Threat Level SEVERE - now what are we supposed to do ?
The new, simplified UK "Threat Level" system with respect to possible terrorist attacks, comes into force today:
- Low - an attack is unlikely
- Moderate - an attack is possible, but not likely
- Substantial - an attack is a strong possibility
- Severe - an attack is highly likely
- Critical - an attack is expected imminently
According to the MI5 Security Service:
The current threat level is assessed as SEVERE.This means that an attack is "highly likely" and indicates a continuing high level of threat to the UK.
So what exactly are we meant to do as a result of this Threat Level warning ?
It is still unclear exactly what the General Public is meant to do (apart from use the Anti-terrorism hotline 0800 789 321 or 999).
Those people involved in protecting the Critical National Infrastructure are given a little more advice:
What are response levels and how to they relate to threat levels?
RESPONSE LEVEL | DESCRIPTION | RELATED THREAT LEVELS |
Normal | Routine protective security measures appropriate to the business concerned | Low and Moderate |
Heightened | Additional and sustainable protective security measures reflecting the broad nature of the threat combined with specific business and geographical vulnerabilities and judgements on acceptable risk | Substantial and Severe |
Exceptional | Maximum protective security measures to meet specific threats and to minimise vulnerability and risk | Critical |
However, secrecy rules:
The security measures taken to protect people and Critical National Infrastruture will not be announced publicly, to avoid informing terrorists about what we know and what we are doing about it.
All the media briefings and "leaks" from "sources" indicate that this SEVERE level will not be reduced for the forseeable future, so, in practice there is only a 2 level system of SEVERE and CRITICAL being operated.
How exactly is this meant to provide reassurance to the public, and clarity to the people working to defend the country ?
See also Dr.K's Personal Paranoia Meter
Comments
Given the use of English, one has to wonder whether this is just "going through the motions".
The subtle difference escapes me, between "unlikely" and "not likely".
Does the occurrence, or not, of the word "possible" mean that an attack is impossible when the level is "low"?
The words "highly likely" imply to me, a probability of over 75% (perhaps even higher), to differentiate it from "more likely than not". That would be, in the circumstances, within some period slightly greater than necessary to disseminate awareness of the changed threat level. For the police, Security Service, managers of critical infrastructure, might that be hours, a day, two days, a week? For the general public (if that is the intended audience), might that be around a few days, a week? Surely not more.
Best regards
Posted by: Nigel Sedgwick | August 1, 2006 12:07 PM
All that this does is cause fear and anxiety to the general public. I'm not saying we should live in blissful ignorance, it's just that this is a completely pointless exercise. Unless of course it's supposed to induce fear and anxiety, yet another tactic of the threat-agenda?
Posted by: Dave Ware | August 1, 2006 12:22 PM
"It is still unclear exactly what the General Public is meant to do"
The general public is expected to support every privacy-busting measure being brought in by this Orwellian government.
Posted by: A Tench | August 1, 2006 5:02 PM
@ A Tench - Didn't Blunkett waste £6 million on mailing out a Government Advice Booklet to every household in the country ?
http://www.preparingforemergencies.co.uk/
8-)
Posted by: wtwu | August 1, 2006 6:20 PM
I could just imagine an interview with a minister on this:
interviewer: the threat level is severe - what exactly should the public do with that information?
minister: be vigilant for possible terrorist threats
interviewer: so, if it was at 'substantial' or 'moderate' then we shouldn't be vigilant?
minister: er, no - you should always be vigilant for terrorist threats
interviewer: ... in which case a threat level is meaningless, as the public should be vigilant at all times
minister: er, report all suspicious activity
interviewer: supposing someone has been hanging around a street corner for an hour with no obvious purpose? if we reported that, the police terrorist response unit would be overwhelmed
minister: only report that which is obviously suspicious terrorist activity
interviewer: and how do we determine that?
minister: erm, er, by... being vigilant?
Posted by: robert | August 2, 2006 9:05 AM
If we spend too long at the top of the threat scale, will we be getting threat inflation (along the lines of the annual exam grades inflation)?
Posted by: sas | August 2, 2006 9:13 AM
@ Robert, I don't know if you're being ironic but there was just such an interview on radio 4 PM a few weeks back between Eddie Mair and (I think) Tony McNulty. Your "fictional" exchange is disturbingly close to the real thing.
Posted by: Paul | August 2, 2006 10:28 AM
@ Paul, I must admit I hadn't heard that interview which just goes to show - their thinking is entirely predictable and their justifications two-dimensional.
However, I've yet to work out whether their attacks on civil liberties are due to pandering to tabloids and not understanding the consequences or they really are trying to consolidate power.
Posted by: robert | August 2, 2006 12:55 PM
Everybody has already laughed at the American version so why the UK government has copied it is beyond comprehension. Its a gross oversimplification of the problem and really doesn't tell us anything.
I hope now the people who voted for the Labour party can start to see the damage they have caused. Since Blair has been in power he has never worked for the people but his own agenda: war, inflation and the erosion of civil liberties. That is his legacy.
Posted by: Caesar | August 3, 2006 10:18 PM