Verdant examines the potential pitfalls involved when raising terror threat levels
Terror Alerts – Constructive or Confusing?
The recent travel alerts in response to the suspected European terror plots has certainly been big news lately. However one key issue has developed from these events which is particularly interesting: exactly how useful are terror threat levels and alerts to the general public?
Even some politicians, such as the Deputy Mayor of London, have questioned the public value of such announcements, and called for debate over the issue. He legitimately suggests that, in their current form, these alerts only serve to spread fear and confusion amongst the population, as there are no instructions on what the public should be doing in such circumstances. As a result, Britain has little choice but to adopt the implicit message of “Keep Calm and Carry On”.
My previous experiences in the hotel industry have provided me with a first-hand insight into the potential absurdities of such alerts and their ‘nuisance’ factor. When the threat level was raised last year, my hotel was legally obliged to request identification from all of our guests; unfortunately not a single one of our customers had been aware of this requirement, and many had not even heard that there was a terror alert in the first place. As a result, many bewildered and disgruntled customers had to be turned away from our door. The problem was further compounded by a lack of communication contingencies within the hotel itself, which meant that lower-level staff had little idea of how to act in such a situation. Again, the only outcome was a mild state of confusion and annoyance over the general idea of terror alerts.
Ideally, announcements of these threats should be of tremendous value to the wider public, as long as there is a mechanism to provide them with solid information and support. However, at present no effective frameworks exist to provide communications towards the wider population in the event of a crisis; even the BBC acknowledges that there are no sound arrangements between emergency planners and broadcasters for the provision of accurate information in such a case.
Despite the fact that governmental information on contingency measures is made publically available, it is left up to the individual to search for and understand these instructions, which is a rare occurrence. As a result, the majority of UK citizens are left to be informed of the situation by a short newspaper article or a sound bite. It is therefore unsurprising that many people now view terror threat alerts with scepticism, treating them more as a nuisance than as valuable information.
General confusion over terror threats is further compounded by the fact that alerts vary from country to country, both in terms of how intelligence data is assessed and how this is translated into a terror threat category. For example, Sweden has followed suit with many countries and increased its threat level – yet this still remains lower than other nations within the EU. France remains at “red alert” – something which most would assume to represent the very highest threat level, but actually corresponds to the penultimate level, which is superseded by “scarlet”.
Of course, terror threat levels are of great importance for governmental and security purposes, and there is potential use in making this information public. However, any announcement can only be effective if it is supported by a sound communications framework. Indeed, any terror alert could be used proactively if measures were set in place to fully inform the public about the threats and what they should be doing as a result. If this were the case, these alerts could be turned from an annoyance into something of use. At the very least, it will spare a lot of hassle for future hordes of unfortunate hotel guests.
