This week is about a positive lens on safety. In my mind, we should have started with that subject. First establish the good before you determine the bad, is the first lesson in the management of safety and security. Bad must be described as an infringement, and an infringement requires something that is infringed upon. That can be many things. What I want to zoom on now is citizens actively contributing to a safe environment, as a positive that is under pressure. Caring for safety has been institutionalized with a focus on eliminating negatives, in a way that leaves little room for our communities to do their thing, and that needs to change. Safe is not something we can actually accomplish. Perhaps it may exist for some, and even then only temporarily, and safety is a challenging and continuous quest. That doesn't sound very positive, you might think. But the value is that it all inspires us to keep deliberating and acting, and do so realizing that in acting, the goal does not justify the means. We treasure safety, as we do realizing it in a just way. Working towards safety requires and determines a social network, and within that network, the notion of justice becomes a practical matter of concern. Putting the way we go about risks, on the right track or rather it should. That it doesn't, is a contemporary problem. For one, challenges are made into problems that can only be solved through an institutional approach. From a very pragmatic perspective, we cannot do without the engagement of citizens and communities. Creating the conditions for engagement is an aspect of the management of safety and security. I will get you three leads. One is defining safety in a way that triggers action, rather than the urge to sit back and wait for expert driven interventions, that only cover part of what safety is about. So how about this one? Safe is a situation in which risks are clear, and all concerned are confident that going about these risks, is done collectively and properly. Secondly, working on safety requires more than an eye on matters of fact. Citizens act on matters of concern, and these might be founded on not very factual fears and preconceptions. However, incorporating both matters of fact and matters of concern in the good governance of safety and security is critical. Recognizing what moves citizens as input, opens up a whole range of aspects. So thirdly, there's a need to systematically expand on the current set of responsive interventions. I'm showing you a diagram with the whole collection starting with community engagement in risk associated challenges, and that is not about chasing thugs. It starts with getting together at times and discussing what risks are. It is about caring because a lack of care generates a host of risks. Community does not cover all risks, so prevention is needed. Requiring the cooperation between concerned driven communities, and fact-driven professionals. Again, prevention is never a 100 hundred successful, so we need to prepare to respond to calamities. That needs to be very fact-driven and institutional requiring experts, and procedures and protocols in which they are held accountable. Finally, there is caring for continuity after a calamity has taken place and was responded to. That requires a concern driven community again. It is about care for those who were a victim, for instance. That helps the community to regain the confidence needed to pick up the pieces, and there's much more. Determining what that is, is perhaps the most prominent community task. So finally a challenge for you. How would you practically incorporate the whole set of interventions in the governance of safety and security as shown in the diagram, starting and ending with what community could do?