I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
I think these are very unlikely uses. Terrorist activity is the most likely use.
I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
If they were using a chainsaw on a Sunday afternoon I'd say an accident would probably be a good thing.
I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
I think these are very unlikely uses. Terrorist activity is the most likely use.
Warning of floods is likely to be used more frequently as weather events get worse. A warming climate means that the atmosphere can carry more moisture, leading to heavier rainfall, leading to flash flooding. Storm surges are also more likely. A warning alert could be very useful in such circumstances, especially at night.,
I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
I think these are very unlikely uses. Terrorist activity is the most likely use.
I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
I've had this conversation with people of my acquaintance who have/will opt out of future alerts because they don't want the government interference/having their contact number, etc. (I've explained that the alerts are sent via the providers anyway but none of them seem to mind Google, Meta and everyone else having their data, it's just The Man they object to).
There's a large % of the country that has disappeared down a rabbit hole of conspiracy and misinformation over the last 10 years.
I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
I've had this conversation with people of my acquaintance who have/will opt out of future alerts because they don't want the government interference/having their contact number, etc. (I've explained that the alerts are sent via the providers anyway but none of them seem to mind Google, Meta and everyone else having their data, it's just The Man they object to).
There's a large % of the country that has disappeared down a rabbit hole of conspiracy and misinformation over the last 10 years.
The conspiracy theories going around put people in danger, it's very frightening that so many believe such rubbish.
An alert system is good for everyone and those that ignore warnings and need rescuing, put their rescuers in danger.
I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
I think these are very unlikely uses. Terrorist activity is the most likely use.
Floods is the top example used when the bit of government spoke about it and its uses. In fact it has already been used for this exact purpose in the intervening couple of years since the last test.
As a kid growing up on Canvey Island we frequently had 'air raid' sirens going off as flood alerts. It's just good practice for governments to have a method of warning people of potential dangers, no matter what the level of technology. I just googled it, and apparently Canvey's sirens were still working as recently as 2010. I expect the modern generation of conspiracy nutters would have complained about that.
I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
I think these are very unlikely uses. Terrorist activity is the most likely use.
Floods is the top example used when the bit of government spoke about it and its uses. In fact it has already been used for this exact purpose in the intervening couple of years since the last test.
I'm sure i speak for many conspiracy theorists in that i'd rather drown than have the government send an alert to my mobile phone. Who knows what other information they are taking, I mean their requests of apple to open a back door into encypted data are well known 🥲. Fortunately for criminal use i use burner phones anyway.
Unless I've completely misunderstood, the warnings are sent based on where the phone is at the time (which the companies know to a great deal of detail because they know which 4G or 5G signal it's connected to). So if there's a tsunami warning for South East London I'll only get it if I'm at the Valley or visiting my sister, not if I'm in Swindon. So there's no name or address information involved.
I'm not an engineer, but I do work in the flood defence bit of the engineering industry, and I've done some work on the Barrier many years ago. You really, really shouldn't opt out of warnings about flooding if you live in the bit of London that the Barrier protects. River flooding coming down the Thames there would probably be a day or two of advance warning, plenty of time to find out about it if you don't get the government alert. Tidal flooding coming up the Thames you might only get a few hours and I'd recommend not missing the alert if that sort of flood ever happens.
I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
I think these are very unlikely uses. Terrorist activity is the most likely use.
Warning of floods is likely to be used more frequently as weather events get worse. A warming climate means that the atmosphere can carry more moisture, leading to heavier rainfall, leading to flash flooding. Storm surges are also more likely. A warning alert could be very useful in such circumstances, especially at night.,
From the government website:-
"It's used to warn people when there's a danger to life nearby, including severe weather events like storms or flooding. Since the first national test in April 2023, the system has sent five real alerts during major storms when lives were genuinely at risk".
I think this precludes "escaped prisoners and missing children".
I doubt very much that the principle reason for the development of the national alarm is for weather related incidents, even if they have been used for such. Luckily we have the Met Office giving us warnings several days in advance of storm activity.
Sadly, where this will be of most use, is in relation to terrorist activity - The UK threat level remains "substantial", meaning that an attack is likely.
I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
I think these are very unlikely uses. Terrorist activity is the most likely use.
Floods is the top example used when the bit of government spoke about it and its uses. In fact it has already been used for this exact purpose in the intervening couple of years since the last test.
