I flew to china the morning after the Borough Market incident. Arriving in Beijing I had mixed emotions as I had left my family in the exact location of the attacks so was concerned for their safety. However there was tangible relief at being in a state controlled high security environment.

In China, there are millions employed in providing domestic security from controlling internet usage to highly visible official police and unofficial 'watchers' with their red armbands. This gives a sense of calm that such an incident could not happen in China.

Of course such a peace bubble of safety comes at a price of civil liberties. After a few weeks and months of living and working in such an environment one can start to crave the random uncertainty that comes with a multi-cultural society such as London. London's Mayor Sadiq Khan stated that terrorism was the price we pay to live in an international city. Whether his statement is right or wrong, freedom does have its price.

So it raises the question as to which is more appealing? London's attack was shocking and played out on the international media with its indiscriminate nature affecting those from multiple countries. However this type of violence also occurs in China but because of the limited cultural mix of visitors and residents plus restricted media freedom we do not get to hear of it.

When I was in Beijing in 2015 there was a similar sword attack by a similarly mentally unbalanced man but aside from local press, this was not reported more widely. So on balance my love for China's business environment and culture I would still have to say I prefer the freedom of London with the inherent risks than an excessively controlled environment. Maybe something worth considering as our political leaders debate limiting our freedoms over the coming weeks and months.