UK Emergency Alert Tests 2025

[sor]

BBC television almost launched this, interestingly, but it never made it through. Obviously not on phones but still interesting non the less.

The US TV and radio EAS (where the federal or state government can automatically trigger the "takeover" of a station) makes sense for them due to the highly decentralised nature of broadcasting with lots of little locally owned stations with total autonomy over what they broadcast.

The UK doesn't need it because even before the last 20-30 years of mergers and consolidations, things are fairly centralised. If the government had a need to address the nation then it'd be a quick phone call to the right people at the BBC, Sky and ITV/ITN.

Of course the US system doesn't remotely control TVs to turn on or anything, though special "weather radios" can listen for the signal. I believe the Japanese system for earthquake early warning also has that option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the slider says to turn off emergency alerts and it doesn't do that then it's a bug. It doesn't make clear that it only actually disables some of them.

The slider doesn't say that, at least on iPhones. You get the option to block each of the lower categories but not alerts generally. If the Android phones have one slider that claims to block all of them, then that is a bug or at least poor user interface design.

 

[JamesT]

Here's the notification screen from my android 14 phone. Turning off 'allow alerts' turns off the two below it as well. But it doesn't mention there being a level above that wouldn't be blocked.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks. That is an extremely poor piece of design. On an iPhone you just have the two Extreme and Severe sliders and none of the rest of it.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Here's what it looks like on my ancient VFD620 which runs Android Lite.

 

[Railwaycat]

I just don't get this. What is wrong with you people?
You know when the test is taking place.

Switch

the

phone

off

It's quite safe, you aren't going to die a terrible death if you're bl---y phone isn't on 24/7....

 

[Tester]

I just don't get this. What is wrong with you people?
You know when the test is taking place.

Switch

the

phone

off

It's quite safe, you aren't going to die a terrible death if you're bl---y phone isn't on 24/7....

Slightly missing the point!

It's not unreasonable to want to be confident that, if you have chosen to have your phone on silent, that it won't make a loud noise at a time not of your choosing.

 

[joncombe]

Or for what amounts to a weather forecast. The message I got was not a test but real but hardly what I would consider an emergency.

 

[generalnerd]

The UK doesn't need it because even before the last 20-30 years of mergers and consolidations, things are fairly centralised. If the government had a need to address the nation then it'd be a quick phone call to the right people at the BBC, Sky and ITV/ITN.

That is what the system was, so much so it even included a strap featuring the local news (BBC Midlands today was the one tester I believe)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The UK doesn't need it because even before the last 20-30 years of mergers and consolidations, things are fairly centralised. If the government had a need to address the nation then it'd be a quick phone call to the right people at the BBC, Sky and ITV/ITN.

The trouble is that we now have a whole generation that basically never consumes linear TV and radio.

 

[AlterEgo]

The US TV and radio EAS (where the federal or state government can automatically trigger the "takeover" of a station) makes sense for them due to the highly decentralised nature of broadcasting with lots of little locally owned stations with total autonomy over what they broadcast.

The UK doesn't need it because even before the last 20-30 years of mergers and consolidations, things are fairly centralised. If the government had a need to address the nation then it'd be a quick phone call to the right people at the BBC, Sky and ITV/ITN.

How many people do you think would watch that? I am nearly 40 and do not watch television.

 

[ainsworth74]

How many people do you think would watch that? I am nearly 40 and do not watch television.

And even people who do watch TV may well not be watching live TV. My mum (70s) for instance watches a lot of TV but she records it on her SkyTV box so can be watching it days or months later. Even live sport she often records it and watches it a few hours after transmission started! I'm sure lots of people in her demographic do watch TV as it's broadcast but I bet she's not alone in watching a lot of stuff on delay.

Reality is that we are in dire need of a modern means of communicating emergencies to the population at large particularly when smartphone penetration amongst the population is running at something like 90% and many of those will have it with them (or within hearing distance) the majority of the time. So making sure that an emergency alert system via smartphone works reliably is a very sensible and worthwhile investment. If the Government needs to address the national urgently, just phoning up the BBC, Sky and ITV isn't going to cut it. Particularly if the emergency is overnight when most people are asleep. We don't have a national siren network any more (post-Cold War cost savings) so if people aren't in front of a TV or don't have a radio on we really do not have a means of alerting people to danger without using their mobile phones.

 

[sor]

That is what the system was, so much so it even included a strap featuring the local news (BBC Midlands today was the one tester I believe)

But it's never been a system that has been publicised or formalised by the regulator in the way the US EAS has. It's also not a technical solution in that it's very manual involving lots of people. If the US government needs to take over the airwaves they can do it literally at a press of a button. Though during the one time in recent history when that might have become necessary, 9/11, they didn't need to do it because every TV network in the country (if not the world) was covering the story anyway.

The trouble is that we now have a whole generation that basically never consumes linear TV and radio.

How many people do you think would watch that? I am nearly 40 and do not watch television.

While not a national emergency, I suspect the numbers on TV/radio/streaming/whatever drastically increased as news of the Queen's (publicly stated) worsening condition got out.

