Are we safe yet?
So, the intelligence services have judged that the threat of a terrorist attack is now "severe", and no longer "critical", as it has been since last week's foiled plot to blow up passenger aircraft.
What, you may well ask, does that mean for you and me? Can we come out from behind the duvet and face the world again? Can we fly without a care in the world?
The technical answer is that the authorities believe an attack is now just "highly likely" rather than "imminent". In other words, we are not safe, there is still a threat, but they have no reason to think there's an attack planned for tomorrow.
Confusing?
Yes, and that's why ministers have been out in force trying to make clear the subtle distinction. Home Secretary John Reid was even on the television yesterday trying to prepare the way for this even before the intelligence guys decided to reduce the threat level.
It is a challenge for ministers every time - how can you explain levels of risk to the public? How do you be open without provoking panic? Remember mad cow disease? Remember salmonella in eggs? The Government has a duty to tell the public how bad things are, to inform people about risk.
But at the same time, ministers have a responsibility not to destroy an industry with imprecise remarks. What do you say to a young mother - is it safe for her to take her kids on a flight, give them scrambled eggs or mince for tea? The Tory minister John Gummer fed a burger to one of his offspring to show that beef was safe and he has never been allowed to forget it.
Thus today, the threat level has been reduced. As a result, travellers can start taking at least some modest-sized hand luggage on flights - businessmen can be reunited with their beloved laptops, children plugged in again to their iPods. Phew, normal life resumes, airline executives breathe a sigh of relief. But we're still not safe, there's still a threat.
In other words, we, as ever, have to make our own judgements, whatever ministers tell us.
I'm 
Comments
How could John Reid prepare the way when a decision had not yet been made? Surely this just goes to show that this whole thing is merely politically motivated and has little to do with our security - grist to the mill of the conspiracy theorists.
I would suggest that most of this "threat" was invented by Bush and his croonies, just like the so called WMDs that Iraq didn't have. In fact all of it was probably a lie, to get us to support the USA invasion of Iran, Syria, and ultimately China.
I think a lot of it is to persuade us that if we all had identity cards, we would all be safer. How? These alleged bombers are all British citizens and would have carried ID cards. It wouldn't have stopped them. All Spanish citizens carry ID cards but that didn't stop the bombings at the railway stations. It is a sad and sorry world when you think that everything told to you by the Government has an ulterior motive. By making us afraid of our shadows whilst at the same time not believing what they say, it is making us vulnerable to genuine acts of terrorism.
It appears there was a genuine plot; however the level of risk it presented appears to have been grossly exaggerated for...
...well, I have no idea actually.
Perhaps, just perhaps, a threat warning system that jumps up to 100% at the slightest sign of trouble is a little, tiny bit entirely useless?
I suspect that your commenter 'patrique' has never been close to a terrorist's bomb when it has exploded. If, like me, he had, perhaps he'd grow out of his apparent belief that all the bad guys are in government while all the good guys out on the streets.....
James,
You must try to be a little more fluent in your blog entries. The sentence below, with its cumbersome repetition of the word 'even', makes for clumsy and awkward reading:
'Home Secretary John Reid was even on the television yesterday trying to prepare the way for this even before the intelligence guys decided...'
Such phrasing is simply unacceptable; impending invasion of China or not...
Patrique's post puts me in mind of a little aphorism that I heard recently and seems appropriate: "there's a fine line between skepticism and moronic cynicism."
Now I'm skeptical about the government and the security services. I'm skeptical about their competence and their honesty. However I would have to be a moron not to believe that there are some groups of people out there who would love to blow up planes.
I'm septical because I doubt that the 'threat' is exactly what has been presented to us but I'm not a moronic cynic who believes that there is no threat.
Sadly the blogosphere is full of loud, moronic cynics whose only contribution to life is to shout aggresively, inanely and frequently.
If there are honest politicians out there then I don't envy them their job. Somehow they have to communicate a message despite all the sound and fury.
Cute, the notion of inviting Ruth Kelly alleged paid-up member of the shady and corrupt Catholic extremist group Opus Dei, to advise Muslim leaders how to combat "radicalisation".
Well, of course we all have to make our own decisions, just as we all have to accept that there is some level of risk. Government ministers tie themselves in knots because they feel they have to tell us there is a risk, while also saying that they are making us safe. Thank you, Nanny.
Come on! Its time we all grew up (yes, journalists too). Yes there is a risk, and no, there may not be anyone we can sue if something goes wrong. The secret of defeating terrorism in a liberal society is acknowledging the risk and living with it, despite all the threats thrown at us.
"How can you be open without provoking panic?" Say, rather, "How can you avoid provoking panic without being open?"
