"See it, say it, sorted"

[PHILIPE]

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.

In fact. it gives any intended terrorist a message to tell them they've got us on the run and living in fear of them.

 

[EM2]

In fact. it gives any intended terrorist a message to tell them they've got us on the run and living in fear of them.

You might be. I don't know anyone that is 'living in fear' of terrorists.

 

[PHILIPE]

You might be. I don't know anyone that is 'living in fear' of terrorists.

I'm not but it might give terrorists the idea.

 

[OneOffDave]

"Run, hide, tell" was used to some extent during the London Bridge attack and also by some organisations on Oxford Street following the false alarm there. We don't really know how successful it will be as a defensive strategy as it hasn't been truly tested by a Paris/Mumbai style attack in the UK.

Terrorists thinking that we are all living in fear isn't a bad thing as they won't feel the need to do things to scare us if we are already scared

 

[jon0844]

Came back to Hatfield station this afternoon to be met by BTP on the platform, handing out ticket sized cards with the 61016 text number and information on reporting to BTP on it.

 

[gazthomas]

There are just too many messages these days, “see it, say it, sorted”, inclement weather, stand behind the yellow line, unattended baggage, train announcements (understandable) and so on - I’ve tuned out

 

[Grannyjoans]

These repetitive automatic announcements do my head in. At both Liverpool Lime Street station and on-board it's class 319's on all-stops services all you get is these dreary robotic announcements constantly. Most of the passengers are wearing headphones to try to block it out. It hasn't half given the railway a dreary atmosphere.

 

[TUC]

Guess what? We're bored sick of the messages and not listening to them. Therefore they're not working.

 

[Grannyjoans]

Guess what? We're bored sick of the messages and not listening to them. Therefore they're not working.

Completely agree. They are so endless & dreary that people (including me) switch off from them and just think they're an annoying never ending noise. On the rare occasion there is an announcement worth listening to (such as a platform change), I have been known to miss it!

 

[SWR commuter]

Completely agree. They are so endless & dreary that people (including me) switch off from them and just think they're an annoying never ending noise. On the rare occasion there is an announcement worth listening to (such as a platform change), I have been known to miss it!

OMG it has recently started on SWR. I completely agree that tuning out is the obvious step. The message needs to be removed as pointless, unpleasant and patronising. The chance of harm from a terrorist attack is so statistically minuscule, and then compounded, the chance of BTP intervening between my noticing the bomber and him triggering the vest/slashing, it’s laughable.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Celia Drummond says it with a lisp down in SWR territory, it’s awful.

“If you thee thomething that doesn’t look right, thpeak to thtaff or text the BTP on sicth 1.0.1. thicth. We’ll thort it. Thee it, thay it, thorted,” Grr.

 

[johnkingeu]

I don't know anyone that is 'living in fear' of terrorists.

The dips in passenger numbers which followed the London terror attacks suggest that quite a lot of people are indeed living in fear of terrorists. Perhaps these messages are actually a cunning way to reduce overcrowding

 

[Mathew S]

The message needs to be removed as pointless, unpleasant and patronising. The chance of harm from a terrorist attack is so statistically minuscule, and then compounded, the chance of BTP intervening between my noticing the bomber and him triggering the vest/slashing, it’s laughable.

I think the idea is rather to catch the potential attacker at an earlier stage of their enterprise than you may perhaps be imagining. It's unfortunate that you feel the message is patronising, however the idea which it promotes is fundamental to the security services CT strategy. Many potential terror attacks are thwarted when suspects are are spotted acting suspiciously while performing acts preparatory to the attack itself, so it's easy to see where "See It, Say It" fits within that strategy.

As annoying as some find it, repetition is the best way of getting a message into people's minds so that they might actually remember it when they need it most. My colleagues who work in advertising tell me that you often need to expose people to the same message 16 or 17 times before they'll act on it... so I guess we'd better get used to it.

 

[NSEFAN]

I'll admit that it has made me remember the number for texting the BTP, though I'm more likely to use it to report cases of vandalism or thuggery than a potential terrorist.

