Policing has certainly been in the news over recent weeks with the G20 protests in London, the counter-terrorism arrests in the North West and even the Lancashire officer who refused to get on a bike for health and safety reasons.

It is the counter-terrorism arrests, the subsequent release of the suspects and the consequent media coverage which has taken up much of my time.

It is worth repeating some of the points I have made over this case.

We take the use of terrorist legislation very seriously and consider very carefully before using it.

When we receive intelligence about possible terrorist action we evaluate that intelligence very carefully and do all we can to try and verify it but without betraying our source as this will only make us vulnerable in the future.

There is a serious threat to the country from an organisation and individuals who are very resourceful, cover their tracks, constantly change their methods and operate from parts of the world where the local government has lost control. There are therefore limits as to how far we can check out intelligence. This is far from being a clear-cut issue. The officers involved are trying to put together pieces of a complex jigsaw, trying to make associations and links and working with the leading counter-terrorism experts here and abroad to protect this country.

The decision to arrest the people in this operation is mine alone - I listen to the best of advice but it is the chief constable who is accountable for police action here.

In making the decision I have to balance the rights of the people involved and the confidence of the community. Having taken this into account and having tried to verify the intelligence as far as possible I finally had to put as the prime concern the safety of the people of Greater Manchester. In many other types of crime when we think something might happen we can take a risk or put some safeguards around the likely victim or scene. In the current terrorist situation we cannot take the risk of something happening as the consequences of us getting it wrong would be so serious.

So the question for the many commentators who have spoken about this is where should the balance lie. Would they like the police show more caution and be absolutely sure that they have rock solid evidence before acting or would they say no, the balance has to be in favour of public safety? Would they want the police to follow up every possible suspicion that someone is involved in attack planning?

In this case we have not put into the media the grounds which led us to make these arrests and the activity that caused us such concern. To do so would have caused some to conclude that the people involved were guilty anyway and may have jeopardised our sources. It is important to stick to the principle that people are innocent under the law until proven guilty in a court of law. In every investigation we have to turn intelligence and suspicion into evidence which meets the standard of beyond all reasonable doubt.

We certainly did not arrest these people on account of their appearance or due to racial or religious stereotyping, as one lawyer has suggested. This frankly denigrates the hard work put in by the officers who have spent many hours investigating this case.

The release of the suspects in the case show there are safeguards and the safeguards work. We had to put our case in front of the independent Crown Prosecution Service and before an independent judge. These are very searching processes where again police have to meet a very high standard. In this case the CPS decided we had not reached the threshold and the men should be released. There are many other safeguards - the suspects have free access to legal advice and there are independent lay visitors who can visit those detained to check on conditions.

The use of intrusive police powers is subject to independent oversight and inspection and in the most serious of cases to prior approval by independent commissioners. Fundamentally we are accountable to local people through the Greater Manchester Police Authority and the local councillors and other members who scrutinise my actions and to the many other community meetings the police attend.

Lord Carlile, the government's independent reviewer of the terrorist legislation, has announced he is to carry out a snapshot review of the operation. I welcome this step and look forward to working with him as it will give the communities affected by the operation the confidence to know that someone independent of police and government will hold our actions up to the kind of scrutiny they have been calling for.

We have a long-term relationship with local people through our neighbourhood policing teams and we do not want to put that in jeopardy. This is not a police force which has made huge use of the counter-terrorism stop and search powers, conducts fishing expeditions or is regularly arresting people needlessly on counter terrorist operations. No – our action is carefully targeted

What I cannot control is the way the media chose to describe these operations, the endless speculation or the comments national politicians make. I live in the real world and I know politicians will be pressed by the media to comment and that these are matters of legitimate public concern.

I can appreciate the genuine concerns of the Muslim community and their fears of being targeted but I can only repeat that our actions are very carefully planned are not based on race or religion and are accountable to local people and to the law. They are driven by our duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure public safety, disrupt the terrorist threat but at the same time maintain public support.

I wish we did not face this threat and that we faced an enemy which was not so intent on causing civilian casualties without warning. There is great pressure on the force to get the balance right between human rights and public safety but essentially they are intertwined. We have to respect the basic human right that people can go about their business believing that the authorities are doing all they can to prevent terrorist activity.

Peter Fahy
Chief Constable