I cannot accept the idea, propounded by the previous commentor, that the threat was invented by the allies of Bush to generate support for the invasions of 'Iran, Syria and ultimately China'.
Rather, and far more disturbingly, we face a menace from within. A certain percentage of the UK population will feel totally justified in resorting to murder to further a politial/religious point.
Writing as a second generation immigrant and married to a first generation immigrant, I have to say that the UK is the most accepting receptive society that I have come across. If you make half an effort to assimilate, England will accept you. But if you build up walls of resistance, England's walls will overpower you.
Somehow, England has alienated those who were born within its shores. Not England's fault, not their fault either. But there is a wall between these two sets of English citizens that will be hard to breach without suffering.
I'm not asking England to change, but I would suggest to my fellow foreigners that they might bend a little more towards the European 'liberal'- like it or not, that's where they were born, and that's what supports them. Only then will they overcome their own prejudies and be able to establish the multi-cultural society they ask for.
Good to see paranoia alive and well in the replies so far.
People doing a tough job being castigated by those whose toughest decision is working out which sort of bread to buy in the supermarket. Anyone who finds the distinctions between levels tough to understand needs to wake up a bit or consult an adult.
Heres a fact; no one is ever safe. There are always loonies, sociopaths and the ignorant embittered waiting to kill on a pretext.
The Ministers' pronouncements are more about expectation management and internecine posturing than any real attempt at directing the public. This spin government is conditioned to do little more than avert the danger to their own careers.
But while I am all for taking personal responsibility, the tricky subject of profiling will not lie down and go away.
When will ministers do something ministerial and meaningful on this one and admit that that young muslim men statistically more likely to be terrorists than little old ladies?
There is a school of thought that suggests that threat levels don't do any good, and are in fact mostly based around the politics of fear. The message seems to be "be scared, but don't change your routine" rather than any semblance of actually being useful. Bruce Schneier a security expert, wrote about the current issue, and his thoughts on threat levels.
We'll never know how much or how little the timing of the terror raids and alert last week have anything to do with the governments trouble with getting its terror bill through parliament, but, as the conspiracy theorists suggest, the timing is awfully convenient.
Regardless of the degree of truth (if any at all) in such theories, it's certainly true that the government will probably try and get as much political mileage out of the events as possible, while the rest of us just get on with our lives, regardless of what threat hangs over as, as we have done for decades now.
It's bizarre - the threat of attack is now only 'severe' and a nation breathes a sigh of relief.
I'm wary of complacency, but the phraseology of these "levels of risk" does smack of V for Vendetta.
The threat level will invariably be exaggerated, for two reasons:
- the security services don't want a terrorist attack to happen while the risk was deemed to be minimal;
- the threat levels of "critical" and "severe" neatly fit with the media narrative.
The cynicism displayed in the first two comments is quite justified. John Reid stated that 4 terrorist attacks had been thwarted since 7/7. So what has happened to the people involved - the security services must be aware of who they are , why no arrests or charges? Was the Home Secretary just continuing the Governments 'spin' or are the suspects sheltering under our Human Rights legislation!!
This whole thing smells very fishy to me. I suspect it has more to do with John Reid's ego and potential bid for leader of the labour party at the conference? Why did he wait for Tony to go on holiday? Why were the airlines the last to know? Why has Heathrow been such a shambles? Why are no other countries doing this? Why the suddent retreat? This is all political nonsense - John Reid has just cost the British public and British business untold millions for the sake of appearing the "hard man" that leads Britain through a crisis.
We'll find out for sure when a proper leadership challenge emerges. If John Reid ends up going for it after the first stalking horse, then we can all know for sure his motives in this security 'alert'.
The problem for ministers is that, in the view of many people, this Government has regrettably forfeited their trust by issuing misleading or duplicitous statements on so many issues, not least of which being the reasons for invading Iraq.
An excellent Channel 4 documentary a week ago asked 'What British Muslims want' and the message that came out of the piece for me was that many young muslims believe that there is a concerted effort to irradicate Islam from the planet. It appears the 7/7 bombers believed that, probably the guys currently under arrest believe that too - but this belief isn't helped by idiotic comments such as "[the past month]was a battle between Israel and terror" (apologies for the paraphrase) said by Mr George Bush. All the recent chaos in Lebanon, the ongoing slaughter in Iraq, the resurgence in Afghanistan, in addition to the UK&US' continued refusal to change their stance in the Middle East and stupid comments such as Bush's does is enforce the view that there is a war against Islam. It is about time that our 'elected leaders' remembered their populace and stopped digging the hole they have put the entire world in any deeper. Instead they erode our liberties, and impose restrictions on our way of life in the name of "Security". This used to be one of the greatest countries in the world, now we're the 51st State under a redneck, bigoted, infantile agenda. What ever happened to tolerance, understanding and diplomacy? I'm ashamed...
