 To what extent would you say that the French counter-terrorism policies are to blame for the Charlie Hebdo attacks? Well, I think there are some problems in the French response. Clearly, even the Prime Minister has admitted this. And it's not the first time that this has happened. In the last three years, there's been three attacks carried out by French jihadists in Western Europe, two in France and one in Belgium. In all three cases, the perpetrators were known to French intelligence in advance. But somewhere along the line, they lost the lead and these people went undetected as they carried out their terrorist attacks. Now, in this case, it's particularly interesting or perhaps surprising because not only were they known to intelligence, but they also actually had terrorism-related convictions and it spent time in jail. So the question is then, what did the French authorities do after these men were released from jail? If we look back to one of the previous cases from 2012, that's Mohamed Murrach who carried out killings of off-duty French soldiers and four people at a Jewish school in a series of attacks. According to some work I've done, the French, some of the problem in that case, to some extent, was that the authorities did not share information within the French government and there was rivalries between the French police and intelligence services, which contributed to their failure to promptly share the information on Murrach, which had they done so, they might have been able to prevent his last and most deadly attack on the Jewish school. So there are questions really for the French counter-terrorism model today. And are the attacks also a sign that French attempts to, well, French attempts in terms of counter-radicalisation are also failing? I think the French don't have an explicit approach to counter-radicalisation in the sense that the British have a prevent programme which has, you know, attracted a lot of criticism because people in Muslim communities in this country sometimes say that the authorities are coming to us with a counter-terrorism hat on their head. They're only interested in us because of what we can do to help them fight terrorism and that has provoked a backlash. So maybe the French have been wise to some extent by not having such an explicit policy which can have counter-productive effects. On the other hand, the French might be accused of burying their head in the sand to some extent about the problem that's within their ranks. Some people have claimed that the sort of republican philosophy which involves strong emphasis on national identity, strict integration of minorities, that's been something that has helped to provide a strong national identity to communities in France and some authors even claim that this has helped to reduce extremism. But given these three attacks over the last three years and the increasing radicalisation in France that we've seen in recent years, this sort of hypothesis looks increasingly discredited. Those in Britain who, you know, have criticised multiculturalism as showing a kind of weak response on behalf of Britain has had those who have said that multiculturalism leads to separation and radicalism, well they should realise that if we look at France today the main alternative model isn't looking so good either. Do you think the UK is better placed to prevent these kind of attacks? Or is that just too difficult to say? Too difficult to say because, you know, there are many people in the UK who might be interested in carrying out an attack like these and one of them may eventually get through. Overall, the British have some strengths in their counter-terrorism system. They have a better integration of police and intelligence than the French. So I mentioned that earlier in the French case leading to some problems in terms of not being able to stop terrorist attacks. The British police and intelligence agencies working on counter-terrorism generally work together in a much more fluid way than their French counterparts and so that is a strength. The British police have made on the whole a restrained but a robust response to terrorism, I would say. Many laws have been passed. There's been a lot of debate about legislation in this country but overall the balance, I would say, has been a reasonable balance. The British haven't gone too far, in my opinion, although others would disagree. So I think these are strengths overall in the British case. Doing enough to stop terrorism and stop terrorist attacks becoming a regular phenomenon but not going so far as to really undermine civil liberties and change the nature of the society we live in. Is there a danger now because of the symbolic value of this attack and the fact that it was all over the media and everything? Is there a danger that we might see a return to the kind of draconian counter-terrorism policies that we saw after, say, 9-11? There is a danger because there has been a completely disproportionate focus on this event. Think about it, it's three men with guns carrying out relatively small scale attacks on soft targets in Paris. It's tragic for those involved but does it have such wide societal and international implications like everybody seems to think it has? It seems that for the last week the Western world has put aside other priorities and just focused on this event and the French response to it. One could really ask if that's justified. If this kind of attention continues then policy responses will follow more than likely. So we have to wait and see what the French are going to do in response to this. It's not clear that they're going to introduce new legislation but there may be other responses. Britain may also respond, again I think the nature of British society is that there will be enough critical voices in this country to stop any overly draconian response. And finally, what broader lessons do you think can be learned from the attack and the response to the attack? The first lesson is that France has one of Europe's most developed counter-terrorist systems. There's extensive intelligence, draconian, anti-terrorism laws, there's a tough police response to terrorism. All these measures have not stopped terrorist attacks from taking place on three occasions over the last three years. That shows that a purely security response to terrorism cannot step it out. If anyone could have found that solution, the French would have done it by now and they haven't. So I think society needs to become resilient to take these attacks, put them in perspective and move on. Unfortunately what we've seen in the last week doesn't really indicate that we're about to do that. But I think the lesson of this week is that terrorist attacks may become a little bit more common now. Jihadist terrorist attacks may become a bit more common than they have been over the last five, six, seven years. I think the societies cannot respond every time like they have over the last week. They'll have to put in perspective and not let it drive every aspect of their policy. Great, thanks very much.