 

[al78]

OMG it has recently started on SWR. I completely agree that tuning out is the obvious step. The message needs to be removed as pointless, unpleasant and patronising. The chance of harm from a terrorist attack is so statistically minuscule, and then compounded, the chance of BTP intervening between my noticing the bomber and him triggering the vest/slashing, it’s laughable.

Yes that is human irrationality, to worry about bad things that have a very small chance of happening, and at the same time ignore bad things that have a much higher probability of happening. It is like when people worry about flying, yet don't think twice about driving to the airport, the chance of being involved in a serious accident is far higher on the road than in the air. People complain about the persecution of the motorist and "haven't the police got any criminals to catch" when they get pulled up for a traffic infringement, yet compare the number of people who get murdered every year to the number that die on the roads. Feeling and emotion trumps logic and evidence unfortunately.

The danger of tuning out is missing an announcement you would find useful, you can't then complain about consequences because you chose not to listen.

 

[SWR commuter]

I think the idea is rather to catch the potential attacker at an earlier stage of their enterprise than you may perhaps be imagining. It's unfortunate that you feel the message is patronising, however the idea which it promotes is fundamental to the security services CT strategy. Many potential terror attacks are thwarted when suspects are are spotted acting suspiciously while performing acts preparatory to the attack itself, so it's easy to see where "See It, Say It" fits within that strategy.

As annoying as some find it, repetition is the best way of getting a message into people's minds so that they might actually remember it when they need it most. My colleagues who work in advertising tell me that you often need to expose people to the same message 16 or 17 times before they'll act on it... so I guess we'd better get used to it.

Your idea sounds implausible. The earlier stage, such as when he's at home preparing or planning online, should be addressed by activity from other agencies, rather than the traveling public. It is those activities that are an effective implementation of a counter terrorism strategy.

My impression is that no attacks are tthwarted by travellers calling hotlines, the very few that are, are disrupted by "have a go heroes".

Can you describe a credible scenario, given the attack methods deployed in the last few years, that would be averted via hotline and "rapid" response?

The messaging could be part of a strategy, possibly political, possibly budget driven. In any case, certainly aligned with the terrorist objective, as discussed elsewhere.
The rail commuter experience is miserable enough without being constantly told to be suspicious, to consider a bomb attack on a crowded train an event that's statistically worth considering,

 

[fowler9]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I accidentally left a 65 litre metal frame rucksack on a train. When I used the emergency button on Warrington Central to report something possibly suspicious and to say not to worry I was told off.

It is the illusion of safety and if you report anything I doubt it will be taken seriously. The chances of terrorists attacking Britain's rail network are vanishingly small. It is of course in the government's best interests to keep the people afraid, it makes them more compliant to any wacky laws you want to push through to maintain control.

 

[SWR commuter]

I think the idea is rather to catch the potential attacker at an earlier stage of their enterprise than you may perhaps be imagining. It's unfortunate that you feel the message is patronising, however the idea which it promotes is fundamental to the security services CT strategy. Many potential terror attacks are thwarted when suspects are are spotted acting suspiciously while performing acts preparatory to the attack itself, so it's easy to see where "See It, Say It" fits within that strategy.

As annoying as some find it, repetition is the best way of getting a message into people's minds so that they might actually remember it when they need it most. My colleagues who work in advertising tell me that you often need to expose people to the same message 16 or 17 times before they'll act on it... so I guess we'd better get used to it.

Your final point makes me wonder, did your colleagues each say "16 or 17 times" independently, or did one say 16 and the other say 17? Or is this number made up?
If it's only 16 or 17 times, then the message can be removed quite soon, as the high proportion of regular passengers in the traveling community will then represent an effective and sufficient core of "super vigilants", each with the hotline on speed dial. It shouldn't require everyone to be message-saturated, intermittent travellers can read the paper, look after their kids, etc...

 

[Mathew S]

Can you describe a credible scenario, given the attack methods deployed in the last few years, that would be averted via hotline and "rapid" response?

