Editorial

FROM THE EDITOR

FROM THE EDITOR Predicting the unpredictable W MARK IVORY The surprise is not that things sometimes turn out badly, but that they dont turn out badly more often hat leads someone into acts of unspeakable violence? Moreover, what are the signs and symptoms that allow us to identify those who will go on to commit such deeds? The intelligence agency MI5 has been blamed by some for letting Mohammed Emwazi, the Isis frontman known as Jihadi John, slip away unnoticed even though he had been known to its officers for several years. Inevitably there has been a search for answers. Perhaps he was radicalised at school or at university, over the internet or by a visiting hate preacher. His former head teacher spoke about his good school record interrupted by a brief spell of anger management therapy, the need for which she put down to the raging hormones of a 14-year-old. He has been described as quiet and withdrawn. As social workers know well, there is no exact science of human behaviour, no test that will allow anyone to predict with certainty what someone will do tomorrow or next year. MI5 has thousands of potential jihadists on its books and must try to decide which ones constitute the greatest risk at any given moment, a situation not wholly unlike that of social workers who must compute the risks to children in families where there is a history of neglect or violence. In this light the surprise is not that things sometimes turn out badly, but that they dont turn out badly more often. The state, whether represented by social workers, intelligence officers or other protectors of the public good, does remarkably well most of the time. Faced with the mysteries of the human soul, as the journalist Matthew dAncona put it in the Guardian (2 March), it is not the power of the state that is truly frightening, but its weakness. The knowledge and experience of professionals can always improve and systems can always be strengthened, but infallibility will always elude our grasp.