Summary
IN A remarkable interview published yesterday, David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, went out of his way to play down the threat of a terrorist attack on Britain, and distanced himself from suggestions that such an attack was inevitable. Yet, for the past month the threat of international terrorism has been the most important message to come from the Prime Minister, other Cabinet ministers and, not least, Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. In a joint press conference with Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, Sir John said a terror attack on London was "inevitable", while Mr Livingstone said it would be "miraculous" if London escaped attack. For good measure, Peter Hain, the Leader of the Commons, said the United Kingdom was a "front-line target" for attack by international terrorists.
Why, then, has the Home Secretary decided to send out an altogether different signal? And what is he seeking to achieve? He now says there needs to be a balance between warning people and just making them "jumpy". It may well be that the Home Secretary has a concern that too alarmist a message might prove counter-productive: a period of heightened public nervousness giving way after a few weeks to complacency, as the immediate risk is perceived to have passed.See the full content of this document
Extract
Leader:Blunkett has No Option but to Play Down Threat
However, the brutal fact remains that there may have been more al- Qaeda attacks around the world in the two years subsequent to 9/11 compared with the two years leading up to that watershed attack, and the ability of al-Qaeda and its allies and sympathisers to hit just when security forces and the general public least e...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
