The news at moment is covering various security issues related to the 2012 London Olympics.
This week residents in an apartment block in East London were unsuccessful in their attempt to have surface to air missiles removed from the top of their building as they claimed it made them a target.
Later this week it came out that even more soldiers would be needed to police the Olympics because the private security firm with the contract for the Olympics said they could not recruit enough staff.
The media seems to be giving the impression that it is because of this problem, British Army soldiers will be deployed to police UK citizens on the streets of London. In fact the Army had already agreed to supply 13,000 troops even before this issue was raised.
But looking past all of these news headlines I think the question has to be asked, if the public is in so much danger, is it wise to hold the Olympics in London? And is it wise to expect people to be allowed to spectate at the games?
Let me put the massive security threat in another perspective.
People working in Canary Wharf in London.
If there was a serious security threat to Canary Wharf that lasted 4 weeks would the police recommend people go to work during that time or would they recommend that people do not come to work for that 4 week period in order for them to be safe?
I suppose it depends on how much of a security threat it was so let me use some facts to illustrate it.
Imagine Canary Wharf for a period of 4 weeks was in so much danger that the UK government thought it needed to do the following.
1. Deploy surface to air missiles on neighbouring buildings and in parks so any rogue aircraft can be shot down (over residential areas).
2. Deploy 13,ooo troops on the Isle of Dogs to look after the workers during this period
3. To deploy the Navy’s largest ship to the area to protect the workers for aerial and land attack.
4. To give over 300 million GBP to a private security firm to protect the workers by searching all persons entering or leaving the area as well as policing people in the area.
If the government thought these measures would be required to protect workers at Canary Wharf for a period of 4 weeks would it be reasonable to expect people to go to work in these conditions?
Or would it be more reasonable to simply say to the staff at Canary Wharf not to come into work for the period it was in danger?
I personally think that if the UK government was allowing people to go to work in such a dangerous environment there would rightly be a public outcry that the government and police were prepared to put civilians is such obvious danger.
I find it hard to believe the police would let people enter Canary Wharf during such a dangerous time, especially when they know the duration of the threat is specific and limited.
If this analogy were a reality, the only logical thing I can see the London police doing is closing down Canary Wharf until the threat passed.
It would seem to me foolish to let workers enter an area which is in such massive danger from terrorists.
These are my thoughts, I would love to hear yours.
Do you think it is wise for the government and local police to encourage people to go to an area which they believe is under so much threat from a terrorist attack?
Or do you think that the Olympics is a special case and cannot be compared with a similar situation if it were to involve workers at Canary Wharf?
I suppose people and families consider the missiles are unessasary. If they thought they were nessesary they would not go.
Correction — I suppose people and famillies they decide to go consider the missiles unessasary. If they thoght that they were nessessary hey would not go.