We DON'T live in "dangerous times". That doesn't mean that we live in "safe times" or that the world isn't dangerous. That's where people seem to be getting confused. Saying that we live in dangerous "times" suggests that there is something abnormal or different about the "times" compared to the entirity of history. We arguably live in a more dangerous world than the world of the latter half of the 20th century (IF you ignore cold war rumblings, as nothing actually kicked off). Before that? The world has ALWAYS been a vaguely dangerous place for the average person... and if you bother to look at the actual stats for even 5 seconds it becomes VERY obvious that, if you are a healthy adult, your risk of dropping dead tomorrow (by any means) is far less (FAR far less) than at any other point in history. If you take road traffic deaths out of the equation that difference is even more staggering.

Does that mean there aren't dangers in the world? No, of course there are dangers. It's a dangerous world, but these are not especially dangerous times. If anyone has ANY facts or figures to dispute that - I will happily alter my stance.

We live in dangerous times. I'm not failing to understand anything. On the contrary.

Compared to when?

Compared to before the rise of IS, and them appealing to every skewed Muslim in the world to kill the infidel; compared to a time before we let in hundreds of thousands...millions... of unchecked people into Europe and have no idea at all how many are followers of IS. One in a million? One in a thousand? One in ten? Maybe it's different in the little village where you live... I expect the people who live in the little village where the priest was murdered thought they were far enough from the fray, but there's no such thing any more. Maybe because of the nature and area of my work I'm a little more aware? Maybe I've heard and seen things that make it more clear to me? It doesn't govern my life, but I have to acknowledge that the times are more dangerous now and to deny that... well... where's that picture? You know? the head in the sand one...

So you're at more risk now than you would have been in the 1940's? You're more at risk walking down the street in London today than you would have been in the Victorian era or earlier?

Like I said; I'm not saying we don't live in a dangerous world but the phrase "these are dangerous times" is comparative; it's stating that an individual is more at risk TODAY than they were in the past... which is simply false. The statistical likelihood of you, me, or any other healthy adult going out and dying today is FAR lower than it has been throughout the vast majority of history - and as I said, that's even WITH automotive accidents (the number one killer of healthy people, by a country mile). This can actually be verified by actual numbers and stats. You are safer today than you would have been in any other era, bar perhaps a few parts of the latter 20th century when things were pretty "quiet" in western Europe... but I would call that an uncommon period of calm, rather than the world now "uncommonly dangerous".

So... like I said; I've nt been claiming that the world is not a dangerous place. It obviously can be. And all you've done is explain why you think the world is dangerous, and that's fine. But it doesn't answer my question, other than in pointing out that we had a very briefly calm period before the rise of ISIS.

More dangerous, compared to WHEN? In terms of broader history.

We are more at risk of ISIS terrorist attacks now than we were 10 years ago. Ask those Brits attacked in Tunisia, ask the family of the beheaded soldier.

These are more dangerous times than most peoples living memory. To deny that, is sticking your head in the sand.

Statistically, they are not. There is a higher level of perceived risk but more danger of being killed or seriously injured, on any day, when you step out of your door? There simply isn't one. You might be at (marginally) more risk from ISIS... ok... but you're tens of thousands of times more likely to be killed crossing the street, or by a random illness, than being beheaded by a terrorist.

I get that the stories are scary and that there are people who tragically have been killed and maimed and that's awful, too, but "dangerous times" is a sweeping statement that suggests an individual in the UK is at statistically significantly more risk of being killed today than previously. It's simply not the case.

I would think that goes without saying as ISIS hadnt been created by the west 10 years ago.
Has anyone been killed by ISIS in the UK? I seriously doubt it. Sure 3-4 people might have been murdered by extremist nutters but do you really think they have any link to the rebels that were funded by the west to overturn the Syrian leaders before predictably turning against the west at the first sniff of power?
No i dont think so.
Terrorism isnt a new thing although you wouldnt believe it judging by the media. The IRA murdered around 1800 people alone.

It was just a news article to show there have always been random stabbings, but there's no point really,

More sad news. I hope those who are injured pull through and are not to effected by the trauma of this incident.

Poor woman :(