BY ANGELA DANIELS
America, Brussels, Turkey, England…have been agog with the menace of terrorism in the air. The news of a major, imminent attack on the streets of Britain within weeks – a Paris- style massacre with even possible nuclear materials, have splashed news headlines in the last few days sending shivers down people’s spines. Many of the eight hundred British Jihadis who left the country to join ISIS are reported to continue returning home; some to execute the terrorist plans. This has heightened a series of other Intelligence reports gathered since Paris and before. The country is now put on an alert level of ‘severe’, meaning ‘highly likely’ terrorist attacks.
TURBULENCE
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Along with this turbulence in the atmosphere is the government’s response. David Cameron has ordered a review of the law to enable the British Armed-police to shoot to kill in light of concerns about safeguarding the interests of police against fear of prosecution expressed by senior figures including the Metropolitan Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogues. Such attempt to address fears by the police of prosecutions, as has been the case in such shootings, as recently as only weeks ago, and previously, including the well-publicized case of Jean Charles de Mendenez in July 2007, in the aftermath of an actual terrorist attack. The man was innocently on his way to work, not a terrorist. Yet he lost his life so tragically in the hands of the armed police whose judgement to spray him with several bullets was never justified.
And with that experience we must not forget how valuable each life is- the need to counter terrorism must not substitute the irreplaceable value of life.
REVIEW
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Conducted by the Home Office, the Attorney-General and the Ministry of Justice, the review will report privately to the Prime Minister in the New Year. As would be anticipated, the announcement of the plan has sparked controversy among politicians. Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn has flagged up the possibility of creating community tension and referring to the government’s reaction as a political stunt.
Jeremy Corbyn is right. The outcome of attempts to improve community relations with the police is yet to be well established. The licence to shoot to kill will enact another wedge with communities. A woman who did not wish to be named told eye of media, ‘This will give many of us sleepless nights…Its so scary. They will have the excuse to shoot and lie to the world about how it happened …and everybody wears a beard these days….there will be serious race problems, that’s the trouble…’.
Interestingly, while the Shadow Business Secretary, Angela Eagle on a video interview attempted to present a balanced view, by suggesting safeguards and a democratic approach to the decision, and calling for a clear legal framework that gives confidence to the police to deal with ‘marauding’ terrorists, she said, almost comfortingly. ”In this country, I think we are very good…’. ”If this was America… in light of the FBI shooting people in place of chicken”. I pointed to her that she had got it wrong. The FBI are licensed to shoot to kill. They have legal guidelines, but the senseless killings happen anyway, a constant recurrence, despite the man in the street being able to own their own weapon. Human nature is the same, and we have history to cause us grave concern. Time will tell how frequently it could happen in England, neither similar licence.
But then, to think that while the government’s reaction to terrorism is to install this far-reaching legal provision, whilst secretly withdrawing one-third of the emergency vehicles equipped to deal with attacks involving radioactive, chemical and biological materials which can explode bombs containing nuclear wastes. Half of the incident response units ( IRUs) that deal with major contamination, (including ‘dirty bombs’) will be decommissioned before the end of this year. It is argued that the 43 units left to remain will be sufficient. They were set up in the wake of the New York catastrophic 9/11 (September 2001).
The original aim was to improve Britain’s ability to respond effectively to a similar large scale disaster, with the units carrying gas tight suits, large inflatable structures with showers and temporary clothing for contaminated victims and special vehicles carrying up to 200 contaminated people per hour. After fourteen years, the need has arrived again, real enough for the licence to kill, but strangely, the government sees sense in the reduction of life saving equipment. Something doesn’t add up.
Competing views surely are aplenty in relation to this matter, but the bottom line is that the police must always be held accountable for any killings that arise from one of their bullets. The need to protect the public is vital, and yes, the issue of having to sometimes make split second decisions in light of the circumstances will always be there. However, the license to shoot and kill must never be a blanket one without responsibilities.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar
