In her journal, Sarah Prineas talks about obsessively checking email, waiting for story responses. I do this too. I wonder if this is universal for writers, or whether there really are writers out there who don't do that. Stephen King, perhaps, doesn't bother. Or JK Rowling. The rest of us, though?

Perhaps my most pathetic habit is checking my email obsessively in the morning. All my current subs are with American magazines. There is no way that any American editors are going to be up and emailing out acceptances at 9 a.m. British time. But...

#
No one doubts that the bombs in London were awful. The idea of being trapped on an underground train as a bomb explodes is terrifying, too horrific to imagine. Those of us who have friends and family in London went through a nasty time last week.

But why is it that so many people immediately respond by saying that we will have to give up civil liberties? Perhaps this will be necessary, but it should never be the automatic response. Why are these people not asking more fundamental questions: Why did intelligence services not know that these attacks were going to happen? What information did they lack? Were they using the powers they already have properly and fully? Would new powers actually have allowed them to detect these crimes before they were carried out?

If the conclusion from these questions is that giving the police and intelligence services new powers is the only way to stop this kind of attack in future, then they have a strong argument to put. Not necessarily an overwhelming one, though. There are things we should not give up in order to stop terrorists.

Every year, thousands of people are killed by cars. There is no doubt that by banning anyone from ever driving, most of these deaths could be avoided. But I think that most people would not be willing to give up their right to drive a vehicle for that gain.

So why is that people are so keen to give up civil liberties for the possibility of stopping terrorist attacks? Part of it is that we feel the need to do something. This kind of attack feels so out of our control, so shocking, that we flail for some way of bringing it back under control. And losing civil liberties sounds, to some, possibly most, as an easy price to pay.

And that is because those of us who disagree are being outplayed. Language is an enormously powerful tool. And the phrase "civil liberties" has very little emotional resonance. Make no mistake, that's why it is used by governments. "Civil" has overtones of slow, centralised, interfering bureaucracy. "Liberties", well that conjures up the phrase "taking liberties", with all the negativity that brings. Even many of us who want to defend these civil liberties feel little passion when the words are spoken. Not until we actually think what our civil liberties are can we bring up the passion to defend them.

To defend "civil liberties" we need to stop using the phrase "civil liberties". It's not a flag or trumpet to rally troops around. We need something stronger. I think we should talk about "freedoms", because that is what people are mean. Those who want to take away "civil liberties" want to take away freedoms. And I think many people would be less keen to give up their freedoms than their "civil liberties".

#
Up at 6.15 am again. Huzzah! Now completely exhausted...