Re: Terrorism is back? : Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:20 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I expect them to use their well trained and well paid brains!

Well, I would ask them what they knew about feckin bombs to convince me that's what he was doing. Mostly, if I could, I'd do something that did not involve (as it here did) giving the putative bomber 2 hours to explode his putative device before anyone did anything.

Then, if I felt the moron was giving me at least enough suspicions that it might genuinely be something serious, I wouldn't instruct them to park up and make sure all passengers stayed on the bus until platoons of troops and police arrived, since the longer they stayed on the bus, the longer they stood a great chance of being blown to smithereens, gassed or whatever I suspected.

Mostly, I'd assume that if by pouring some liquid into some bag and producing smoke, nothing had either blown up, or gassed anybody at that stage, then it was almost certainly bollox, and not at all justifying such an outrageous response.

Under your expectation, (which is that on getting such a call, that is what they MUST do) the terrorists could bankrupt a country in a week, they just place 50 of those calls a day and soon the entire economy is fooked and the country is paralysed.

Again, if someone reports vapour coming from someone's bag and reports it as a genuine concern, what do you expect the authorities to do? If there is a genuine threat, you don't ask a passenger to start checking out the suspect, answering questions while on the phone. Smoke/vapour was reported coming from the bags during the failed attacks on 21st July 2005 if you recall, so if something similar is being reported, what do you expect them to do?

It's similar to the overkill at airports. I've been on a flight where a lad joked to the cabin crew, "got a bomb in me bag, me." We then spent 2 hours parked up while he was arrested and his bags removed. The likelihood of him actually having a bomb is almost zero, but the threat is taken seriously. It has to be. Mentioned a bomb at the airport and you're in trouble. Mention one on a 999 call and the police will respond accordingly.

And can I point out the bleedin' obvious that the authorities are on a high state of alert and will be until at least 13th August. No, it's not ideal and it's an inconvenience but any report of such a threat has to be taken seriously. And if you've got a suggestion to improve their operational response, I'm sure they'd welcome your experienced advice.

Like I said, if they'd performed some sort of assessment on the initial phone call and decided there was no threat, only for the bus to explode, or for the suspect to travel to London and explode a bomb elsewhere, heads would roll.

Re: Terrorism is back? : Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:44 am  

Cronus wrote:

..And if you've got a suggestion to improve their operational response, I'm sure they'd welcome your experienced advice.

As I recall it was you who posed me a question, not the police. If you don't want to know my opinion, then don't ask, you ignorant sarcastic plank.

Cronus wrote:

.Like I said, if they'd performed some sort of assessment on the initial phone call and decided there was no threat, only for the bus to explode, or for the suspect to travel to London and explode a bomb elsewhere, heads would roll.

But that is a proposition of the utmost stupidity. I did not say they should have decided there "was no threat". It is banal to state that some response of some sort was required. It is absurd for you to even suggest that any assessment there "was no threat" could possibly have been made. It does not help for you to set up such a ridiculous straw man for yourself to then knock down.

You understand very well my point that if this was the reaction every time such a call was received then the country would grind to a halt, and even just that one single reason clearly demonstrates, if not to you, why the response was completely OTT and absurd. Nor, if the man HAD had a bomb, would the chosen course of response have done anything to stop him detonating it, a point which you totally ignore.

Re: Terrorism is back? : Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:08 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Nor, if the man HAD had a bomb, would the chosen course of response have done anything to stop him detonating it, a point which you totally ignore.

He could've actually been in the process of making it as the bus was going down the M6. Perhaps he was running late?

Re: Terrorism is back? : Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:27 am  

cod'ead wrote:

He could've actually been in the process of making it as the bus was going down the M6. Perhaps he was running late?

This is where my plan to send the nearest police car to stop the bus and say to the guy, "Excuse me sir, can I have a look in your smoking bag"? would have come into its own.

Re: Terrorism is back? : Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:41 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

As I recall it was you who posed me a question, not the police. If you don't want to know my opinion, then don't ask, you ignorant sarcastic plank.

Wind your neck in & pick up your dummy yer big girl. You'd already offered your opinion and if you offer an opinion, you can expect it to be challenged.

You decided their response was unsatisfactory, I therefore assumed you had a better suggestion as to how they gather the necessary forces and units to react to reports of such a moving threat? No? Just spouting off?

But that is a proposition of the utmost stupidity. I did not say they should have decided there "was no threat". It is banal to state that some response of some sort was required. It is absurd for you to even suggest that any assessment there "was no threat" could possibly have been made. It does not help for you to set up such a ridiculous straw man for yourself to then knock down.