I'm sure i speak for many conspiracy theorists in that i'd rather drown than have the government send an alert to my mobile phone. Who knows what other information they are taking, I mean their requests of apple to open a back door into encypted data are well known 🥲. Fortunately for criminal use i use burner phones anyway.
I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
I think these are very unlikely uses. Terrorist activity is the most likely use.
Floods is the top example used when the bit of government spoke about it and its uses. In fact it has already been used for this exact purpose in the intervening couple of years since the last test.
Thanks, I wasn't aware it has been used for storm warnings. I wonder whether it provided more information than was already in the public domain from The Met Office / MeteoGroup?
Thankfully there have been more storms than terror attacks in recent years, but my view is that this is where the value of the national (local) alarm will be.
I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
I think these are very unlikely uses. Terrorist activity is the most likely use.
Warning of floods is likely to be used more frequently as weather events get worse. A warming climate means that the atmosphere can carry more moisture, leading to heavier rainfall, leading to flash flooding. Storm surges are also more likely. A warning alert could be very useful in such circumstances, especially at night.,
From the government website:-
"It's used to warn people when there's a danger to life nearby, including severe weather events like storms or flooding. Since the first national test in April 2023, the system has sent five real alerts during major storms when lives were genuinely at risk".
I think this precludes "escaped prisoners and missing children".
I doubt very much that the principle reason for the development of the national alarm is for weather related incidents, even if they have been used for such. Luckily we have the Met Office giving us warnings several days in advance of storm activity.
Sadly, where this will be of most use, is in relation to terrorist activity - The UK threat level remains "substantial", meaning that an attack is likely.
Alerts are used in some countries to advise of missing children.
The main point is that they could be useful in far more situations than just terrorist related. Floods have been more frequent occurrences than terrorist attacks in recent years.
I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
I think these are very unlikely uses. Terrorist activity is the most likely use.
Sadly I think this is spot on and they're expecting something significant given the global situation and relative quiet/ lack of such events past couple of years.
40k plus on watch lists already and unknown/ undocumented people entering illegally by the hundreds each day/ week must only increase the risk.
I'm amazed at the great job the security forces do in foiling the plans of those who wish us harm and long may they continue be successful in preventing them.
As a kid growing up on Canvey Island we frequently had 'air raid' sirens going off as flood alerts. It's just good practice for governments to have a method of warning people of potential dangers, no matter what the level of technology. I just googled it, and apparently Canvey's sirens were still working as recently as 2010. I expect the modern generation of conspiracy nutters would have complained about that.
They already complain about Met Office severe weather alerts, calling it a nanny state. I have my bingo card ready every time there is a heatwave or storm alert.
I was on another call, so they left message. I called back and two days later, I’m still listening to Beethoven, which is interrupted by a woman telling that my call is important to them, but they are experiencing a high volume of traffic and will get to me as soon as possible.
I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
I think these are very unlikely uses. Terrorist activity is the most likely use.
Floods is the top example used when the bit of government spoke about it and its uses. In fact it has already been used for this exact purpose in the intervening couple of years since the last test.
Thanks, I wasn't aware it has been used for storm warnings. I wonder whether it provided more information than was already in the public domain from The Met Office / MeteoGroup?
Thankfully there have been more storms than terror attacks in recent years, but my view is that this is where the value of the national (local) alarm will be.
I wouldn't expect it to contain additional information. It will almost certainly just point to the Met Office alert page for a storm or the Environment Agency one for a flood. Possibly a copy of the original so that the main website doesn't crash when thousands of people try to connect to it at once, but no special content. The point is to get word out to people quickly, rather than wait for the next time they happen to hear a news/weather bulletin on the radio.
I can't believe the outcry by some on social media, from something that is being introduced to make people safer. Some proudly boasting that they 'won't comply' and will turn off alerts. One said it made people jump and if they were using a chainsaw, they might have an accident. It wasn't so different from a phone ring tone, so that is a ridiculous argument.
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
I think these are very unlikely uses. Terrorist activity is the most likely use.
Sadly I think this is spot on and they're expecting something significant given the global situation and relative quiet/ lack of such events past couple of years.
40k plus on watch lists already and unknown/ undocumented people entering illegally by the hundreds each day/ week must only increase the risk.
I'm amazed at the great job the security forces do in foiling the plans of those who wish us harm and long may they continue be successful in preventing them.
