So - what next?

Now that the initial drama concerning the events of Thursday is over, we are getting some very perceptive think-pieces in the newspapers and on the areas of TV free from Big Brother and Apprentice. As one might expect, a large proportion are band-wagon jumpings reference national ID cards, civil liberties and intelligence. Noddy’s friend Clarke has already said that ID cards would not have prevented what happened. It also seems that intelligence was lacking insofar as this attack was concerned. So, if we cannot rely or use comprehensive documentation of those we know to be here and on any successful spying, what do we have as a defence? Suspicion would be nice maybe. Were I to see a burly man, wearing a mask, dressed in a striped jumper and carrying a bag marked swag in the area of my house, I would devote some attention to him. But it is never that simple.
Even that sort of simple check for suspicion has been made inefficient in current times. Were I to suggest to an officer of the law that stripey-jumper nicked my Palm pilot, doubtless I would be admonished on the grounds of inciting hatred of blokes in striped tops. A very senior police officer said in a Press briefing that we should not associate Islam and terrorism. Well, right now – who else do we associate with terrorism of this style and extent? Not the IRA surely. They were always most fastidious about giving warnings – even though they were at times late or inaccurate. Their agenda was to spread terror of attacks. This last lot gave no warning and clearly intended to kill as many as they could possibly involve. When we hunted for IRA, we looked in specific places. If we are not to associate Islam with terrorists – where do we look? Whilst there are Muslims who deprecate what is done in their name it has to be admitted that the agenda in their Holy Book includes a lot about infidels and striking them very hard. The Bible has some pretty warlike bits (Judges and James I think?) but death to non-Christians is not part of Archbishop of Canterbury’s everyday preaching. If anything is to be achieved, there has to be very serious inquiry amongst Muslims in this country. Right now though, the police are indoctrinated that they must not hold any such opinion or suspicion.
The plight of those unable to trace family and loved ones at this stretch of time is quite harrowing. Those who have any experience of these sorts of incident can very well guess why they are kept in ignorance – not all bodies are just as if the deceased had died in bed. I was particularly taken by the story of Yvonne – the blond girl. She is so very patient and has obviously done all she can to publicise the absence of her partner. He phoned to say he was on a bus. His mobile phone was found on the bus that was blown up. One feels the need to take her on one side, wrap her up in a big bear hug and tell her the facts of life rather than prolong her agony.
As for intelligence gathering and civil liberty conflicts, I am convinced that the protection of life and limb over-rides all concerns about liberty. We should make it clear that if we feel the need to investigate you and your lifestyle, we may do anything that it takes. If this proves the case, it may all be used without debate provided it comes within the definition of evidence (everything other than mere argument that goes to prove or disprove). If we get it wrong, sue us. We’ll assist and make it easy for you – ONCE WE KNOW YOU ARE INNOCENT. Suggestions that this will make us a police-state as depicted in 1984 are simplistic. The basic personality of our race will keep things clean. We are not Nazi, Franco-supporters or Stalinists.