In a nutshell, yes. The civil war between the government and separtist Tamil Tiger rebels is largely confined to the north and east of the country, as witnessed by today's bomb in the region.

What do you mean, "largely?"

There have been no specific attacks against tourists since the ceasefire broke down last year. Having said that, I and 30 other Britons on a cricket tour of Sri Lanka were in the Mt Lavinia hotel near Colombo in January when a grenade went off on the railway line outside.

So tourists are in danger?

I wouldn't say so. The grenade was one of eight that went off in co-ordinated attacks in Colombo that evening but ours was the only one near a tourist hotel. It may have been a reminder to foreigners that the conflict continues, but it was more likely an attack on the railway.

So the south and west of Sri Lanka is OK to visit?

For now at least, yes. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) only advises against "all but essential" travel to the north and east.

What else does the FCO say?

I quote: "Ongoing political violence and civil unrest, especially in the north and east, continues to escalate. Since December 2005, the security situation has deteriorated and there have been many fatal attacks. There is a threat from domestic terrorism. You should follow local developments closely, be aware of your surroundings and alert to changing situations. Avoid political gatherings or demonstrations. A state of emergency is in effect. This gives wide discretionary powers to the Sri Lankan Authorities. You are strongly advised to comply with government and security instructions."

That doesn't sound too safe to me...

Believe me, it is common sense advice from the FCO - don't go where you shouldn't, and don't joke with the police.

So why were these Britons in the north-east?

Times recommends

• Travel advice: what to do if your flight is disrupted
• Top 10 unmissable events in 2010
• Seven spa breaks for January