This is probably leading to a political discussion likely to get the thread closed down, but needs to be challenged as it is a figure widely quoted by certain groups with an agenda to publicise. I did an AI search using Grok on the X platform to check your statement. I asked the following question: Is it true that there are 40K people on watch lists in the UK? This is the answer:
There is no definitive, publicly available data confirming that exactly 40,000 people are on watch lists in the United Kingdom. The concept of a "watch list" in the UK typically refers to various lists maintained by government agencies, such as those related to counter-terrorism, financial sanctions, or other security measures. However, precise figures are often not disclosed due to the sensitive nature of these lists, and the number can vary depending on the specific type of watch list being referenced.
Terrorism-Related Watch Lists: According to a 2017 BBC article, the UK maintains multiple types of watch lists, including behavioural watch lists and lists of individuals suspected of involvement with terrorist groups like ISIS. These lists are managed by security services and police, but exact numbers are rarely publicized. The article does not provide a specific figure like 40,000 but indicates that such lists exist and are used for surveillance and monitoring.
Comparison with U.S. Data: For context, the U.S. terrorist watch list, as reported by CBS News in 2023, had grown to about 2 million people, with an additional 40,000 on a separate list for transnational organized crime. While this provides a sense of scale for watch lists globally, it doesn't directly apply to the UK, which likely maintains a smaller list proportional to its population and security needs.
UK-Specific Context: The UK’s counter-terrorism efforts involve agencies like MI5, MI6, and the Metropolitan Police, which monitor individuals based on intelligence. A 2017 report suggested that security services were tracking individuals, particularly those returning from conflict zones like Syria, but no precise figure of 40,000 was mentioned. The UK also collaborates with international partners, sharing watch list data, which implies a dynamic and fluctuating number of entries.
Other Types of Watch Lists: Beyond terrorism, the UK’s Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act of 2010 allows HM Treasury to maintain lists of individuals or entities suspected of terrorist financing. Additionally, there are lists related to export controls and sanctions, but these are typically smaller and focused on specific entities or individuals, not reaching a figure as high as 40,000.
Lack of Specific Evidence: The claim of 40,000 people on UK watch lists lacks a clear source in the provided references or widely available public data. Without official confirmation from UK authorities (e.g., Home Office or MI5), this number should be treated as speculative.
Potential for Misinterpretation: The figure of 40,000 could be confused with other statistics, such as the number of individuals screened annually at borders (e.g., U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported 431 million border crossings in 2005, with a small fraction flagged for watch list checks). In the UK, similar screening processes occur, but no specific figure ties directly to 40,000 individuals on a watch list.
Conclusion: The claim that there are 40,000 people on watch lists in the UK cannot be verified based on available information and should be approached with scepticism unless supported by official sources. The UK does maintain various watch lists for security and counter-terrorism purposes, but their size is not publicly disclosed, and the figure of 40,000 seems arbitrary without corroboration. For comparison, the UK’s population in 2023 was approximately 68.3 million, so a watch list of 40,000 would represent about 0.06% of the population, which is plausible but unconfirmed.
MI5 does not publish an exact number of individuals on its watch list, but publicly available figures offer insight into the scale of counter-terrorism operations and the number of subjects of interest. Public figures indicate a multi-tiered approach to tracking individuals of concern.
Here is a breakdown of the numbers involved, based on figures from MI5 and Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP):
MI5 investigations (3,000 suspects): As of early 2025, MI5 and CTP were running more than 800 live counter-terrorism investigations involving approximately 3,000 subjects of interest. These are individuals suspected of being directly involved in terrorism, from planning attacks to sharing extremist content.
Individuals under close surveillance (3,000): A 2017 BBC report cited a counter-terrorism expert who said MI5 was "very concerned" about about 3,000 names on its watch list, with these people under "pretty regular surveillance". This figure aligns with the number of suspects involved in live operations mentioned above.
Wider extremist watch list (20,000+): The same 2017 report described a broader list of over 20,000 "extremists" in the UK who are not under constant surveillance but would be investigated if they exhibited suspicious behavior.
Individuals at risk of re-engaging in terrorism (40,000+): A 2020 Home Office statement revealed there were over 40,000 people that MI5 assessed as posing "some risk of them re-engaging in terrorist activity". This figure is part of a public petition to remove individuals on the terror watch list from the UK
"quoted by certain groups with an agenda to publicise". That'll be the Home Office then...
NOTE ; THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL STATEMENT NOR AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE THREAD A POLITICAL ONE. THE EXCHANGE AND CLARIFICATION OF DATA IS NOT POLITICAL. IT WILL ONLY GO THAT WAY IF ANYONE CHOOSES TO DO SO.
