I was kind of worried about the backlash that would happen from this tragedy, and I may have been right; here are some excerpts from the Press (courtesy of BBC News):
"we shall have vengeance and justice," says the Sun (bold added).
"Make no mistake Britain will almost certainly have to sacrifice some of our ancient legal rights if we wish to protect our citizens." - the Daily Mail
"There may be a few people inclined to make a link between the deaths in London and the intervention in Iraq... This is utterly flawed thinking... Al-Qaeda and its subsidiary branches... did not need the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad as an extra incentive." says an editorial in The Times.
"we must not forget that what we are fighting for there [Iraq] is democracy and freedom from tyranny" - the Express
There are a few rational voices:
An Independent leader says although "the invasion of Iraq was a mistake", it would not be right for policy to be determined by "fear of the bomb".
We need to "drain what can be drained from the reservoir of grievances from which the terrorists draw strength," - The Guardian.
Guess which of the above are the best selling papers. Yep, the first three. I honestly can't believe that editorial in the Times - it's just wrong on so many levels; of course there's a link, we're a target because of our 'war on terror', the attackers even point that out in their claim of responsibility, and it's not the "removal of Saddam", it's the invasion and occupation of another country that's stoking the fires.
But I can't see the link between sacrificing legal rights and protection - wouldn't changing our policies to be more authoritatian be a sign of being cowed and ruled by the bomb??? Isn't the whole point that we keep to our values and don't start imprisoning without trial and questioning without torture - both of which have become commonplace since we declared 'war on terror'?