If you're talking about a situation that needs to be resolved by way of a 'rapid' response, ie. within seconds or minutes, then phoning/texting a hotline is absolutely the wrong thing to do. If, for example, you observe a person behaving in a way which leads you to believe that an attack is imminent the best course of action is to alert the nearest police officer or staff member as rapidly as possible - which, in real extremis, means shouting as loud as you can - or as a last resort call 999; and then follow the "Run, Hide, Tell" advice at www.npcc.police.uk/staysafe.

Where "See it, Say it, Sorted" is the right message, though, is when it comes to intelligence gathering. As a hypothetical example: imagine I see someone walking around a major station behaving suspiciously (such as observing staff entering secure areas, or photographing surveilance equipment, to use two extreme examples). I contact the security services and inform them of my concern. Chances are it will be nothing, but if it isn't nothing then the information I provide could be an important part of the wider intelligence picture. That is why it's so important.

It's no secret that terror attacks are becoming harder to stop as they are incresaingly low-tech and carried out by individuals/small groups. Despite claims of responsibility from some international organisations, many of these individuals have few or limited connections to established terror organisations, which makes them extremely difficult to locate. Those contacts they do have are often a) online and b) protected using encryption. One very real effect of this is to increase the reliance of security and intelligence organisations on human intelligence, including from the public, as a means detecting persons of concern.

Yes, there is a real problem with idiots and conspiricy theorists when it comes to things like the Anti-Terrorist Hotline - there's a reason it's known by some as the "Loony Line" - and part of the security services role is to filter out the relevant information from the mountain of irrelevant, if well-meaning, tip offs. But there have been several cases, and continue to be cases going through the courts, where information from the public has been vital in saving lives.

If you're genuinely interested, look out for reports of terrorism trials in the press and go and sit in the public gallery, in most cases there is no reason that you can't, although you may be excluded from particularly sensitive parts of the hearings. You'll be surprised at how many times information from an ordinary member of the public either started an investigation or forms an important piece of evidence in a case.

Of course, the chances of getting caught up in a terror attack are vanishingly small for any given individual; but the assertion by some that the chances of an attack on the rail network are small? That's simply not true. JTAC don't invent threat levels for a laugh, nor do BTP deploy armed officers because they need to find something for them to do. The risk is very, very real and - as we saw in Manchester and London last year - it remains a case of 'when' attacks happen, rather than 'if'.

 

[Mathew S]

Your final point makes me wonder, did your colleagues each say "16 or 17 times" independently, or did one say 16 and the other say 17? Or is this number made up?
If it's only 16 or 17 times, then the message can be removed quite soon, as the high proportion of regular passengers in the traveling community will then represent an effective and sufficient core of "super vigilants", each with the hotline on speed dial. It shouldn't require everyone to be message-saturated, intermittent travellers can read the paper, look after their kids, etc...

I have to say that I'm not that interested in advertising, so the approximation is my lack of knowledge more than anything else. I know that it's more than that for some messages, and less for others (I've heard 5-10 quoted for some advertising, and 20+ for others). I believe that the original number comes from quantitative research around how many times people see an advert online before they click on it and buy a product, and that is generally extrapolated to other forms of advertising (which this essentially is) as well.

As I say, I'm no expert in advertising, far from it, though I'm sure you can find research on it if you look around online.

 

[takno]

I have to say that I'm not that interested in advertising, so the approximation is my lack of knowledge more than anything else. I know that it's more than that for some messages, and less for others (I've heard 5-10 quoted for some advertising, and 20+ for others). I believe that the original number comes from quantitative research around how many times people see an advert online before they click on it and buy a product, and that is generally extrapolated to other forms of advertising (which this essentially is) as well.

As I say, I'm no expert in advertising, far from it, though I'm sure you can find research on it if you look around online.

As we've all heard this particular advert well over 20 times now, perhaps it's time to replace it with one for another trite solution for perhaps a more credible threat. How about an urgent repeated warning against sheltering under a tree in a lightning storm?

 

[Mathew S]

As we've all heard this particular advert well over 20 times now, perhaps it's time to replace it with one for another trite solution for perhaps a more credible threat. How about an urgent repeated warning against sheltering under a tree in a lightning storm?

