- 14 Aug 06, 05:40 PM
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. 91热爆 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.
