We face another Sunday morning of shock and dismay mixed with empathy for those who have lost life, been injured and had their lives thrown into turmoil by terrorists: my concern and good wishes goes to them all.
Saying that, this group is bigger than those and their loved ones directly impacted by last night. What is clear now is that terrorists with no concern for their own lives are determined to attack those enjoying their's. We saw it in Manchester; last night was another attack on people at play.
It's odd that play is a word we little use, except for children's activities. But the truth is that once basic needs are met (and I am all too well aware how hard that is for many) play is what we really want to do. How we do that, what toys we use, who we do it with; all those things are what define so much of who and what we are.
Not all those at London Bridge last night were at play, but many were. This was Saturday night London. It's not part of my life now, but once upon a time it was. And this attack was on that right to play. It challenges our right to associate. Our right to have a drink if we wish. The right of women to partake. It challenges all our freedoms to choose that have been fundamental to the creation of the liberal state.
This attack, like that at Manchester, was then an attack on us all. It requires a response that reflects that. Little can stop a person once they have launched such an attack: at that point life is likely to be lost whatever happens. But prevention is possible.
This country can afford 10,000 more police officers.
And the intelligence that they can bring.
As well as the sense of security that they might supply.
It can afford these officers without cuts elsewhere. There is underemployment in this country. The capacity to increase our security exists. And every police officer employed pays taxes, and then spends what they earn to people who pay tax, and so on and on. In that case because there is underemployment the real cost of engaging those officers is minimal. Bizarrely, Dian Abbott may have been right on that point, although it is clear she did not know why.
And we must afford those officers. Because what is at threat is our freedom. The physical threat to each of us is, realistically, tiny. But the threat to our right to enjoy life is real, and this morning many will be feeling that.
The right response across the political spectrum is to commit to more policing. But it is also to commit to building a society in which our freedoms can be enjoyed. That is a society where people can go out. Where people can choose to associate how they wish. To have a drink in peace if they want. To love as they will.
Now is not the time for Trump's response that restricts everyone's freedom and penalises those who have never been at fault.
Now is the time to uphold life by committing to the freedoms that underpin it.
And the cost is price worth paying.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
” Not all those at London Bridge last night were at play, but many were. This was Saturday night London. It’s not part of my life now, but once upon a time it was. And this attack was on that right to play. It challenges our right to associate. Our right to have a drink if we wish. The right of women to partake. It challenges all our freedoms to choose that have been fundamental to the creation of the liberal state.”
No. Diametrically disagree certainly on a personal level. . I too was a ” player” on the London ( substitute any sizeable conurbation) scene until about 2010 i e about eight years after 9/11 and other incidents when it became apparent that the imprecations of world politicos / great and good to ” not let these actions disrupt or even change our way of life ” became obviously meaningless in light of their crass inability to resolve the problem. In essence . We were at social peace. We are now at guerilla war albeit without formal declaration,
Most fortunately this perception coincided with my retirement which of course gave me the privikege to trigger various life changing manoeuvres . Thus; I live in an outer Lobdon suburban sidestreet where minimal chance of terrorism exists and neighbours are private/ prudent. I never go out other than shopping in the local country market or walking in weekday deserted local park. I cook all my meals at home thus never socialise thus reducing opportunity for external exposure. I have consciously loosened family ties thus avoiding need for distance visiting. I never travel by train or air to avoid the myriad security ignominiex foisted upon all travellers and indeed the aforementioned terrorist threat exposure. I do most works around my house myself thus minimising access to tradesmen to the max thus reducing risk of being ” cased” and burgled later. I have received no visitors in 10 years as a matter of design.
So yes. My life has indeed changed radically and out of all semblance to its prior configuration . That as a cirollary to my realisation that the national situation has altered radically and thus I am forced to change with it but —hey!– I have becone happy in my own company, remain healthy thus far and most vital , am still alive……
Which possibly may not have been the case if I had taken the ” received wisdom” advice and ” carried on as before”.
As someone once said ” when the situation changes I change my opinions with it . What do you do ?”
I lived in London for a long time
Through riots
IRA bombs
9/11
I never withdrew
And I travel extensively, without fear
I recognise your concern
But you are at bigger threat from household appliances going wrong in your own home than you are from terrorists
I have to say I think your reaction was inappropriate, but I respect your choice
Mr/Ms Lampey
I must admit my precautions have been the opposite. If someone is going to blow up a bit of Birmingham or commit an atrocity in it I have no way of knowing. I shall carry on exactly as though nothing has happened.
