UK home to 23.000 Jihadis, The Times
You are a cheerful poster aren't you. Did they count them or something?UK home to 23.000 Jihadis, The Times
There's literally no way in the world to estimate this that is statistically sound. Wouldn't mind posting the source would you? Would like to see their methodology
Source - UK security Services.
What does that figure mean? 23,000 who are known to have fought in Libya, Syria etc? Or does it mean 23,000 people notified to MI5 as potential leads, which is a very different thing?UK home to 23.000 Jihadis, The Times
What does that figure mean? 23,000 who are known to have fought in Libya, Syria etc? Or does it mean 23,000 people notified to MI5 as potential leads, which is a very different thing?
To quote the article itself, "about 3,000 are judged to pose a threat". Still a fairly alarming figure, but not quite as disingenuous eh.
Even that figure may not be wholly accurate in the context it's being reported. These are probably what are known as a "Subject of Interest" (SoI) who MI5 believe may be worthy of keeping tabs on in some way. When they add them to the watch-list they grade them as Priority 1-4 (with two sub-categories in 1 and 2) depending on the perceived risk and in Tiers 1-3, depending on how important they are seen to be. So the head of a network, a financier or a recruiter may be Priority 1/Tier 1 but may be a lower priority if they're not seen as posing an immediate risk. Where they are in the list will determine what resources are applied to investigating them and how intrusive the surveillance needs to be.To quote the article itself, "about 3,000 are judged to pose a threat". Still a fairly alarming figure, but not quite as disingenuous eh.
Even that figure may not be wholly accurate in the context it's being reported. These are probably what are known as a "Subject of Interest" (SoI) who MI5 believe may be worthy of keeping tabs on in some way. When they add them to the watch-list they grade them as Priority 1-4 (with two sub-categories in 1 and 2) depending on the perceived risk and in Tiers 1-3, depending on how important they are seen to be. So the head of a network, a financier or a recruiter may be Priority 1/Tier 1 but may be a lower priority if they're not seen as posing an immediate risk. Where they are in the list will determine what resources are applied to investigating them and how intrusive the surveillance needs to be.
So there may be 3,000 on that list in all, including P4/T3 leads or it may be that there are 3,000 in higher risk categories (P1-2/T1 say).