If the brit government really took the terrorists threats seriously..

by iosaf Sat Jul 09, 2005 01:03

but many were. I'm going to leave a lengthy comment now, I lived in Hackney once and I've been close "proximate" to terrorist incidents in several states which by the grace I survived unharmed. It is an infernal lottery. I agree with the author above that "more can be done", but I am very concerned at what is commonly accepted is "the best to be done", and at the measures which might be popularly supported in London now.


The London underground has its own police service, and not a single one of them were sent to Scotland. In addition one of the blasts occured in the "city of London" (financial district) which also has its own police force, none were sent to gleneagles.
MI5 and MI6 don't really go anywhere you know, they're mostly little old dears in sensible shoes sitting at old computers troubling over translations and brushing up on their IT skills the few that do get away already live on miserable pensions in scotland and vote liberal. (joke)

Body frisking is a touchy subject. [pause- allow pun to hit - little laugh, keep the reader happy] and if it were accepted as a "norm" as it is in most "secure" buildings then you get the CCTV security effect- The "problem" moves off camera to streets without cctv, or the terrorist doesn't enter a frisking area.

No-one would think it practical to suggest frisking bus-users. One of the simple security methods which could be easily implemented is the doggie.
Having worked in a "secure" area in the city of London for many years, I got used to the doggie.
Friendly things, (i'm very fond of dogs) they were so well trained that they ignored food, and an ounce of smelly grass in my pocket once during a routine sweep. Thing is, the handler noticed me sweating like a monday morning post raver, (which I was) and came up so close he could smell the grass. But thankfully I just got a raised eyebrow and story to tell and thus earn a pint.

France and Spain use dogs at major railway stations and airports, all major european cities use CCTV, and many including London have photo records on buses, trains, trams etc.. but it is thought that whomever wants to leave a bomb still will, especially if they're a suicide and CCTV is not an effective deterrence to this type of terrorist attack, only an assistance to criminal investigation and one which is opposed by many for its "control" aspect which are opposed by the civil rights lobby for good reasons.

There is a standard response in the USA to just "put out more guns", stationing heavily armed security forces everywhere, this serves to militarise society, but this is in fact very unwise, in that it lengthens the trauma response and healing time for victims of previous attacks.

It is a very difficult problem, especially for those who are interested in maintaining normal, liberal, tolerant societies. With the security methods we have at the moment, it only takes "a year of sustained attacks" to approach an Israeli level of general militarisation.

This is something _we do not want_.

The other options include the development spectrum x-ray technology, which is already standard at airports, which identifies contraband and "gun metals" and most types of explosives.
But this is extremely expensive, and again would only be practical in train stations or metros for chiecking bags, which a friendly doggie could do.
And would have the downside (?) of criminalising hundreds of thousands of commuters who were carrying an ounce of smelly grass in their handbag. A suicide "strap on explosive" bomber would still get past such a system. And such a system is useless for buses.

In short, it may be possible to "tighten" security on transport systems in any city, but a "secure" public transport system is not possible. Therefore images are played with. And that's where we (on the general indymedia slant) come in on the civil liberties. And if the train is ever made "bomber proof" then the bombs will just be detonated on the street instead. Train carriages can be made "bomb proof" limiting the blast to a smaller area, but that will up the fatalities in that one carriage, it is actually safer to have open train systems which allow a further blast though more injuries, glass design comes into this, the further from the blast which we have seen from Paris metro bombings are almost always from floor level, (the bomb is left on the ground) injuries to torso and face are caused by glass first, plastic and metal shrapnel later.

Public awareness plays a large part, "noticing bags", bringing a friendly doggie with you at all times to sniff the bags. But if pushed to far by government policy that becomes "suspect your fellow commuter especially if they look like your idea of a terrorist" and again we go to very nasty social division.

Thus, it seems what little that can be done, is done already, and what is most important is the "reaction" to terrorist attacks as long as there are terrorist groups who are committed to attacking civilians without warning. & that means practising response, something which ought be evident played a part in London, many people are seriously injured today who would have died if they had been left without emergency care ten more minutes the morning of the 7th of july.

These are issues not just for Londoners but for all citizens of the European Union, and are as important now, as the process of individual and collective "post-trauma" recovery. So we should talk about them.

by hacked off in hackney Sat Jul 09, 2005 14:53

entering the underground and getting on buses, will eliminate, the need for individual members of the public to become overtly suspicious and discriminatory against particular racial groups/social classes.

Everyone is subjected to scanning/frisking/searching of bags without exception, this can be performed by private security firms, who only do a basic body scan and peek into peoples bags, security guards are not allowed to ask peoples names/addresses, in order to avoid unnecessary hold ups and harrassment of individual social groups/racial profiles. This worked for 20 years in Belfast. You stand still, as someone scans you, and open up your handbag, they peek in and let you pass, no fuss, no aggro and no stress.

This avoids the need for Government intelligence agencies elaborate and heavy handed intrusion into ordinary people's lives, it eliminates the need for intelligence agencies to waste vast amount of money on targeting specific individuals, who are most probably the wrong people anyway. At the moment what the intelligence agencies do is target a specific social group/racial profile, and spend alot of time/resources monitoring and surveillancing their stereotype of a terrorist.

Chechnyan terrorists are most likely responsible for the London bombs, the same terrorists who can hold innocent russian school kids hostage, shoot and blow these children up. They would have probably left London for europe immediately.

by iosaf Sat Jul 09, 2005 16:55

One thing i though to say to you on the other place you posted (uk indymedia) was simply this-

Look at the people of London and ask will frisking them be acceptable to their communities or inflame cultural and ethnic differences all the more?

It seems that you ( I presume a native of northern ireland ) are not offended by such, but if you walk through Hackney today, look at the residents, then those of Clapton, those of Dalston, those of Islington and those of Bricklane. You will see a London of all religious sensitivies, a London of all ethnic traditions and clothing, in a kilometre radius of your london home are found orthodox jews and fundamentalist muslims, hindi, bangladeshi, christians of many kinds and those for whom being "touched" by a stranger is no big issue.

Think about what your "proposal" would mean.
Would it make your city more secure?

BTW, stay around online, you are displaying a very typical and sadly much studied emotional response, and it might not surprise you to know you are a little "post-traumatic". Your reactions can be compared to those who are presently making such cheap political point scoring. Your reaction is healthier.

kind regards.

by Ali H. Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:09

Any "security" measures serve merely to placate the fears of the public which have been whipped up by our governments, media and the security industry.

The terrorist threat is much less than the possibility of being knocked down and killed any day of the week and yet we don't hear cries for cars to be instrumented so they won't start if the driver is under the influence, distracted etc.

ID cards and biometrics will not work as can be seen from the experience of Germany, Italy, Spain and France all of which have had problems with domestic and international terrorism despite having ID cards for all.

Equally screening passengers only reduces the probability of an attacke happening, it does not guarantee it wont happen.

"Security" is a placebo and if we do not choose to deal with the developing world in a different way this will simply become a daily reality we will have to learn to live with, and no amount of security will make it otherwise.