MI5 does not publish an exact number of individuals on its watch list, but publicly available figures offer insight into the scale of counter-terrorism operations and the number of subjects of interest. Public figures indicate a multi-tiered approach to tracking individuals of concern.
Here is a breakdown of the numbers involved, based on figures from MI5 and Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP):
MI5 investigations (3,000 suspects): As of early 2025, MI5 and CTP were running more than 800 live counter-terrorism investigations involving approximately 3,000 subjects of interest. These are individuals suspected of being directly involved in terrorism, from planning attacks to sharing extremist content.
Individuals under close surveillance (3,000): A 2017 BBC report cited a counter-terrorism expert who said MI5 was "very concerned" about about 3,000 names on its watch list, with these people under "pretty regular surveillance". This figure aligns with the number of suspects involved in live operations mentioned above.
Wider extremist watch list (20,000+): The same 2017 report described a broader list of over 20,000 "extremists" in the UK who are not under constant surveillance but would be investigated if they exhibited suspicious behavior.
Individuals at risk of re-engaging in terrorism (40,000+): A 2020 Home Office statement revealed there were over 40,000 people that MI5 assessed as posing "some risk of them re-engaging in terrorist activity". This figure is part of a public petition to remove individuals on the terror watch list from the UK
"quoted by certain groups with an agenda to publicise". That'll be the Home Office then...
NOTE ; THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL STATEMENT NOR AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE THREAD A POLITICAL ONE. THE EXCHANGE AND CLARIFICATION OF DATA IS NOT POLITICAL. IT WILL ONLY GO THAT WAY IF ANYONE CHOOSES TO DO SO.
Comments
Same.
I was partially concerned believing my data may have been hacked.
Alexa should have mentioned it
Alerts could be used for anything, warning of floods, fire, an escaped prisoner, a missing child. Alerts don't have to be national, they can be used to warn of local dangers. Other countries have had them for years, introducing it here is a good thing.
There's a large % of the country that has disappeared down a rabbit hole of conspiracy and misinformation over the last 10 years.
An alert system is good for everyone and those that ignore warnings and need rescuing, put their rescuers in danger.
I'm not an engineer, but I do work in the flood defence bit of the engineering industry, and I've done some work on the Barrier many years ago. You really, really shouldn't opt out of warnings about flooding if you live in the bit of London that the Barrier protects. River flooding coming down the Thames there would probably be a day or two of advance warning, plenty of time to find out about it if you don't get the government alert. Tidal flooding coming up the Thames you might only get a few hours and I'd recommend not missing the alert if that sort of flood ever happens.
"It's used to warn people when there's a danger to life nearby, including severe weather events like storms or flooding. Since the first national test in April 2023, the system has sent five real alerts during major storms when lives were genuinely at risk".
I think this precludes "escaped prisoners and missing children".
I doubt very much that the principle reason for the development of the national alarm is for weather related incidents, even if they have been used for such. Luckily we have the Met Office giving us warnings several days in advance of storm activity.
Sadly, where this will be of most use, is in relation to terrorist activity - The UK threat level remains "substantial", meaning that an attack is likely.
Thankfully there have been more storms than terror attacks in recent years, but my view is that this is where the value of the national (local) alarm will be.
The main point is that they could be useful in far more situations than just terrorist related. Floods have been more frequent occurrences than terrorist attacks in recent years.
40k plus on watch lists already and unknown/ undocumented people entering illegally by the hundreds each day/ week must only increase the risk.
I'm amazed at the great job the security forces do in foiling the plans of those who wish us harm and long may they continue be successful in preventing them.
The claim that there are 40,000 people on watch lists in the UK cannot be verified based on available information and should be approached with scepticism unless supported by official sources. The UK does maintain various watch lists for security and counter-terrorism purposes, but their size is not publicly disclosed, and the figure of 40,000 seems arbitrary without corroboration. For comparison, the UK’s population in 2023 was approximately 68.3 million, so a watch list of 40,000 would represent about 0.06% of the population, which is plausible but unconfirmed.
Take your pick.
"quoted by certain groups with an agenda to publicise".
That'll be the Home Office then...
NOTE ; THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL STATEMENT NOR AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE THREAD A POLITICAL ONE. THE EXCHANGE AND CLARIFICATION OF DATA IS NOT POLITICAL. IT WILL ONLY GO THAT WAY IF ANYONE CHOOSES TO DO SO.