The last major terrorist attack in the UK by terrorists claiming to be Islamic fundamentalists was the 7/7 bombings in 2005. Since then, more people have been killed by dogs in the UK (16). That group were not ISIS relaetd as ISIS didn't exist then.
No one is proposing a "war on dogs" as they are more lethal than UK based Jihadi terrorists. There are however a few similarities between these killer dogs and the Jihadi's. The main one is that there are millions of lovely dogs that will never kill anyone but who get a bad name from a few, generally who have very stupid owners. My personal view is that it is bad dog owners rather than the dogs which should get the bad press.
|Dogs have killed more UK citizens than ISIS|
|Daleks have killed as many people in UK as ISIS|
In 2013 1,713 people were killed on the roads (latest govt figures available). That sounds quite a lot doesn't it? But in actual fact this is a tiny number compared to the 9,500 who die in London alone from poor air quality. That sounds like quite a lot, but again is dwarfed by the 40,000 people a year killed in the UK by cold. Sounds quite a lot? What about the 100,000 a year killed by smoking?
All of these figures dwarf anything that a few nutters with Kalashnikovs and bomb vests could achieve. The appalling fact is that all of these figures are totally avoidable. With modern technology, it would be quite straightforward to pass legilsation that compells manufacturers to build anti collision techology into all cars and also that enforces speed limits, restricting cars to the speed limit for the road. I've no idea if it's true or company propoganda, but I've read reports that state that 90% of accidents could be prevented by technology. It seems absurd that we pay billions to prevent terror attacks, but the government won't compel car firms to include technology that would save over 1,000 lives a year. If it was as simple as protecting unsafe drivers from themselves, I suppose it could be argued as a civil liberties issue, but it isn't. It is other road users, cyclists and pedestrians that suffer. It is not just the deaths. There are all of the people who require hospital treatment and long term life changing injuries. Reports list this as half a billion pounds a year for the 0-15 year old age group. When George Osborne talks about cuts in funding, why doesn't he ever consider cutting the cause of the costs? I can't see any reason why the UK doesn't lead the way, cut the death toll and save billions. It is a win, wi win scenario.
Then there is poor air quality. In London this is caused by pollution from cars, lorries and buses. Again the technology exists that can prevent this. The problem has been known about for years. It is as simple as compelling manufacturers to fit it on all vehicles and after a suitable period banning non compliant vehicles fro town centres and pollution hotspots. Again there are costs involved for motorists, but they have no earthly right to poison the rest of the population. It is scandalous that 9,500 people a year die from completely preventable causes. Reports list the cost to the UK economy of air pollution as £54 billion. This figure would presumably fix George Osbornes budget defecit for once and all. It would allow us to keep our libraries, invest in the Police we need to stop the few lone wolf nutters and we'd all be healthier. It really isn't rocket science, is it?
Then there are the 40,000 people a year killed by the cold. Unlike the first two categories, this doesn't need new technology and infrastructure investments to fix. This simply needs compassion. People freeze to death because they can't afford to keep warm. No one in a developed country should ever freeze to death. What many people don't realise is that the issue puts a huge strain on the NHS budget. AgeUK estimate that the cost to the NHS is £1.36 billion
Age UK’s new estimate of the cost of cold homes to the NHS is £1.36 billion.There will also be further avoidable costs to social care services and to informal carers. At a time when the Government is looking to the NHS to make efficiency savings, taking further action to enable older people to protect their health in winter will also bring savings for the public purse.
Such a death toll cannot be justified on any level. It is quite simple, anyone who has issues paying their energy bills should be given whatever assistance they need to fix the problem. Of course there will be costs associated with this, but I for one would rather pay more for electricity or more in tax than see anyone freeze to death. If we can afford billions to keep the population safe from a few nutcases, we can most certainly afford to keep our elderly citizens safe from the cold.
The last of the things which cause preventable deaths is smoking. It kills over 50 times more people than car accidents. The cost to the NHS is huge. But this is a very complicated issue. The vast majority of people who will injure themselves or die because they smoke are adults who have made the choice to smoke. We live in a free society and I don't believe we should be telling adults how we should live our lives. What worries me though is the fact that despite all of the health risks, smoking is still viewed as a cool thing to do by teenagers. How do we change this perception? I haven't got a clue. Tobacco brings in huge sums of money for the treasury, which is why I suspect that the government has no real interest in dealing with this toll. If cigarettes were made illegal, then people would still smoke, but the government would simply lose tax revenue, which is a lose/lose. It would probably seem even more subversive and cool for the teenagers of the world. A friend of mine had a novel solution to the problem, which I have no idea whether it is a good idea or not. He suggested that over 65's should pay less tobacco duty and pubs and clubs should have smoking areas reserved for over 65's. This would put more money in the pockets of pensioners and presumably by this age, it is one of the few pleasures in life. If we had a few sitcoms set in old folks homes, where the residents were happily puffing away and reminiscing about the good old days of steam trains and national service, then would the younger generation still think smoking was a cool thing to do. I spoke to a cancer doctor recently (I've spoken to a few). He joked that having seen geriatric wards and cancer wards he knew which he'd prefer, which is why he smoked.
What do you think are the main threats to the UK? As far as I am concerned it is not ISIS. If you look at it rationally, the bloke who sells you a packet of fags is more likely to kill you than ISIS. The bloke driving a diesel car is more likely to kill you than ISIS. George Osborne with his energy policies is more likely to kill you than ISIS. However you look at it, if you are sane, rational and intelligent, ISIS are not a threat to the ongoing national security of the UK. Sadly for us all, the same cannot be said about bad, unenlightened and stupid government.