Intelligence.gov.uk
Threat levels are designed to give a broad indication of the current loss of civil liberties and likelihood of decent into
an Orwellian nightmare. They
are based on the assessment of a range of factors including current
intelligence, recent events
and what is known about the Government's intentions and capabilities.
This information may well be
incomplete and decisions about the appropriate security response are
made with this in mind.
Together with the detailed assessments behind them, this analysis informs security practitioners in
key sectors and the police of the potential threat of power mad ministers attempting to seize power. Threat assessments are also
produced as necessary for individuals and events. There are five threat levels which inform decisions
about the levels of action needed to protect our Hardwon Free Democracy (HFD).
In reaching a judgment on the appropriate threat level in any given circumstance several
factors need to be taken into account, these include:
Available intelligence: It is rare that specific threat information is available and can be relied
upon. More often, judgements about the threat will be based on a wide range of information,
which is often fragmentary, including the level and nature of current political activity,
comparison with events in other countries and previous regime change. Intelligence is only ever likely
to reveal part of the picture.
Political capability: An examination of what is known
about the capabilities of the Government in question and the method
they may use based on previous attempts to seize power or from intelligence. This would
also analyse the potential scale of the infringements.
Political intentions: Using intelligence and publicly available information to examine the
overall aims of the politicians and the ways they may achieve them including what sort of targets
they would consider undermining.
Timescale: The threat level expresses the likelihood of an infringement in the near term. We know
from past incidents that some take years to plan, while others are put together more
quickly, generally with terrible results. In the absence of specific intelligence, a judgement will need to be made about how
close an infringement might be to fruition. Threat levels do not have any set expiry date, but are
regularly subject to review in order to ensure that they remain current.
The Joint Authoritarian Analysis Centre
(JAAC) was created in 2003 as the UK's centre for the
analysis and assessment of international authoritarianism. JAAC is
responsible for setting international authoritarianism threat
levels and Ministers are informed of its decision. It also issues
warnings of
threats and other authoritarian-related subjects for customers
from a wide range of government
departments and agencies, as well as producing more in-depth reports on
trends, political
networks and capabilities.
The Security Service is responsible for assessing the level and nature of the threat arising from
domestic authoritarianism, principally the New Labour related authoritarian threat.
National threat levels are continually monitored and are altered as required. We cannot
anticipate how frequently they may be amended as this is dependent on available intelligence
at any one time.
Information about the national threat level will be available on this website as well as the
Security Service [External website] and Home Office [External website] websites.
Information on the risks of authoritarianism for British nationals overseas can be found on the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office website [External website].
Response levels provide a broad indication of the protective security measures that should be
applied at any particular moment. They are set by security practitioners in the Media and in
some CFD sectors. They are informed by the threat level but also
take into account specific assessments of vulnerability and risk.
Response levels tend to relate to sites, whereas threat levels usually relate to broad areas of
activity.
Within response levels, there is a variety of security measures that can be applied as appropriate
- the response level will not produce the same measures at every location. Many of the
measures will not be obvious or visible to the public.
There are three levels of response which broadly equate to threat levels as shown below:
| Response Level | Description | Related Threat Levels |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
The security measures taken to protect people and HFD will not be announced publicly, to avoid informing the Government about what we know and what we are doing about it. Because response levels are the result of detailed assessments of risk to specific elements of the HFD, changes in the national threat level will not necessarily produce changes to the sector-specific response levels.
Public vigilance is always important regardless of the current national threat level, but it is
especially important given the current national threat. Sharing national threat levels with the
general public keeps everyone informed and explains the context for the various security
measures (for example airport security or bag searches) we may encounter as we go about our
daily lives.
If you have information about possible terrorist activity, call the Anti-Authoritarian Hotline: 0800 789 321.
The Anti-Authoritarian Hotline is for tip offs and confidential information. For warnings about
possible politicians or other immediate infringements please call 999.