if you look at the terrorist threat level since MI5 introduced it in 2006, despite there being 5 levels of perceived threat, the lowest two of "low" and "moderate" have never been used. This suggests a ridiculous level of scaremongering that most people, quite rightly, are taking with more than a pinch of salt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Threat_Levels

I can only repeat what I said on the "unattended bags" thread last year;

Without any evidence to the contrary, it’s logical to conclude that the actual terrorist threat on the rail network is much lower than the security services would have us believe. When this subject came up on here a few months back, a google search revealed that the security services had prevented a mere 13 attacks in 4 years (in the UK as a whole, not just the rail network). (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39176110 ) and, as already mentioned, the last terrorist attack on the rail network was 24 years ago. Even this list is open to conjecture; no proof or details have been published. In order to believe such figures I would expect the security services to tell us who was behind the attacks and when and where were they going to occur, to hide behind the flimsy “there’s lots of terrorists planning to kill us but we can’t tell you about them for security reasons” is simply unacceptable and in the absence of proof how can they be believed?

Whilst if you live in London, it might be understandable for you to believe the terrorist threat is “severe”, when I’m waiting on a country station platform in rural Yorkshire, the chances of me being a victim of a terror attack are, as they have been for years, somewhere between “pretty remote” and “non-existent”!

I can not agree with this statement. The obvious idea of the campaign is to encourage people using the railway network to report things they are concerned about. Perhaps it is bloke taking a unnatural interest in the CCTV or fire exits or staff routines or non public areas. OF COURSE that isnt going to happen at Fenny Stratford but it might at Euston and the person doing it might have been on your train. That is the kind of stuff the police want you to report so they can investigate and disrupt any potential terrorist/criminal activities before they happen. I believe the campaign is designed to alert the authorities to what seems to be called "hostile reconnaissance".

Finally I wonder whether or not, there was this level of wibble over the terrorist hotline set up in Northern Island during the troubles. That caused the NI terrorists no end of problems. The calls the the UK terrorist hotline have increased vastly over the last 18 months. Perhaps that shows this and other publicity campaigns are working annoying as they seem to be to the experts here.

BTW you seem to expect a secret organisation in an ongoing battle to tell you everything they do? Can you not see how that might compromise their sources ( human or otherwise) or explain how crucial data was captured? That seems naive in the extreme. Finally, while there may have "only" been 13 trials I suspect the numbers of plots disrupted is substantially higher. You don't have to convict to disrupt.

 

[mpthomson]

The current terrorist threat level has been much the same for nearly half my life now. There are hundreds of more likely ongoing threats to my life which I seem to be able to largely navigate without a reminder every five minutes. The "see it, shart it, run" campaign is roughly equivalent to putting loudspeakers along all roads booming out the message "This is a road. Roads contain traffic. Look both ways before crossing"

That's no reason to not attempt to reduce the risk of one in a simple and non-complicated way. The threat level may be the same, but the nature of the threats most definitely isn't. There have been two serious attempts within the last 12mths to detonate devices on public transport systems in the UK (one a partial detonation which had it completely detonated would have killed or injured most of the people in that carriage, the other a complete fail), and only the actions of the police/DIS/SIS, who make substantial use of public tip offs, have prevented a further 3 (from memory) plans/plots to do the same. Relying on terrorist incompetence is risky, the world isn't really like Four Lions. The current crop of devices no doubt being created won't make the same mistakes.

In a professional capacity I've seen some of the recent editions of pro-ISIS Islamist magazines that exist, they are full of exhortations to attack public transport systems (and other targets) and with fairly detailed descriptions/diagrams of how to do so. DarloRich is right, the announcements are not aimed at spotters or railway obsessives, they're aimed at the general public.

As I've said before, there's an old Gerry Adams saying; 'You have to get lucky all the time, we only have to get lucky once'.

 

[mpthomson]

) and, as already mentioned, the last terrorist attack on the rail network was 24 years ago.