There is nothing non-credible about the current level of terrorist threat. You've heard on this thread from at least two of us who regularly receive briefings with information from the security services, and we have both explained why this messaging is necessary. I think there are some on this forum who need to accept that there are some things which they might not like, but which are necessary all the same.

Can anyone propose an alternative, equally or more effective method, of getting this valuable message across to the travelling public?

 

[Dr_Paul]

It's the woman's voice saying 'sorted' (or is it 'sort it'?) that really annoys me. Surely, if that wording has to be used it should be growled in a Danny Dyer type of 'sorted, guvnor', as that's the usual way it's said (usually on the telly). Most people I know don't use this construction as they don't wish to emulate the vocabulary of an Essex gangster. After hearing it the other evening over a dozen times in 45 minutes on a slow train from Waterloo, I was not a very happy fellow.

 

[goblinuser]

I've always heard it as 'See it, say it, sort it'

 

[sheff1]

It's unfortunate that you feel the message is patronising, however the idea which it promotes is fundamental to the security services CT strategy.

If it is fundamental then the strategy is flawed.

As I mentioned months ago, on the two occasions I reported "something which does not look right" the responses were "what I am supposed to do about it ?" from a member of staff and refusal to even listen, instead being told to move along on the threat of arrest, by BTP. Quite clear that "saying it" will not result in any "sorting", so I will not bother again.

 

[Mathew S]

If it is fundamental then the strategy is flawed.

As I mentioned months ago, on the two occasions I reported "something which does not look right" the responses were "what I am supposed to do about it ?" from a member of staff and refusal to even listen, instead being told to move along, by BTP on the threat of arrest. Quite clear that "saying it" will not result in any "sorting", so I will not bother again.

Without being aware of the specific circumstances of your experiences mentioned here, I can't really comment other than to say that I would hope it does not reflect the actions of most staff/BTP officers when a genuine concern is raised. It certainly differs markedly from the (albeit small number of) occasions when I have had cause to raise a concern with BTP officers myself when my concerns have been taken seriously and, where required, prompt action taken to address them.

 

[nlogax]

Can anyone propose an alternative, equally or more effective method, of getting this valuable message across to the travelling public?

Like anything that's replayed with such regularity it becomes background noise. Sometimes less is more..it should be played less frequently. Employ some variety. Use two or three different versions, use a different announcer than the one doing the 'standard' service announcements.

 

[Mathew S]

Like anything that's replayed with such regularity it becomes background noise. Sometimes less is more..it should be played less frequently. Employ some variety. Use two or three different versions, use a different announcer than the one doing the 'standard' service announcements.

Good ideas. Actually in my local area (Greater Manchester / Merseyside) there are a couple of different versions of the announcement voiced by different people. I'd assumed that there was similar variation nationwide, though I'm reflection given that people are likely to make the same/similar journeys regularly perhaps there needs to be greater variety still.

 

[EM2]

Guess what? We're bored sick of the messages and not listening to them. Therefore they're not working.

The number of times I've had customers approach me with concerns suggest that they are.

 

[takno]

There is nothing non-credible about the current level of terrorist threat. You've heard on this thread from at least two of us who regularly receive briefings with information from the security services, and we have both explained why this messaging is necessary. I think there are some on this forum who need to accept that there are some things which they might not like, but which are necessary all the same.

Can anyone propose an alternative, equally or more effective method, of getting this valuable message across to the travelling public?

I didn't say it's non-credible, just that it's incredibly unlikely to happen at any given point on the network at any given point in time. With all due respect to the briefings you receive from the security services, you may actually be too close to the problem to take a sufficiently wide view.

The emotional and attention costs of these relentless adverts for terror is not zero. We may not be privy to the same threat analyses etc that you are, we are all able to observe the tiny number of people actually affected by these incidents, and we are all capable or drawing reasonable conclusions that the benefits are being outweighed by the costs. You may be an expert on the threats, but you'd really need to be an expert on the impact and cost of the announcements to pull rank on us in this discussion.