Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor
I thought that was made clear many posts ago.
Because it takes the NI conflict data out of the pool.
Which I feel are misleading and carry far too much weight when taken in context with the current terror threat. Which is exampled by how the data drops off after the 1998 ceasefire.
Why do you feel they are relevant from a risk perception pov to the current threat?
|
Because it shows unrest in the area which is (very) small.
You say it's misleading... but to who? The article is from Maclean's and is directed at Canadians, which reminds us that the area is safer today than it was 30 years ago despite the rise in Islamic terrorism. Despite this graph including Northern Ireland, it still accurately conveys that facts that terrorist attacks in England were more common and constant in the 70s and 80s than they are today.
Terrorism in the U.K., including in each of its members, is less a concern than it was pre-2001. It's not like the UK is going to read that and be confused about where they should feel safe. They know the difference between England and NI. Maybe Canadians don't... but why should a Canadian be concerned about terrorism in the U.K. at all if even the distance between Belfast and London is a huge factor for you?