You called it "an over-reaction to nothing". I can only assume therefore, from your own words, that you feel perhaps a smaller scale response would have sufficed? Or no response at all? And that perhaps you feel they should have somehow been able to determine that it was "nothing"?

You understand very well my point that if this was the reaction every time such a call was received then the country would grind to a halt, and even just that one single reason clearly demonstrates, if not to you, why the response was completely OTT and absurd. Nor, if the man HAD had a bomb, would the chosen course of response have done anything to stop him detonating it, a point which you totally ignore.

Yes, I understand that. So let's look at the alternatives. A smaller scale response - perhaps a few unarmed bobbies in squad cars ("Excuse me sir, we've had a report of a live bomb in your bag. Would you mind if I just have a quick look?")? No response at all? Fact is, we don't exactly what was reported in the call. The person has apparently reported someone pouring liquid into a bag, which then began to emit smoke/vapour, but we don't know any more than that. This person, clearly already in a panic, may have reported some a strong chemical smell, or burning. The police have to assume the worst case scenario and cover all bases.

As it was, they contacted the driver and told him to stop, and they closed the motorway to isolate the threat. That it then took some time to gather the required units to attend to the threat is no real surprise when you're talking about a combined response of armed officers, bomb disposal, the fire service, paramedics, etc. I'm not sure what more could have been done.

Bomb threats are always taken extremely seriously and the reaction is nearly always disruptive. I've witnessed and been caught up in the evacuation of several buildings, a city centre (Manchester, 1996), a couple of airports and shopping centres and even a train. If someone reports a suspected bomb that's what happens. The only rare aspects of yesterday are that it involved a coach, caused disruption to a major motorway, and that the reason for the whole saga is quite comical. Bomb threats are reported all the time and the response is generally pretty heavy-handed.

Again, if you find the reaction absurd, what's your alternative? How would YOU have responded to stop the potential bomb going off?

Re: Terrorism is back? : Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:00 pm  

They could have shot the man, several times, and then searched his bag.

It worked before.

Re: Terrorism is back? : Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:31 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Back in 1973, I was working in that there Lunnon and staying in a B&B in Earl's Court. My mate & I got up one morning, went down stairs and found a deserted hotel: no one on reception, empty restaurant zilch.

On venturing outside we were grabbed by armed rozzers from Special Branch and asked where we'd come from and what we'd been up to. It took a while but they finally accepted that we were staying there and they hadn't done such a good job on ecavuating the hotel as they thought they had. Turns out one bloke who was in another room decided that life was a bit too much, so he filled the meter with 5p pieces and topped himself with the help of the gas fire (still on town gas in those days). Someone had smelled gas and once they opened the room, they found this geezer, lying stark bollock naked, in front of the fire. He had wires attached to his leg and the wires led to a brown paper parcel. The Bomb Squad and SB were called out and after some delicate manipulations, they discovered that it wasn't an IRA boby-trap, he'd simply ripped the battery wires out of an old Binatone radio and sellotaped them to his leg. He just wanted to leave causing the maximum disruption.

It was then I that remembered someone hammering on the door and telling us we had to get out immediately. In my fug, I yelled OK and rolled over and went back to kip.

Yes, the Met aren't always the best. I recall looking out of my old office window and seeing the square outside deserted except for a copper. I stood up and when he saw me he waved in a panicky fashion and came running up to our reception. Transpires they'd evacuated all the buildings round about but had forgotten to mention it to our floor in our building. He told me that it was too late for us to get out and I needed to get everyone in the corridor and away from the windows. We'd had numerous evacuations over the years but on this occasion I did worry - you could see in his face it was serious. Sure enough bomb exploded a few minutes later - luckily for us it was very small and about half a mile away, and I don't think we even heard it.

Re: Terrorism is back? : Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:45 pm  

Cronus wrote:

:lol: Wind your neck in & pick up your dummy yer big girl. You'd already offered your opinion and if you offer an opinion, you can expect it to be challenged.

Sure, but you (esp. as a mod) can presumably get the difference between challenging an opinion in a forum debate, on the one hand, and sarcastically suggesting that I instead offer my services to the anti-terrorism branch.

Cronus wrote:

You decided their response was unsatisfactory, I therefore assumed you had a better suggestion as to how they gather the necessary forces and units to react to reports of such a moving threat? No? Just spouting off?

I did offer a suggestion. In your haste to post drivel, you must have omitted reading it. To save you the bother, I'd have sent a police car to stop the coach, and sent an officer to speak with the suspect.

Cronus wrote:

You called it "an over-reaction to nothing". I can only assume therefore, from your own words, that you feel perhaps a smaller scale response would have sufficed? Or no response at all? And that perhaps you feel they should have somehow been able to determine that it was "nothing"?

