Skip to main content

The police were right

It is important that no chances are taken with people's lives. I have not tried to find out exactly what the intelligence was that led the police to evacuate the City Centre last night. I do, however, support their decision to do what they did.

It meant that I missed the Steve Ajao Blues Jam session in Centenary Square - a slight inconvenience that does not matter. At least I have managed to have a session with Digby Fairweather this week. With a bit of luck we will reunite for the same number (Funny Valentine) on Tuesday week.

Three years ago was the last attempt (by the Real IRA) to bomb Birmingham. My wife passed through the area next to the bomb during the day.

We need to take any threat seriously. That does not mean, however, that it needs to undermine life in any other way.

Comments

A C Baker said…
I entirely agree that missing a concert is minor compared to being on a bus that explodes. However, I am concerned that a threat which required the evacuation of the entire centre of a city - a move with few precedents - is sufficiently distributed that the rest of Birmingham may well have been in danger also. For example, nuclear, chemical or biological agents will tend distribute along weather patterns.

Also, a mass evacuation carries its own risks. On Saturday morning, I spoke with a psychiatric specialist who reported a significant upswing in medical crises amongst his existing patients. We have no way of knowing what physical and mental health problems have been caused to those evacuated, as luckily, no one seems to have died of a heart attack. But it is plausible at least that someone may have been driven to suicide.

There does need to be scrutiny of the balance of probabilities, and the risks associated with action as well as with in-action.
john said…
I accept entirely the points that you made. I do intend to check on much of this today when I am in B1.

There is, however, an important message to terrorists in the evacuation. That message is that we are not just going to sit there and take it.

One of the points about 9/11 is that noone should expect air passengers to be passive in future highjackings. Previously people were passive, because they expected to survive that way.

Similarly the London bombings will make people far more vigilant about unidentified packages.
PoliticalHack said…
I'd take issue with A C Baker's comment about any potential CBR threat. It is highly unlikely that any of these would be used - short of a fully-fledged nuclear device, they are not tremendously effective or easy to assemble and deploy. Even if it were to be used, it would be far easier to handle the problem with people in their own homes, as the concentration of people is that much lower in residential suburbs than it is in the centre of our city at the weekend.

I accept that there may be additional risks caused by news of this sort, but I would suspect that the upswing was at least as much due to the bombings in London on Thursday and you could trace a similar swing after 9/11. The police, rightly, have to worry about the 20,000 people whom they believe to be in imminent danger.

I've been a little worried at how much time the police have had to spend justifying their decision. For a variety of reasons, this wouldn't have been an easy choice to make, but the risk of attack was clearly felt to be exceptionally high. This is an occasion where we have to place our trust in the police and the intelligence services and rely on their judgement.
A C Baker said…
Politicalhack, I'm not suggesting that unconventional attacks are likely - instead, I'm trying to build plausible scenarios in which the evacuation of Birmingham city centre is reasonable. I take your point about remaining indoors in a wider contamination area - but in hot weather, many windows will be open unless we're warned to do otherwise!

I've put my concerns to my MP, rather than haranguing the police. (I _could_ say that I trust the _police_ more than the politicians :-) But I try to base my trust upon careful thought. It _is_ reasonable to ask in the _medium_ term for the rationale behind such an _unusual_ decision - this is proper democratic scrutiny.

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…