Watch the forum

The government is advising members of the public to "go in, stay in, tune in" in the event of a terrorist attack on the UK.

In an updated website launched on Wednesday, the Home Office is telling people to go indoors and listen for specific instructions which will be broadcast on the radio.

However, the department says there is no need at present to take further measures such as stockpiling food or buying a gasmask.

Is the advice sufficient? What information would you like on coping with a terrorist attack? What form would such an attack take? Is the UK really prepared?

Tonight's Six Forum was suggested by Marco, UK

The government is advising members of the public to "go in, stay in, tune in" in the event of a terrorist attack on the UK. How high are the chances of this happening? We are not privy to the same information as the government, but our bodies are just as fragile as theirs.
Marco, UK

Transcript:

Manisha Tank:
Hello and thanks for joining us on the Six Forum with me Manisha Tank. The Government has issued guidelines to the public on how to respond in the case of a terrorist attack - stay indoors, stock up on basic supplies and take a sensible approach - just some of the advice from the Home Office. But there are evidently some holes in the detail and joining to address your concerns and questions, terrorism expert, Charles Shoebridge.

First of all the public are very, very concerned and despite the Government saying don't be alarmed by these new guidelines, the public really are.

Jacquie, UK: I am very concerned about a terrorist attack in the UK and fear for myself and my family. Am I over-reacting?

Janet Hillier, UK: All this is really alarming. Are we at a greatly increased risk because of invading Iraq?

James Arthur, UK: Does anyone else feel that this advice is intended to increase support for the war against Iraq?

Charles Shoebridge:
Well first of all I think anybody who isn't somewhat concerned actually should be concerned that they're not concerned. Clearly there is a raised threshold of threat against the United Kingdom. That isn't just because of the Iraq situation, also we have been a primary partner in the war against terror. But I think it's clear to say that we are entering a danger period. We are the major ally of the United States - in fact militarily, along with Australia, the only ally of the United States in the attack on Iraq and of course it may be opportunistic for groups such as al-Qaeda to mount an attack to give the impression that they're actually supporting Muslims in Iraq, whereas of course in reality Iraq and the al-Qaeda and similar groups are actually divergent in their aims.

I think more important, though, will be the months and possibly years ahead as to how the situation in Iraq develops. If, for example, we get a situation where there's a prolonged American or western generally military occupation of that country, there can be very little that would be more of a recruiting agent for groups like al-Qaeda.

Manisha Tank:
Perhaps we'll come back to that in a moment but for now let's just keep it with recent events and the accidental find of bombs, for example, in a house in West Sussex. Wayne has written in saying: Isn't it fair to say that there's likely to be many more terrorists in the UK with similar intentions?

Charles Shoebridge:
Yes, there are terrorists in the United Kingdom - we have to accept that - they've been here for some time - they haven't taken actions against the United Kingdom. But with our attack on Iraq, with the situation that we have in the last few months - that is since January of this year - very much clamped down on Islamic extremism in this country. A good example of that is the long, possibly overdue, raid on the Finsbury Park mosque. All of this sends a signal is that Islamic extremism in Britain is no longer being tolerated and in a way takes away the incentive for people not to attack this country.

Some would argue, with some justification, that we've been a bit of a soft touch on Islamic extremism for many, many years - that is no longer the case and therefore there's no longer any reason for these people not to attack us. So there is an increased risk but it still very important to keep that risk and threat in perspective.

Manisha Tank:
Let me just pick up then on the Government's response to the threat and getting to whether you really think that the response has become better in the last 10 years.

Richard, UK: At the moment I think that a terrorist attack on the UK is quite inevitable. Remember the bogus asylum seeker in London found with ricin? And the terrorists in Italy who were found to have a map of London, planning their attack?

Commentators have been pointing out that when the French had suffered bombings on the Metro, about 10 years ago, they warned the British - they said you need to look into the intelligence on this issue. But there's a criticism that the Government responded softly on that. Do you really think that now we're catching up?

Charles Shoebridge:
Yes, we are catching up and the longer the situation continues where we don't have an attack - of course we had the killing of D.C. Stephen Oake in Manchester - but we haven't had a planned attack in this country so far. The longer that time goes on, the more breathing space we get, the more we can develop the intelligence systems that were so lacking before September 11th.

And your questioner is absolutely right, the French were urging - as were many other countries, including Arabic countries - were urging Britain to take a firmer hand against Islamic extremism - we failed to do so. But we are catching up on that lost ground.

Manisha Tank:
Owen Clements, UK: My family and I are on the flight paths for the four major airports in the South East, and at the mouth of the river Thames. What are the chances of me surviving an attack in London?

And there have been some scenarios played out where actually the results are perhaps a little bit disappointing in terms of how emergency services could actually respond.

Charles Shoebridge:
That's quite right. But at least these tests and examination assessments are taking place which again was something that perhaps wasn't receiving enough attention in the past.

I think it's very important to realise that although I would agree that some form of terrorist attack is inevitable - certainly in the United Kingdom and quite probably in London - but it could be over the long time period that we're talking about - maybe some years. Nonetheless, the vast majority of people will not be affected by that. Perhaps there will be psychological effects but overall the majority of people - even if there were a catastrophic incident - will not be physically affected.