Yes. The officer speaking to the guy would have been shown the e-cigarette and gone away, satisfied, with another amusing anecdote for the canteen.

The police have to assume the worst case scenario and cover all bases.

No, they really don't. They have to make a judgement, and got this one wrong.

As it was, they contacted the driver and told him to stop,

Fair enough on the face of it, but if it was a bomber, wouldn't that be giving the game away?

Bomb threats are always taken extremely seriously and the reaction is nearly always disruptive.

Except that it wasn't a bomb threat.

Again, if you find the reaction absurd, what's your alternative? How would YOU have responded to stop the potential bomb going off?

I can understand why you repeatedly ignore my point that, if this chap HAD had a bomb, what they did gave him EVERY opportunity to detonate it. You can't think of an answer.

Then you yet again move on to your hobby horse of what I would have done "to stop the potential bomb going off". In the answer to that lies the answer to your own question. What could you do? Well, there is only one thing. Take the suspect out, de Menezes stylee, with a shot through the base of the brain so that he cannot depress any detonator. Even that is not guaranteed as he might have some other trip detonator. Obviously, that is 100% not even a possibility, given all you have is a random phone call, and he is (at least) more likely than not to be innocent of anything, so that leaves you with a position where (apparently) you seriously believe that there genuinely MAY be a bomb, but you don't have the option of taking the suspect out.

So, a man, perhaps innocent, but perhaps with bomb; doesn't know he's been rumbled; hasn't set the bomb off. If he is going to set it off on the bus, and accepting I can't take him out, then I would have to accept there is nothing I can do to stop him. Because he will have the bomb primed and ready to go off. (I would figure he is unlikely in the extreme to start assembling the bomb in his seat). Thus whatever I do, if it alerts him, *bang* it will inevitably be.

If on the other hand he is NOT planning to blow up the bus, then (and only then) do I have a chance, as if somehow I can get an officer to him quickly, then he maybe won't have time to make live his detonator. So getting the bus to pull over beyond the toll was arguably a sensible move, if with a cover story, but there should have been a plan to at least try to get someone on board at that point to disable the suspect, and at least give the passengers a chance.

Off the top of my head, another Megabus has broken down beyond the toll booths, and we are going to offer assistance ladies and gentlemen and pick up some more passengers. Something like that.

What is clear is that if the suspect HAD been a bomber then the chosen course of action gave him every opportunity to accomplish blowing up the bus. Unless you believe that letting the suspect sit there while the bus was over an hour or two slowly surrounded by the services was a reasonable method of preventing detonation. Sounds to me like the driver and the rest of the passengers on the bus had been written off as potential collateral damage, and they weren't prepared to risk the life of an officer by boarding the bus.

Re: Terrorism is back? : Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:05 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I did offer a suggestion. In your haste to post drivel, you must have omitted reading it. To save you the bother, I'd have sent a police car to stop the coach, and sent an officer to speak with the suspect.

Yes. The officer speaking to the guy would have been shown the e-cigarette and gone away, satisfied, with another amusing anecdote for the canteen.

Thankfully, following decades of attending to bomb threats in the UK - genuine and hoax - the authorities have rather more idea of how to respond to the report of a bomb.

No, they really don't. They have to make a judgement, and got this one wrong.

Erm, no they didn't. The person who reported the possibility of a bomb got it wrong. The police can only make their judgement based on the information available to them.

And I know you're far from stupid so I'm not sure why you're acting that way. OF COURSE the police treat a possible bomb threat, or report of a bomb as the worst case scenario. It's patently absurd to do otherwise.

Fair enough on the face of it, but if it was a bomber, wouldn't that be giving the game away?

Not really. Buses, trains, etc often stop for a variety of reasons. And it's no less risky than sending a couple of unarmed bobbies to stop to coach and walk up to the suspect. Face it, there's no easy way to attend to such a situation. They did the right thing in isolating the threat as soon as possible.

Except that it wasn't a bomb threat.

At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, they didn't know that at the time.

I can understand why you repeatedly ignore my point that, if this chap HAD had a bomb, what they did gave him EVERY opportunity to detonate it. You can't think of an answer.

Then you yet again move on to your hobby horse of what I would have done "to stop the potential bomb going off". In the answer to that lies the answer to your own question. What could you do? Well, there is only one thing. Take the suspect out, de Menezes stylee, with a shot through the base of the brain so that he cannot depress any detonator. Even that is not guaranteed as he might have some other trip detonator. Obviously, that is 100% not even a possibility, given all you have is a random phone call, and he is (at least) more likely than not to be innocent of anything, so that leaves you with a position where (apparently) you seriously believe that there genuinely MAY be a bomb, but you don't have the option of taking the suspect out.

