Well, That Settles It

I don't normally subscribe to the thought that there's a trade off between liberty and security: give up some of the former to increase the latter. At least, I don't subscribe to it in the long term: in the short term it's clearly and obviously true. The question really becomes what is that short term?

I don't think that anyone has a problem with police restricting the movement of people while they're involved in a hotfoot pursuit of the suspects who have just bombed a pub for example, while I don't see how restricting everyone's movements for ever more because some people did once bomb a pub is going to increase security. I can imagine it being just as likely to reduce it by creating more disaffected people.

Fortunately we have a report out today which helps us decide on whether this trade off might work:

Britain will be vulnerable to terrorist attacks for another three decades, according to a major report.

Three decades? That's roughly a generation and yes, that is long term. Any trades we do of liberty for security will thus last for said generation's worth of time and no, I don't think that after that the liberties would ever come back. So for me, the possibility of the trade working is vastly reduced by this news. We're not being offered the option of a little temporary reduction in liberty in return for a little more security: we're being offered a reduction in liberty for the rest of my (likely or possible) lifespan in return for that possible security.

You might take a different view of course but that's a bargain that I find it terribly easy to reject.