Although I do not find the skepticism that surprising, I do find it rather depressing.
If people honestly think that politicians have control over such things as alert levels, they are very wrong. The whole point of such a system is that it is independent of the "internecine rivalries" previously discussed.
John A questions what has happened to those involved in previous plots - demonstrating a well known phenomenon: that the public is very aware of things when they go wrong, but rarely aware of cases when plots are interrupted. The reason these do not end up in the press is that where individuals are charged and awaiting trial, there is little that the press can say - and very little detail released - for fear of contempt of court.
On the other hand, where the cases collapse, or there is insufficient evidence, the press are given a free hand to report. Note the natural imbalance.
Can people please start trusting the Police and Security Services. They perform a largely thankless task, and do not need endless allegations about their motives.
James, it feels like our safety has been taken from us by Mr Blair and not the terrorists. I am surprised at myself for feeling this way. Surely I would put all the blame on those who would do us harm?
And maybe this is the point, I feel harmed by Mr Blair and his policies and the war on terror and the arc of extremism he talks about.
And with a crisis like this one, why did Blair feel it ok to go off on holiday, its more salient to us here in the UK than his words or deeds on Lebanon.
I feel abused by Mr blair and his policies, not heartened or supportive of him in his endeavours.
I welcome anything which brings peace and harmony to our world, however, it seems to me Mr Blair makes things worse, not better.
Overall I feel let down by Blair, let down by his blind loyalty to ideas and ideology he has made with George Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld.
Thank God for our security forces and all they do. Sorely tested I feel in recent times with more on their plate I fear...
In the five years since 9/11, there has been one successful terrorist attack in the UK, killing 52 people. In the same 5 years about 15,000 have been killed in road accidents. And more than 500,000 people have died of smoking related diseases.
So let's get a sense of proportion about the terrorist threat. The chances of being killed by a terrorist are very small.
And if we allow politicians to take away more and more of our civil liberties then we are allowing the terrorists to win.
In the end we do have to make our own judgements of the risks, but as British people we grew up when it was normal to be understated about everything.
Whilst the New Labour spin machine has spent years perfecting the dramatic policy release and re-release that will solve all the worlds ills e.g PFI only for us to later realise we have been suckered and will spend the rest of our lives paying for it, we have grown accumstomed to not believing anything they say. So when it comes to something highly dangerous although I believe the intelligence services I find it difficult to fully believe someone like Reid who has basically spent the whole Summer being a theatrical self publicist on the Television in the hope as far as I can see of either putting himself forward as leader of the labour party or alternatively building his CV for possible appearances as dame in panto complete with scottish hardman ticks.
It is I think going to take a change of government with hopefully a much less hollywoodesque approach to security to reduce some of our cynicism.
Much as I love all these conspiracy theories, with the evil Reid manipulating the nation so he can implement some master plan, I think we may have to face up to the fact that those who govern us are simply incompetent.
Apparently the method of using liquid components to create an explosive has been known about for years and is suspected of being the method used in an incident that occurred in the Far East some years ago, and yet there were no security procedures in place. Now the threat level has been downgraded from "HE'S GOT A BOMB!!!!" to "People are trying to kill you". What does this mean, well cabin luggage is now allowed. Isn't it odd that when we don't know the who or the how, taking items into the cabin is OK, whereas when we have a known threat the basic plan is to have people travel in their underwear.
No I am sorry, try as hard as I might I cannot picture John Reid sitting in a high back leather chair stroking a fluffy white cat whilst plotting his next evil act, we may have wanted a Dr No but what we have got is a government packed full of Jim Hackers.
Well, I have no idea whether there really was a major terrorist plot or not. But if you're wondering whether the security measures are politically motivated, consider this: way more people are killed in car crashes than in terrorist attacks. It's about 10 every day in the UK, equivalent to a 7/7 style attack slightly more often than every week. Just imagine what we could do for road deaths if the police put as much effort into enforcing traffic laws as they seem to be putting into airport security. But then I guess that wouldn't scare us all into signing up for ID cards.
"Imminent-to-Severe...Confused???"
(Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Weblog)
May i suggest that if you are 'confused' by the above stated downgrading of the threat level then you go and get an IQ test (or see a Doctor!)
How can anyone be confused by such a simple concept?! It is SO straight forward that I would think that even the media could cope with it - BUT NO! I am no fan of this Govt at all but I can see why the Home Sec gets angry when such stupid remarks are made in the press etc...
For those who are struggling and are 'confused' at the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, allow me to explain.
