I have a few concerns on this, as to what is actually being reported.

Firstly, any new CEO will consider the possibility of an over-bad public report on the “state of the company”, as a good introductory measure to improve his potential future performance.

Secondly, as has already been proffered, less moderate and/or troubled governments love to play the “fear-card”.

However, there are some other, more subtle possibilities:

(i) the number of UKIPTTs has really increased;

(ii) the number of UKIPTTs known to the Security Service has increased, perhaps through looking harder for them; doubtless, the increased staffing and other resources helps with this;

(iii) the definition of UKIPTTs has been changed, such that more people would be so classified.

The trouble with matters such as terrorism is that it is most unlikely (I suspect quite rightly) that we will ever be told directly what are the factors determining UKIPTTs. However, it would be nice to know that parliamentary scrutiny does actually occur, that they are told and that, on any change of definition or resourcing, some useful attempt is made to report equivalent figures for some useful period of overlap (say 3 or 4 years).

Best regards

“The threat is international, and so must be at least part of the answer.”

Unusually, the translation into English adds clarity. Albeit inadvertently.