 

[AlterEgo]

While not a national emergency, I suspect the numbers on TV/radio/streaming/whatever drastically increased as news of the Queen's (publicly stated) worsening condition got out.

They probably did, but these alerts might also be used to inform of a shock event that happens with no warning, like a missile launch.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They probably did, but these alerts might also be used to inform of a shock event that happens with no warning, like a missile launch.

That's really what it's for. That and stuff like tsunamis and other severe weather events that might happen at short notice.

 

[ainsworth74]

While not a national emergency, I suspect the numbers on TV/radio/streaming/whatever drastically increased as news of the Queen's (publicly stated) worsening condition got out.

Sure but we need to people to know something right now not over the course of an afternoon which is what happened with the Queen, then TV isn't going to cut it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sure but we need to people to know something right now not over the course of an afternoon which is what happened with the Queen, then TV isn't going to cut it.

The Queen dying isn't a good example in any case. It was of course sad, but not actually that sad given the long and distinguished life she led, and it was also not impacting upon anyone's safety.

The main idea of this system, much as it might be used for other things on occasion, is to publicise short-notice events which are likely to lead to a risk to life or property. (I'd probably suggest in a fairly blunt way that life is the Extreme Alert and property the Severe one).

 

[ainsworth74]

The Queen dying isn't a good example in any case. It was of course sad, but not actually that sad given the long and distinguished life she led, and it was also not impacting upon anyone's safety.

The main idea of this system, much as it might be used for other things on occasion, is to publicise short-notice events which are likely to lead to a risk to life or property. (I'd probably suggest in a fairly blunt way that life is the Extreme Alert and property the Severe one).

Oh yes completely agreed I was just making the general point that a big news story, like the Queen dying, indeed would lead to lots of eyeballs on TV or ears on radio. But it took a whole afternoon. In an actual emergency (which this wasn't) that's not good enough.

 

[Buzby]

I think we’re conflating some issues. The benefit of the alert system is that it targets recipients by where they are located. There is little value in giving a storm warning in Cornwall to those not in that immediate area. Whilst one of the royals dying is news (to some) this is not what the system is for and would be an abuse of the system to use it as such.

If this news is important to the recipient, they can always sign up for their own alerts If required. Having sirens going off on mobiles Nationally is fine as a test (to prove it works) but short of a nuclear strike, I cannot see the relevance of doing this on a regular basis.

 

[sor]

I think people are missing the point I am making. If there is an actual capital-E emergency then the broadcasters can handle it without a formal system of allowing the government to take over the airwaves as they do in the US.

The Queen's death was an example of how people will dust off and switch on a TV when they know something significant is happening. Just like what had happened during 9/11, which was arguably an emergency with the president being delberately kept away from the eastern seaboard for hours, and where the US government delberately didn't activate the alert system because the broadcasters were already doing a better job.

Not even the US EAS has the capability to remotely switch on TVs and radios, though specially designed "weather radios" (which normally listen to government-owned weather radio stations) can be programmed to do so. So I'm not sure why people think we ought to have one. The mobile alert system covers the bases pretty well.

 

[The exile]

I think people are missing the point I am making. If there is an actual capital-E emergency then the broadcasters can handle it without a formal system of allowing the government to take over the airwaves as they do in the US.

The Queen's death was an example of how people will dust off and switch on a TV when they know something significant is happening. Just like what had happened during 9/11, which was arguably an emergency with the president being delberately kept away from the eastern seaboard for hours, and where the US government delberately didn't activate the alert system because the broadcasters were already doing a better job.

Not even the US EAS has the capability to remotely switch on TVs and radios, though specially designed "weather radios" (which normally listen to government-owned weather radio stations) can be programmed to do so. So I'm not sure why people think we ought to have one. The mobile alert system covers the bases pretty well.

If what you’re saying is that if there’s an Emergency with a build up (declaration of war, rising flood waters etc) then the traditional broadcast channels “will do”, but for sudden onset emergencies (chemical leak, escaped tiger, dam burst) then you need the alert system, I’m inclined to agree.

 

[Mike395]

Don’t forget it’s already been used at least once in the UK, for the transportation of a large WWII bomb in Plymouth that basically shut down half a city for a few hours. There was no realistic danger to life but the authorities needed a way of quickly communicating the urgent shutdown of everything (including roads and a railway line) within a rather large cordon, and it worked quite well for that I think.

 

[generalnerd]

That's really what it's for. That and stuff like tsunamis and other severe weather events that might happen at short notice.

It’s more the natural disasters, the UK wouldn’t survive a nuclear strike (although it would a typical strike but that’s not likely what the missile would be carrying) but an alert about an imminent threat people can do much about is useful

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Don’t forget it’s already been used at least once in the UK, for the transportation of a large WWII bomb in Plymouth that basically shut down half a city for a few hours. There was no realistic danger to life but the authorities needed a way of quickly communicating the urgent shutdown of everything (including roads and a railway line) within a rather large cordon, and it worked quite well for that I think.

Also for some areas for Storm Daragh in 2024, and for Storm Éowyn in January.