Observer Leader calls for escrow

David Hansen davidh at spidacom.co.uk
Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:11:21 +0100


On 1 Oct 2001 at 9:54, Adrian Midgley wrote:

> It seems unfeasaible.

The Home Office are noted for the unfeasibility of their actions. If they ever claim to have come 
up with something feasible I will suspect that they have stolen someone else's idea.

> SImpler to go round searching for them to start with I think.

That assumes that the aim of the current terrorism-panic is to aprehend terrorists. I don't believe 
that it is.

It seems to be the case that the aim of the current panic is to allow the forces of darkness (which 
Mr Straw is certainly a member of) to persue their own agendas, which have nothing to do with 
defeating terrorism.

A small example. Litter bins on railway stations, though not trains, have been removed or made 
inoperative on the instructions of the so-called security people. Now real life terrorists tend to use 
motor vehicles to transport bombs, as anyone with the slightest knowledge of terrorism will 
confirm. However, banning motor vehicles would cause the forces of darkness problems, so 
instead they pick on a group less likely to cause them trouble. It is a displacement activity by the 
forces of darkness.

I have asked how many litter bin bombs would be necessary to destroy Canary Wharf, so far 
without an answer.

Before anynoe starts to patronise me I do know that people have been killed by litter bin bombs 
in the UK. However, it's rather pointless removing or covering litter bins on stations while leaving 
them on trains and the whole of the town outside the station.

Pseudo-security may reassure the nervous and impress party politicians. It does nothing to 
prevent terrorism though.

--
 David Hansen | davidh@spidacom.co.uk  | PGP email preferred
 Edinburgh    | CI$ number 100024,3247 | key number F566DA0E
 If I revoke this key, the only circumstance in which I will not be
 prepared to explain my reasons for doing so will be when UK
 government authorities have stipulated that providing such an
 explanation would be unlawful. See RIP Act 2000.