Our response should be rational. Random alerts do little to protect and destabilise the population

The inquests finally opened into the deaths of fifty-two bus and tube travellers and the graphic photographs of the aftermath of the explosions, along with testimony of some of the 700 injured, has reawakened the shock of that July morning in 2005. It’s a bitter legacy, given the attacks were home grown, and a constant reminder for vigilance among the travelling population.

Riding on the top deck of the 94 along London’s Bayswater Road a couple of days before the hearings began, I was surprised by the sudden appearance of a Police Community Support Officer – one of the uniformed auxiliaries lampooned by the popular press as ‘Blunkett’s Bobbies’ – who popped up asking for the identity of the owner of an unattended briefcase on the lower deck luggage bay. As passengers began surreptitiously eyeing each other, I fully expected the bus to be pulled over and evacuated.

Eventually, the PCSO and his casually attired companion of Asian appearance caught the eye of a young student, whose attention had been fixed on whatever was being piped through the earpieces of her iPod. Two seconds to verify her ownership, and the incident was over – nought-out-of-ten for her negligence, but ten-out-of-ten for official attentiveness.

All this, of course, was being played out against the background of unspecific warnings about possible terrorist attacks on tourist attractions across Europe. We’ve heard it before – the US quivers, Europe quakes. Now don’t get me wrong. It is very prudent to be vigilant at a personal, institutional and national level, but I rue the excessive use of the panic button.

I am old enough to have lived in London during the period of the IRA activity. The sound of police sirens anywhere in the city caused immediate apprehension. With good reason. There were indeed occasions when devices exploded without warning, causing casualties and mayhem, but many others were made safe.

As a young BBC reporter, I recall interviewing a senior Scotland Yard official who, while emphasising the necessity to deal with alarms speedily and appropriately, spoke out strongly against excessive media speculation.

Too many examples of ‘boys crying wolf’ would not only induce popular panic, but also could result in indifference and reluctance to take ‘real’ threats seriously. And, as we know, it is the avowed intent of the terrorist to exploit fear and uncertainty.

It’s clear that there has been a palpable increase in security measures across Europe over the past weeks. In France, hoax bomb calls caused the closure of the Eiffel Tower. Terrorist suspects were rounded up in Paris and the south.

Germany, too, has been on alert, following the death of several German citizens of Pakistan origin during an American drone attack in northern Pakistan. A British terrorist suspect, also killed by a remote US strike in the same area, was apparently already working with an al-Quaeda group preparing synchronised attacks in the UK, France and Germany.

There are obviously strands of clandestine activity, which the security services call ‘noise’, prompting the alerts. But it remains a jig-saw without interlocking pieces. All agree that there is an ongoing threat and that the pressure should be maintained against it, though it is interesting to learn that those directing counter-terrorism in Europe are less in favour of the actively confrontational approach being mounted from across the Atlantic. It may be that over-zealous prevention did get out of hand, but the stakes are high and we have to take threats seriously.

Inevitably, all this provides a field-day for conspiracy theorists. The armchair generals and strategy experts are writing their own cheques, and the internet is buzzing. Whether you accept that military intelligence intercepted cyber evidence that an organised British cell was being trained to carry out a Mumbai-style attack on a European tourist hotel, or whether you believe that all the heightened tension in Europe was specifically orchestrated by the United States military to justify their over-ambitious computer-game warfare in Pakistan, no one could possibly condone playing fast and loose with a nation’s security and peace of mind.

At the same time, it has presented a veritable gift for the institutional killjoys, from local councils in the UK cautioning school parties not to venture to London for excursions at Christmas time to alarming, but vague, warnings to American travellers preparing to take the European tourist trail, leaving them with a fear of the unspeakable, proclaimed by the unaccountable, gathered from the unattributable.

I supposed you can get used to it. We Islanders, forced to take to the air whenever we want to travel anywhere distant, have become inured to strict security considerations – a constant reminder of the legacy of 9/11 – every time we go through an airport turnstile.

The sceptics will remind you that more people die or are injured doing normal activities than are ever directly affected by terrorist activities. That misses the point by a wide mile. Bald statistics are irrelevant. Terrorists have a mission to harm or kill. Their outrages are unexpected, spectacular, with widespread impact and long term consequences.

The UK Government now says that of all the threats to the nation’s security, an al-Qaeda led attack is the most likely. Our response, therefore, should be measured and rational. Random alerts do little to protect. Indeed, without substance they disrupt and destabilise the population and the national economy. Moreover, they play directly into the hands and tactics of the evil perpetrators and their unspeakable causes.