It saddens me that every time there is a terrorist alert we are told that certain things “must be given up”, we must lose freedom of speech, freedom of association, the right to remain silent, the right to a fair trial? Why?
I’m old enough to remember the IRA &, of course, in Spain they had ETTA & in Germany the Badher Meinhof group. Many people were killed but it made not the slightest difference.
Every year far more people are killed by cars than by terrorists. I doubt any MP would enjoy support for a policy of banning all cars except for the emergency services. When any politician stands up & demands restrictions to our liberties, as British people, on free expression, free association, or the right to a fair trial I’d tend to ask him/her “why don’t you ban cars”. Is our right to drive really, to you, more important than all the rights laid down in 1215 &, however begrudgingly, held sacred since?
My work office was bombed by the IRA as a consequence of their blowing up the telephone exchangeu next door such that I turned up for work to find all our windiws blown in …..luckily it happened at night. I heard the blast of the Hyde Park bandstand bomb from another workplace in Marble Arch . Ditto for the explosion at our lunchtime watering hole pub at another London location.
I was in Bologna when its station was bombed in 1980 .
These experiences had to be lived through as I like most others had no choice but to earn a daiiy crust.
But now I have the choice of seclusion and am personally excercising it for the luxury of self preservation.
Your analogy to cars etc is misleading as we have it within our bodily / cerebral control in 9 situations out of ten to take maximum road safety precautions whether as a pedestrian or driver to ensure this is minimised. We can even elect to stop driving. No such personal control over a ” martyr” who is willing to give his life to destroy ours. That is not an orthodox adversarial contest but a guerilla attack from a vector with a different life/death philosophy.
You postulate a position which is akin to the WW2 city populations ignoring Govt. requests to seek shelter from the bkitzkrieg in underground facilities then wondering why their (in) action resulted in their lying dead trapped or injured within the rubble of their home the morning after.
Fine. Your life . Your decision . As long as I have the privilege of a choice ( and I fully acceot most do not) — not mine.
https://youtu.be/86n5ePCAq9o
Police calling govt liars on Sky.
And he is right
I agree with you Richard.
If we want to be safe we have to invest in that need to be safe.
Amidst my horror and surprise this morning is puzzlement.
One minute everything seemed to be under control and it was France taking the brunt of extreme acts. Now it seems that we here in the UK are not as safe as was being made out (I also recall some sneers at the quality of French counter terrorism in this country too before Westminster et al).
The horrors of Manchester and London have brought a strange sort of equality between us and France (as well as those places who see death and destruction on a regular basis – God forbid).
It is also about time that Governments who say they are concerned with our safety took on the internet corporations who instead of giving huge returns to their investors should be made to invest more in online security practices to try to halt the delivery of hate filled extremist messages to vulnerable people all over the planet.
Do we want self driving cars and parcel drones first or do we want to once and for all nip online hate-mongering in the bud? I refuse to believe that we cannot tackle this issue.
I know what my choice would be. We need to get our priorities right.
It strikes me that these attacks, evil and unjustifiable as they certainly are, are mere pinpricks compared to what London went through in the Second World War. Then the attitude was “keep calm and carry on” while the bombs crumbled many of London’s structures.
And Londoners did keep calm and carry on and along with their fellow countrymen, with some help form outside, won a war. And if you want real terror just look at the V2 bombs, which did little real damage but struck from nowhere and with no warning. These kind of terror attacks dwarf anything that has happened since.
How things have changed! I’m not singling out Londoners here, the rest of the world is just as bad. We have little tolerance for danger and much panicking over pinpricks all over the world today, or so it seems.
It’s easy for me to say this I will admit, since I sit in a part of the world that has never known terror attacks. I have no doubt that should one occur my fellow citizens would panic just as readily as anyone else in the world.
My dad often tells the story of being in a lecture at Kings College in the Strand in 1944 when a flying bomb lanced two hundred or so yards away
The heard the whine as it descended, of course
The lecturer apparently got below a desk
None of the engineering students apparently did: they reckoned a desk was not much defence if they were under it
They weren’t
But they were on all on clearing up duties pretty fast
I guess that would have been one of the so-called V1 flying bombs, which was a “buzz bomb” and could be heard coming. When the fuel was exhausted they would give a whine as they fell to earth.
The V2 on the other hand was a ballistic missile and gave no warning as they fell to earth faster than the speed of sound.
At least that’s how I understand it – I may be wrong.
A V1 I think….