So, a man, perhaps innocent, but perhaps with bomb; doesn't know he's been rumbled; hasn't set the bomb off. If he is going to set it off on the bus, and accepting I can't take him out, then I would have to accept there is nothing I can do to stop him. Because he will have the bomb primed and ready to go off. (I would figure he is unlikely in the extreme to start assembling the bomb in his seat). Thus whatever I do, if it alerts him, *bang* it will inevitably be.

If on the other hand he is NOT planning to blow up the bus, then (and only then) do I have a chance, as if somehow I can get an officer to him quickly, then he maybe won't have time to make live his detonator. So getting the bus to pull over beyond the toll was arguably a sensible move, if with a cover story, but there should have been a plan to at least try to get someone on board at that point to disable the suspect, and at least give the passengers a chance.

Off the top of my head, another Megabus has broken down beyond the toll booths, and we are going to offer assistance ladies and gentlemen and pick up some more passengers. Something like that.

What is clear is that if the suspect HAD been a bomber then the chosen course of action gave him every opportunity to accomplish blowing up the bus. Unless you believe that letting the suspect sit there while the bus was over an hour or two slowly surrounded by the services was a reasonable method of preventing detonation. Sounds to me like the driver and the rest of the passengers on the bus had been written off as potential collateral damage, and they weren't prepared to risk the life of an officer by boarding the bus.

There will never be an easy way to detain someone in such a scenario. From memory when other security forces have stormed buses it's never ended well. Given the report stated there was smoke/vapour emitting from the bag, it would be reasonable to assume perhaps the device had failed (as per the 21/7 failures).

But you are correct, another alternative is to storm the bus with armed officers and fire first, ask questions later. Given the outraged response when all that actually happened was delays on the M6, thank god they used good judgement based on the information available and handled the incident in the manner they did.

Re: Terrorism is back? : Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:34 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Thankfully, following decades of attending to bomb threats in the UK - genuine and hoax - the authorities have rather more idea of how to respond to the report of a bomb.

Indeed, and equally thankfully, as a result, in practically all cases they don't make a complete arrse of it like they did here.

Cronus wrote:

OF COURSE the police treat a possible bomb threat, or report of a bomb as the worst case scenario. It's patently absurd to do otherwise.

It was not a bomb threat, nor a report of a bomb. It was a report of a man apparently pouring liquid into something, which apparently produced smoke. Anyway, your hyperbole ("patently absurd"), while perhaps seeking to reassure yourself, does nothing to further your case. You too are not stupid, yet you seem to overlook the difficulty with your argument that if indeed that was what the police did, then we would be used to seeing this sort of scenario day in, day out. You may have not noticed, but actually - we don't. Mercifully, the faux pas was a one-off.

Cronus wrote:

Face it, there's no easy way to attend to such a situation.

Face it? WTF? Who said there was?

Cronus wrote:

There will never be an easy way to detain someone in such a scenario.

Well yes, and I said as much. Though it hardly needs saying, now does it? Obviously, IF the suspect had indeed had a bomb, then the odds for the passengers were slim, whatever the police had chosen to do. A point you also ignore.

Cronus wrote:

But you are correct, another alternative is to storm the bus with armed officers and fire first, ask questions later.

Or not, as that of course that was in no sense ever an alternative at all, a point which my reference to de Menezes should have penetrated through the thickest of left hemispheres.

Cronus wrote:

Given the report stated there was smoke/vapour emitting from the bag, it would be reasonable to assume perhaps the device had failed (as per the 21/7 failures).

A fair point. And if indeed that was the assumption, then stopping the bus and simply confronting the suspect as quickly as possible would again be the obvious strategy. And not giving him two hours to sort the problem out or find some other means of detonating the device.

I do share your relief that he did not in fact have a bomb, primarily because if he had, then the way the police chose to deal with it, all the bus passengers would likely be dead. And then questions would be raised as to why, if they genuinely believed he had a bomb, the police had done nothing at all to make any attempt to prevent him from detonating it.

Cronus wrote:

thank god they used good judgement based on the information available and handled the incident in the manner they did.

Wow. That's the third your muddled effort has prompted. Why on earth "thank god"? Since he did not have a bomb, then surely the way they handled it turns out to be irrelevant, as he was never going to harm anybody anyway (unless you fear passive vapour).

If he HAD had a bomb, can you please tell me what it was that the police did which improved the chances of the passengers, and reduced, in any way at all, the chances of the bomb being detonated? There may be something I have missed.