Posts Tagged ‘Judgements’

Is Health and Safety such a dirty word?

Mention Health and Safety and Im sure those of you reading this are no different to the people attending our courses and cringe in dread.  But why? Health and Safety has been in the workplace for all my working life and Im sure most of yours. Admitedly I cant remember Health and Safety being big in the 80s or early 90s but now it is unrecognisable from the introduction on the Health and Safety at Work Act in 1974. Read the rest of this entry »

The Threat level is decided by JTAC (Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre) JTAC was created in 2003 as the UK leading body for the analysis and assessment of international terrorism. In setting the threat level JTAC look at a number of things including:

Available intelligence

Terrorist capability

Terrorist intention

Timescale

The threat levels and their meaning are:

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

The threat levels relate to the threat to the Country. There are response levels which are then set by individual security practitioners and can vary from location to location the response levels are:

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)

Although the threat level changes as it did on the 20 July 2009 it doesn’t mean an automatic reduction in security measures in place at individual locations. If a building or location is high profile and a prime target then the response level may well be further enhanced to take into account terrorist belief that there guard may be relaxed due to a reduction in threat.

On the 15 October, Jonathan Evans (Director General of MI5 (The Security Service)) made a speech at Bristol University entitled “Defending the Realm”. Bristol University is in its Centenary Year as is the Security Service and Bristol University is also where the DG joined the Security Service from in 1980.

During the speech the DG reflected on the history of the Service and its current role in the “War on Terror”

The DG commented on recent reports of MI5 agents being complicit in the torture of detainees. While he made reference to the fact that as the cases were still being heard there was very little he could say but during the speech he did mention this very relevant fact.

“I have every confidence in the behaviour of my officers in what were difficult and, at times, dangerous circumstances. This was not just a theoretical issue. Al Qaida had indeed made plans for further attacks after 9/11: details of some of these plans came to light through the interrogation of detainees by other countries, including the US, in the period after 9/11; subsequent investigation on the ground, including in the UK, substantiated these claims. Such intelligence was of the utmost importance to the safety and security of the UK. It has saved British lives. Many attacks have been stopped as a result of effective international intelligence co-operation since 9/11″

He went on to quote an article by Alan Johnson and David Miliband.

Intelligence from overseas is critical to our success in stopping terrorism. All the most serious plots and attacks in the UK in this decade have had significant links abroad. Our agencies must work with their equivalents overseas… we have to work hard to ensure that we do not collude in torture or mistreatment. Enormous effort goes into assessing the risks in each case. But it is not possible to eradicate all risk. Judgements need to be made.

That is the reality of the situation: we do not solicit or collude in torture. We do not practice torture. But we are operating in a difficult and complex environment.

The Threat level is decided by JTAC (Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre) JTAC was created in 2003 as the UK leading body for the analysis and assessment of international terrorism. In setting the threat level JTAC look at a number of things including:

Available intelligence

Terrorist capability

Terrorist intention

Timescale

The threat levels and their meaning are:

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

The threat levels relate to the threat to the Country. There are response levels which are then set by individual security practitioners and can vary from location to location the response levels are:

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)

Although the threat level changes as it did on the 20 July 2009 it doesn’t mean an automatic reduction in security measures in place at individual locations. If a building or location is high profile and a prime target then the response level may well be further enhanced to take into account terrorist belief that there guard may be relaxed due to a reduction in threat.