Completely wrong and you were told this at the time. The last successful attack on a rail network was the partial detonation at Parson's Green last September which resulted in 30 people being treated in hospital for injuries. The fact that it was on a TfL underground train rather than heavy rail is irrelevant here, certainly in terms of how the risk is viewed by the people who's job it is to analyse it, and the terrorist's view would be simply to leave it somewhere accessible to him where it could cause large amounts of damage. The fact that it didn't detonate fully was down to luck and incompetence, and it could easily have been left on a busy heavy rail service too.

ISIS are actively encouraging people to target public transport systems, as well as other targets.

 

[Taunton]

Well we can envisage such things could be left anywhere - shops, offices, on busy streets, whatever. But we don't have the need to say "See it say it sorted" at every single point in life. The fact that London Underground have not found the need to saturate their customers with this constant autobabble is notable.

Leaving devices behind, unattended, was a feature of a previous generation of issues, now long gone.

the risk is viewed by the people who's job it is

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the maintenance, and indeed expansion, of their job roles is now a significant aspect of what they come up with, particularly this self-congratulatory attitude the last word portrays. If we were really concerned about fatalities, cars and cigarettes would have been banned outright long ago.

the police/DIS/SIS, who make substantial use of public tip offs, have prevented a further 3

I think we all actually have a debt to these people, who make a REAL difference. But I wonder how many of these tip-offs etc were driven by "See it ...." soundblasts. I doubt any.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Of course MI5 and MI6 have a vested interest in bigging up the terrorist threat. They don't get funding and- even more importantly- they don't get a free hand away from any sort of scrutiny if there isn't a big and huge terrorist threat ready to kill us all.

I always link to this article by Adam Curtis when discussing the spies: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/3662a707-0af9-3149-963f-47bea720b460. The spies see terror everywhere and, as often as not, they are wrong.

That said, I think the "terror threat levels" is more about backside-covering. Can you imagine the outcry if they reduce the threat level to moderate or low and then a Manchester happens? And this vapid slogan being shouted at every station every five minutes? They need to be seen to be doing something, and this is something. My employer shares a building with the JobCentre and, apparently, I should be "heightened" in my awareness of terrorism. Maybe I'm being naive- and my memory always goes back to the Warrington bombing- but I really don't think ISIS are going to bomb a small office in a small desolate seaside town.

 

[mpthomson]

Maybe I'm being naive- and my memory always goes back to the Warrington bombing- but I really don't think ISIS are going to bomb a small office in a small desolate seaside town.

And they also shot an off duty soldier on Lichfield Station, but that's not an MO used by ISIS currently, but does illustrate the random appearing nature of some locations. You're right about small offices in seaside towns, but the passengers could be headed for larger cities where there may be a risk. I think it's been said but originally these announcements were for the larger stations that were thought to be a higher risk.

I don't see DIS and SIS bigging up the threat for funding reasons. They do understand that what they come out with has significant effects, both operationally and financially for other areas of public life. At the moment, with the winding down of ISIS in the middle east as a potent military force, the major risk is the return back to the UK of the 850 or so people who went to Syria/Iraq to fight for them. A number have died out there (oh dear, how sad, never mind...) but what isn't clear is the intentions of those who've returned (currently thought to be about half). Some may just slip back into life but the unknown is how many may still want to attack UK or mainland Europe. Some/many who come back will be far more skilled at IED construction and design than the more home grown variety. So within the current threat level the potential risk is thought to have increased. They'd be criticised far more if they missed someone who then managed to commit an act of whatever form.

 

[mpthomson]

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the maintenance, and indeed expansion, of their job roles is now a significant aspect of what they come up with, particularly this self-congratulatory attitude the last word portrays. If we were really concerned about fatalities, cars and cigarettes would have been banned outright long ago.


I think we all actually have a debt to these people, who make a REAL difference. But I wonder how many of these tip-offs etc were driven by "See it ...." soundblasts. I doubt any.

I don't see Sorted as self congratulatory, it's just a word that begins with S to make 3 S's. It's clumsy but they mustn't have been able to find another to get across what they were meaning too. I don't think Sorted does either in truth.

That's your assumption. I don't know either in terms of direct numbers but certainly incidents have been stopped or operations prevented at the planning stage in the past after an intervention by a member of the public who saw something unusual.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't see DIS and SIS bigging up the threat for funding reasons. They do understand that what they come out with has significant effects, both operationally and financially for other areas of public life.