I think the chances are that even if you live in under three major flights plus a river, plus a major motorway route and maybe have a big factory next door and a barracks as well - I still think your chances of being attacked, particularly with weapons of mass destructions - chemicals, nuclear or biological weapons - are very, very small indeed. The far more likely option is that a group like al-Qaeda will attempt, in my belief, a conventional type attack in a major population centre such as Leicester Square, Trafalgar Square - somewhere like this that has high impact or maybe Parliament Square using a conventional bomb device and therefore it could kill a large number of people and injure many more. But the overwhelming majority of people will not be affected apart from perhaps psychologically.

Manisha Tank:
So the big lesson thee is everyone should be extra vigilant. Graham has sent in a text message: The Government has only issued safety instructions on the web - are we all assumed to have a computer at home?

And additionally, the Government has said, if you stay indoors, listen to the radio, watch the television for information - there are no leaflets though. What happens if the power goes out?

Charles Shoebridge:
Absolutely, it's a very good point. The Government, for example, recognises that the power may go out, as you'd expect in a major catastrophe by urging people to have lots of batteries for torches and so on, therefore presumably there won't be any light. How therefore can the majority of people listen to a radio broadcast and television broadcast?

I think it's a big mistake that a leaflet hasn't been produced - if only to reassure people - because after all the chance of this happening is quite small and the chances of it affecting the majority of people are even more remote. Having said that there are simple precautions that people can take and I think it's an extremely good point that the questioner has raised - is everybody expected to be on the web? Well, of course they're not. And also of course people would tend to go to the web when the incident happens - well it would be too late then, whereas a leaflet you can read it before and at least you've got an idea of perhaps what to expect.

Manisha Tank:
Gale Azzopardi, Isleworth, UK: I am a bit confused. I am thinking of buying the things the Home Office is suggesting but I do not want to feel stupid afterwards. What is really going on? Is this really serious?

Brad Gillis, UK: Having just visited the Government site, I am a bit alarmed at the lack of useful information. More information should be given to the public.

Charles Shoebridge:
There is this balance to be struck which we've heard all about but it is valid nonetheless between giving people sufficient information and giving them so much that they're alarmed. People have to understand that if there's going to be a catastrophic incident there's a very limited amount they can do about it. The security forces and services, including the police, will respond in an appropriate manner and it's in that way that we're much better prepared than we were before September 11th.

No matter how much you stockpile food, water and so on, I think the effect is going to be somewhat marginal. I think if you don't stockpile food and you don't stockpile water, the chances are that nothing adverse is going to come of that. Having said that, friends I know keep bottled water in their fridge just in case the water supply cuts off if for example a man with a digger goes through the water pipe in the road and actually you can't say that that's not sensible - it is. So therefore clearly it would apply to this situation. I think it's very dangerous to overemphasise the likelihood of an attack like this taking place and if it does occur there's very little we can do.

Manisha Tank:
Penny Humm, England: OK, so we shouldn't go out and buy gas masks at the present time. But if and when we are advised to buy them, where would we get them from and would they actually protect us?

Charles Shoebridge:
It's a very interesting line as well - the lack of trust in the advice changing, which I think is very justified. You can get respirators from ex-military stores - you can see them advertised on the internet. However, I would again caution against somebody purchasing a respirator in this way. Firstly, you need a regular supply of filters - you can't just use the gasmask and keep using it on a daily basis in a heavy contamination, you'd have to change the filters. You have to know something about these respirators otherwise how do you know that you're not being sold a filter that actually hasn't got the right carbon in or hasn't got the right element?

The other aspect that's very important, I think, is that a respirator is only as much use to you if you're trained in spotting the symptoms of, for example, nerve agent poisoning and you're also trained to use that respirator and other protective equipment almost in a second nature way.

If I was in Tel Aviv now I would be thinking I would very much want to have my respirator in the next few days. I think, particularly they're in great danger there from perhaps Saddam's weapons of mass destruction - after all now's a good time for him to use them. I think in Britain the risk is far, far less and as a consequence, I think, the benefit that you have from having a respirator, particularly without the training, particularly without the knowledge of how to use it - would be minimal to say the least.

Manisha Tank:
An anonymous text: It should not be left to the public to protect themselves when clearly we have no idea where to begin. Isn't it the Government's responsibility to protect its citizens fully?

Laura, London: I use the Underground to get to work and am constantly thinking about the possibility of terror threats. Should we be getting smallpox vaccines? Is a bio/chemical attack likely?

It's quite interesting asking about vaccinations, for example, the public really don't know where to begin?

Charles Shoebridge:
No that's right and it's a shame that people aren't more trusting that the Government will look after them because we've seen that, for example, with this website. I've looked at the website - I was told a few days ago this website was going to be developed by the Government - they told people in press releases that they were going to develop it. But you go to it and there's an absolutely sparse amount of information on there that's almost next to no use and in a way it's just building up people's worries and fears but without providing concrete information. It's almost like somebody's had the idea - well there is a need for information, that is clear, we'd better answer it - but they haven't really answered it in a way that satisfies people's demand for information.

People shouldn't be worrying about smallpox vaccinations - I don't think they should be. Having said that, the way the Government has talked about the threat in a kind of very abstract way, people are left wondering, perhaps I should be phoning up BUPA or some private healthcare provider and seeing if they can get them that way.

The Government needs to take a firm grip on the information supply and I think be more concrete and more confident about what it's telling the people so the people trust the Government. So when the Government says you don't need smallpox vaccinations, we should be able to settle back and say, actually we don't.

Manisha Tank:
I am afraid we're out of time but lots of very useful information there. Charles Shoebridge thanks very much for joining us on the Six Forum.