'Severe' (say, 10/10) is slightly less then 'Imminent' (say, 8 or 9/10)
So, the threat level is still very high but not quite as high as it was.
Got it!?!?!
I don't understand how the existence of a vague 'possibility' + a desire to avoid 'complacency' + the need to take precautions takes us to the topmost threat level - AFTER the authorities have supposedly arrested the 'trrrists'. We'd better invent some more threat levels in case we ever manage to get hold of some serious evidence of a plot in progress. Perhaps:
CRITICAL: we are not complacent
HIGHLY CRITICAL: we are quite concerned
PANIC: we've found some chemicals in someone's shed
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE: we've found a trrrist (someone who suggests that bombing the middle east could inflame passions)
ARMAGEDDON: We've found some hard evidence
UNIMAGINABLE: After a long chat with Mr Reid, the JIC has decided that there is a real live trrrist plot in progress
'There is no fear greater than fear'.
Never truer than ever.
The stench is increasing.
We are now so frightened of our own shadow that a 'boo' from a goose is enough to cause an epidemic of hysteria.
Where is this steely, stiff upper lipped nation of empire builders and England the Brave?
How did we win our great wars in History?
Are we reduced to a neurotic nation of whimperers and blamers?
What have we now allowed ourselves to be manupilated into?
Now that John Prescott has described George Bush's government as Crap and George Bush as a cowboy will Britain now become part of the axis of evil? will all Britons now become terrorists and will we have to give up our nuclear weapons under UN mandate no 12347648. Are we now all doomed?
Prolonged periods of hightened security lead to apathy and error, no we are not safer because of this act, if anything the long term effect will be a reduction in effective security.
I noted that Mr Prescott prepeded the word alleged to claims of terrorism, well thats nice isn't it. I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting used to the cry 'Wolf' and I'm not in the slightest bit terrorised by it.
There is more chance of being run over by a car than being killed by a terrorist, infact if you took the total deaths in the world caused by road traffic accidents, it would make the worst terrorist act look insignificant. Wer'e not interning the director of Ford Motors though are we! For those claiming that the two things are not comparable: why is that then? You may not be deliberatley driving into people but you are deliberately taking the risk that it could happen.
I would argue that the American government were conciderably less concerned by the loss of life than they were by the loss of trading. There are billions of us but only ten banks in the world, right! Soon the number of soldiers that die will outnumber the deaths at the world trade centers but there's no great debate about that.
You people go fight your grand war of light and darkness, but you do it without my consent or cooperation.
Well said Simon Oxlade!
The fact that a flight was cancelled recently due to the action (fear) of the passengers flying with two men of possible non-European appearance whom they thought may be terrorist says it all really.
I watched the TV interview of these men. They protested their innocence, possibly rightly so, but some of their comments in the interview seemed to suggest to me, by the subtle tone that they adopted, that they were making a bit of a joke of the incident at the expense of the passengers.
Whether this is true or not may never be known, but it was enough for the passengers to take the action they did and for me to postpone my trip to the United States.
Crying wolf is a deadly weapon but, as the fable continues, can have a more deadly comeback against innocent people whose appearance do not fit into the popular profile of non-Europeans.
'Terror' is big business. The security services, security experts, security companies, the police, the media, the politicians all have a vested interest in 'spinning' and maximising the terror threat.
A public dulled by careless consumerism have little to trouble them apart from where their next car or cheap holiday is coming from. A pampered populace horrified that their i-pods aren't allowed on the plane.
In our culture the denial of luxury offends the rich and powerless and profits the rich and powerful.
Perhaps Ryanair spun the liquid explosives 'threat' as a way of selling soft drinks on flights and Michael O'Leary is bluffing?
Meanwhile back in Afghanistan...
I am very interested in politics but now I have been so turned off, not by the politicians or the Prime Minister, but by you and your fellow journalists who constantly speculate about the Prime Minister's departure. You have been speculating for exactly 1.5 years now and you should stop. How boring it is to see you and others on different channels say the same things over and over again. You should report on true stories and policy and do some work, after all we, the public,pay your wages. I think your public duty is to inform and in this obsessive speculation you fail in your prime objective. Tittle-tattle and gossip come to mind!!!!
Simon Oxlade's opinion that Bush's comments enforce the view that there is a war against Islam, ring hollow in the UK. If there is a "concerted effort to eradicate Islam from the planet," then the UK is losing hands down when you look at the new mosques opening up throughout our Country. He further asks what has happened to, "tolerance, understanding and diplomacy" - don't make me laugh, you only have to look at the headlines today where Royal Preston Hospital is offering muslim patients a burka-style gown to where for treatment. If this isn't t,u&d then maybe they should redefine the English dictionary!