If spies say that terrorism risk is small, then their budget will reduce and their ability to act without scrutiny will reduce. You can't justify spending billions fighting a bad guy if you've just said the bad guy no longer exists.

The second Iraq war showed that as much as anything. And conveniently it's Blair, not the spooks advising him, who copped the flack.

Between that and the fear of looking stupid if you reduce the terror threat level just before an attack, it is no wonder the sign by my office entrance tells me the terror threat in my sleepy little seaside town is severe.

Don't get me wrong, the bad guys are out there, although the repeated use of improvised weapons (cars, mainly) makes me question how coherent it is. Though the "see it" malarkey is more likely to catch the lone wolf.

 

[mpthomson]

Don't get me wrong, the bad guys are out there, although the repeated use of improvised weapons (cars, mainly) makes me question how coherent it is. Though the "see it" malarkey is more likely to catch the lone wolf.

The bad guy certainly does exist in this instance. As I said, currently it's returning jihadists from the ME, with a lesser amount of NI inspired risk, though still there at a higher level for some professions and a smaller amount of Far Right related threat, National Action in the main. The first is by far the most important due to knowledge and tactics gained abroad, some of the tactics used by ISIS when fighting were fairly nuanced and effective.

Methods change and evolve. The last successful UK attack didn't involve a vehicle. One of the valid criticisms of the UK military on Telic and Herrick was their insistance on fighting the last war all the time. Security services do need to evolve to keep up with or try to be one step ahead.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Completely wrong and you were told this at the time. The last successful attack on a rail network was the partial detonation at Parson's Green last September which resulted in 30 people being treated in hospital for injuries. The fact that it was on a TfL underground train rather than heavy rail is irrelevant here, certainly in terms of how the risk is viewed by the people who's job it is to analyse it, and the terrorist's view would be simply to leave it somewhere accessible to him where it could cause large amounts of damage. The fact that it didn't detonate fully was down to luck and incompetence, and it could easily have been left on a busy heavy rail service too.

ISIS are actively encouraging people to target public transport systems, as well as other targets.

Ah yes, mpthomson, I was wondering when you’d show up! You do seem bizarrely attracted to these security-type threads. Indeed, looking at your posting history you’ve posted around 20 times on this thread and over 30 times on the “unattended bags” thread telling us all that the terrorist threat is incredibly severe and if we don’t get hounded with a “see it say it sort it” message every few seconds we’re all going to get blown up. Yet whenever anyone challenges you to come up with any evidence to back up your claims, you fail to do so, hiding behind your stock phrases like “trust me”, “I know what I’m talking about” and “I know but I can’t tell you for security reasons”.

Unfortunately for you, in this age of “fake news”, people increasingly distrust what governments/news outlets and security services are telling them and rather than blindly accepting what they’re told, are trusting their own judgement as to what to believe. Any intelligent person looking at the rarity of terrorist attacks, particularly on the UK rail network, will surely come to the logical reason that, while there is always a chance of an attack, it’s so unlikely that we really don’t need to scare ourselves with constant warnings both on stations and on trains.

If you look at the MI5 security levels, the current supposed threat is “SEVERE”, meaning that an attack is highly likely. Yet it’s been severe since September, four months ago, so surely if an attack was highly likely, we’d have had one by now? Most reasonable people, weighing up the evidence, would say that the actual threat is really what MI5 class as MODERATE – meaning that an attack is possible, but not likely.

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels

Of course, if as you constantly claim, you know what you’re talking about and everyone else is wrong, you’ll be able to provide some kind of proof. Obviously you don’t need to go into too much detail but how about a simple list of terrorist attacks on the rail network that the security services have foiled in recent years? No names or details, just what was planned, where and when it was going to happen and who was responsible. We can then search the internet to see if your claims have any proof and maybe then you’ll come across as credible.

Unfortunately until you can do this, your postings to date come across as alarmist, patronising and simply not believeable.