It left a mighty impression on Dad
Thankfulky not as much as it might have done
As I understand it, the V1 ‘doodlebug’ was clearly audible when the rocket engine was firing, but was silent as it continued the subsequent descent until impact. Therefore, people knew a bomb was about to hit due to the sudden silence after the rocket cut-off but had no idea if they were in the firing line, so to speak.
As noted earlier, the V2 was a ballistic weapon with no warning of impact at all.
Both weapons were extremely expensive to produce (the V2 in particular) and I understand that their military impact was negligible in comparison to conventional munitions. The Germans wasted a lot of resources on the V2s which they could certainly have used more effectively elsewhere.
My father was standing on the rim of the south-west tower of Battersea Power Station (he was fire-watching)when a V1 chugged past him. He told me that he could have reached out and touched it, but as he watched it, the engine cut out and the V1, on its trajectory, curved down into the Thames.
He was pleased, of course, that the bomb hadn’t cut out a moment earlier – if it had, both he and the power station (of which he was then superintendent) would have been destroyed. But it’s still there, even if he isn’t. Today would have been his birthday – he’d have been a hundred and twenty-four years old!
A little older than mine – now 90
The V weapons probably would not have changed the course of the war, but they could have caused considerably more extensive damage in central London if it hadn’t been for double agents feeding them incorrect information about where they were landing. Many struck much further south or east than the Germans intended, because of the false intelligence they were being fed.
One example of the important of putting resources into intelligence-led counter-terror operations.
Another senseless and deadly attack on innocent people and our prayers go out to all the families affected. Naturally I share your sentiments and recommendations. I also hope voters are asking the question: Who was Home Secretary from 2010-16?
While clearly we need increased policing, improved intelligence, security and co-operation – surely it’s also time to start focussing on how to bring an end to such terror. To his credit Jeremy Corbyn intimates the need to direct our attention in this direction but only really tip-toes around the issue for fear of being misunderstood and further hammered by the MSM.
The parable of the drowning babies springs to mind:
Once upon a time in a riverside village, a woman noticed a shocking sight: a drowning baby, crying its lungs out, being washed downriver. She rushed to save it, rescuing the baby just before it went over the falls at the edge of town.
The next day there were two babies in the river; the day after, three more, then four. With the help of her neighbours, the woman saved them, too. When babies kept washing downstream, the village banded together, setting up a 24-hour rescue watch.
Still the babies kept coming. So the community installed an elaborate alarm system and strung safety nets across the river but was still overwhelmed trying to save them the babies.
Finally they asked the village wise man, who had the solution: “Let’s go upstream and see who’s throwing the babies in the river. If we stop them from being thrown in up there, we won’t have to rescue them down here.”
Absolutely John D, we just have to face up to the reasons why hate filled people are prepared to sacrifice their life and bring carnage to us. Whilst we probably do need to increase security at home if we dont address the real causes we’re wasting our time. A significant proportion of the world population have no hope or prospects of a decent life and or are living in fear of their own lives, thats a rich breeding ground for extremeism.
Desp
How would more policing have prevented the attack on Saturday night? The police had shot the attackers dead within 8 minutes. The police are not intelligence-gatherers, that’s the job of the security services. I still have seen no evidence that there is a simple correlation between levels of crime and levels of police numbers.
The police – and very obviously community police – are intelligence gatherers
That is a key part of their role
I see the link as fundamental
Oh do come on Graham.
Of course the police are intelligence gatherers. Every officer we work with in housing in my area knows their pitch/area very well and keep their ears to the ground.
If they are there that is.
Which increasingly they are not – thanks to the stupidity of neo-lib Tories.
It used to be the case that we used to have local officer representation at regular meetings but now with fewer officers its a choice between attending a meeting in the name of cohesion or not being on the streets. Some choice.
Why do you think the army is now involved? And most of them will not have local knowledge.
A lot of people can die and be maimed in 8 minutes. Better to stop it happening beforehand perhaps?
Or are you one of those people who sides with the accountant lizards who do a cost benefit analysis and work out that we should accept a certain amount of casualties in the name of ‘efficiency’?
I found May’s response to this incident very interesting.
When she talks of being less tolerant of extremists I hope that she mean those in her own party for once – the neo-lib, market fundamentalist-austerity faction for instance?
‘And the cost is price worth paying.’
But not your kids on London Bridge
Don’t talk about money for NHS when it requires 30 people to follow one person on the watch list, a list that is growing and impossible to maintain and cover – and then prioritise ‘freedoms’.
This is a war where the enemy is within. We should not ‘carry on as normal’ but drop everything and deal with the situation
What are you talking about Linda?