 

[Temple Meads]

It is the fact that the overacting expert spotters here miss that fact the campaign is designed to reassure infrequent users of the railway network that it is OK to tell the police ( and that there will be no comeback for doing so) that you are concerned about something. It is designed for making you feel comfortable to call in your suspicion about that bloke taking an unhealthy interest in the CCTV systems or the fire exits or the access mechanisms to staff only areas.

Infrequent users of the railway will be too distracted by trying to separate the announcement for their train from assorted PA drivel to pay any attention to suspicious behaviour!

I know you have a problem with 'spotters', and like to insult them at every possible opportunity (often the people in question are not spotters but enthusiastic passengers!), but in this case the criticism of this insidious campaign is entirely valid.

 

[DarloRich]

Infrequent users of the railway will be too distracted by trying to separate the announcement for their train from assorted PA drivel to pay any attention to suspicious behaviour!

I know you have a problem with 'spotters', and like to insult them at every possible opportunity (often the people in question are not spotters but enthusiastic passengers!), but in this case the criticism of this insidious campaign is entirely valid.

In your, no doubt, expert opinion. My opinion differs.

 

[AlterEgo]

The current terrorist threat level has been much the same for nearly half my life now. There are hundreds of more likely ongoing threats to my life which I seem to be able to largely navigate without a reminder every five minutes. The "see it, shart it, run" campaign is roughly equivalent to putting loudspeakers along all roads booming out the message "This is a road. Roads contain traffic. Look both ways before crossing"

The advice on how to handle terror incidents as a private individual is a bit crazy. It is not going to keep people safe.

I was in Portcullis House when that b****** ran a bunch of people over and stabbed the policeman outside Parliament. I was coming down the escalator there when I heard a huge commotion and a surge of people were running from the Houses of Parliament tunnel. Thinking someone was chasing them, I ran out of the building, with lots of others, pushing past the confused police. When I got out I heard a bang bang bang and thought “whoops, guns, bye” and ran back inside with everyone else. We then got locked down for a few hours. It was not a scary incident, more a confusing one - the bangs it turned out were police weapons sending that waste of space to meet his virgins.

Just use your own initiative. Every incident is different.

For example, in the unlikely event a no-warning bomb was to go off in London, I would probably not run far away, lest there be a second device along an obvious escape route or rendezvous point. I’d probably just hide somewhere nearby and sit it out.

“Run Hide Tell” has probably not saved any lives. People just act on their adrenaline.

 

[mpthomson]

Ah yes, mpthomson, I was wondering when you’d show up! You do seem bizarrely attracted to these security-type threads. Indeed, looking at your posting history you’ve posted around 20 times on this thread and over 30 times on the “unattended bags” thread telling us all that the terrorist threat is incredibly severe and if we don’t get hounded with a “see it say it sort it” message every few seconds we’re all going to get blown up. Yet whenever anyone challenges you to come up with any evidence to back up your claims, you fail to do so, hiding behind your stock phrases like “trust me”, “I know what I’m talking about” and “I know but I can’t tell you for security reasons”.

Unfortunately for you, in this age of “fake news”, people increasingly distrust what governments/news outlets and security services are telling them and rather than blindly accepting what they’re told, are trusting their own judgement as to what to believe. Any intelligent person looking at the rarity of terrorist attacks, particularly on the UK rail network, will surely come to the logical reason that, while there is always a chance of an attack, it’s so unlikely that we really don’t need to scare ourselves with constant warnings both on stations and on trains.

If you look at the MI5 security levels, the current supposed threat is “SEVERE”, meaning that an attack is highly likely. Yet it’s been severe since September, four months ago, so surely if an attack was highly likely, we’d have had one by now? Most reasonable people, weighing up the evidence, would say that the actual threat is really what MI5 class as MODERATE – meaning that an attack is possible, but not likely.

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels

Of course, if as you constantly claim, you know what you’re talking about and everyone else is wrong, you’ll be able to provide some kind of proof. Obviously you don’t need to go into too much detail but how about a simple list of terrorist attacks on the rail network that the security services have foiled in recent years? No names or details, just what was planned, where and when it was going to happen and who was responsible. We can then search the internet to see if your claims have any proof and maybe then you’ll come across as credible.

Unfortunately until you can do this, your postings to date come across as alarmist, patronising and simply not believeable.

Intelligence services never reveal sources or how they know what they do because to do so would compromise techniques or sources. There are a number of work areas who need to know this information and therefore have access to the threat assessments, including in my case having sight of some of the ISIS related material out there. There are levels of disclosure too, based on what people need to know. I know less than my boss who knows less than his boss etc. Mine isn’t particularly high, but it’s enough to know what the genuine threat is. If you don’t think that ISIS are encouraging attacks on public transport targets (among others) you’re being very naive.

You’ll just have to accept that there are people who know more of the detail about it than you, because that’s all you need to know about it, in the same way that I have to accept that my boss knows more about it than I do, because i don’t need to know about it.

That’s not supposed to be patronising, it’s just the way it is.

This thread is a particular interest area of mine, just as some posters are active mainly in the strike related threads. It’s not a big deal, different people, different areas of knowledge/interest. ISIS/attack related topics are interesting to me as I work in an environment that it’s relevant to.


I’ve never used any of the phrases you attribute to me either.

Oh and terms of incidents stopped/disrupted/ foiled last year? There were 9 in the 12mths to Nov ‘17 not including Parson’s Green. Whether some/any/none are heavy rail related will come out as trials progress, but the intent is still there.This is public source information. So even using your 13 in 4yrs number that’s a significant increase.

 

[takno]

Intelligence services never reveal sources or how they know what they do because to do so would compromise techniques or sources. There are a number of work areas who need to know this information and therefore have access to the threat assessments, including in my case having sight of some of the ISIS related material out there. There are levels of disclosure too, based on what people need to know. I know less than my boss who knows less than his boss etc. Mine isn’t particularly high, but it’s enough to know what the genuine threat is. If you don’t think that ISIS are encouraging attacks on public transport targets (among others) you’re being very naive.

You’ll just have to accept that there are people who know more of the detail about it than you, because that’s all you need to know about it, in the same way that I have to accept that my boss knows more about it than I do, because i don’t need to know about it.

That’s not supposed to be patronising, it’s just the way it is.

This thread is a particular interest area of mine, just as some posters are active mainly in the strike related threads. It’s not a big deal, different people, different areas of knowledge/interest. ISIS/attack related topics are interesting to me as I work in an environment that it’s relevant to.


I’ve never used any of the phrases you attribute to me either.

Oh and terms of incidents stopped/disrupted/ foiled last year? There were 9 in the 12mths to Nov ‘17 not including Parson’s Green. Whether some/any/none are heavy rail related will come out as trials progress, but the intent is still there.This is public source information. So even using your 13 in 4yrs number that’s a significant increase.

Don't disagree with any of this, except that I simply don't accept that these incredibly annoying repeated announcements are likely to significantly increase the number of people usefully reporting anything, and therefore the chance of it foiling a single attack is insignificantly above zero. That's only acceptable if there is no downside to the announcements.

Unfortunately the announcements have a threefold cost; there's a constant state of tension from fear of terror attacks that are massively unlikely to happen at that location and time, the cognitive overload of endless aural interruptions, and the impossibility of catching actual useful information from the announcements they should be making.

 

[Wombat]

They've started playing this message on some of the SWR services that I take. My train this morning treated us to it every two and a half minutes (I timed it) which means that I heard it about fifteen times. I think it was probably an error, but I wasn't entirely convinced that someone at HQ hadn't had a little moment of deranged over-enthusiasm - I do think that sometimes people forget that the little things can make an already-unpleasant experience disproportionately worse.

 

[MK Tom]

These announcements make the railway an uninviting and intimidating place, as does the over-proliferation of security staff at many stations (which is also a massive waste of money). The reason 'terrorism' is called that is because its perpetrators seek to create a state of terror. This climate of fear created by announcements like this practically hands them that victory.

There is clearly a need for security on the railway, primarily to protect against tresspass and vandalism, but a pleasant experience for the passenger aught to be the priority. I agree with the OP that these announcements damage the passenger experience and do not do anything to combat the threat of terrorism. If anything they send a message to terrorists that their tactics are working.