Jonathan, indeed, metal detectors would not do an iota of good. Detecting explosive devices would require full x-ray stations, with the associated delays, which is completely impractical. Worse in fact, when you consider there's a significant increase in the variety of items packed by people taking the tube in their own city vs people taking carry-on luggage on a plane, the actual screening process would increase in complexity with more manual checks needed, it'd be a scene of pure madness.
candle, that's an interesting theory, the timing does seem to suggest this could be a possible scenario.
As regards the comments pertaining to screening all passengers. I'm vaguely thinking y'all who are bringing that option up have never been on the tube at rush hour. We're talking about cattle-car type people densities here, it's a mess, no room to move, breathe, zip. The only way to get all these people in and out is to leave the access points more or less free-flowing, add security and the entire system will simply stop. Imagine if you will the worst airport security line you've ever been in, multiply that by +-100, that's what you'll get stretching out onto the streets around all the major tube stations at rush hour if security checkpoints are thrown in, and that's why it's never been done, even the UK govt isn't THAT crazy.
Patrick, I apologize if I've offended anyone, however I do NOT feel I've been a prick in the least bit. Anna attacked me by implying some very nasty thoughts on my behalf that simply weren't there, the first time she did so all I did was assume a misunderstanding and go to great lengths to explain my position further to calm things down, there wasn't a nasty word anywhere in that text that I'm aware of. To this she responded by quite strongly (in my opinion!) re-affirming that she isn't misundestanding anything and indeed intends to attack me and tell me what I can and cannot say and intepret my inner thoughts in a very negative way. Now when someone purports to be in my head and to understand what it is I ACTUALLY mean even though I said no such thing at any point, I have no choice but to explicitely point out they are NOT in my head, know NOTHING about me, and therefore are NOT qualified to make those sorts of assertions about my intentions, I did so without resorting to vulgarity, hostility or attacking her own right of expression, I then closed by saying that since she appears to be intent on doing so anyways I have no choice but to ignore her from there on out. The ALTERNATIVE to ignoring her would be to get into a major argument with fireworks and insults flying everywhere, which I have no intention of doing (nor, should I point out am I trying to do so now, I'm again just trying to clarify my position), I don't think that was unfair or unduly harsh of me.
"Guy - and Tina, to whom my irritation was actually aimed at - you don't get to say that 37 deads need perspective *and* use the "I was at ground zero" card at the same time."
Anna, respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know who I am, what I've lived through, or who I may or may not have lost in which incidents. I have the right to urge perspective and I have a right to state my position in the story to any degree I wish or not at all. If you want to accuse me of somehow wronging the dead by doing so, that is also your right, that's freedom of speech for you, that particular statement however is putting words in my mouth that aren't there and never were, it is hurtful, offensive and provocative. I have no intention of getting into a fight and therefore must regretfully inform you I will no longer be giving notice to your posts in any way as they appear aimed at villifying me and anyone else who just wants to maintain some degree of common sense and composure in responding to this situation.
"Guy, you sound just like a New Yorker"
Teresa, that had to be the nicest thing anyone's said to me in a decade, cheers! *grin*
"Unless the explosives were quite small"..."The number of fatalities has probably not yet converged"
Steinn, as I understand it only the King's Cross blast was particularly large (and it claimed the most victims at 21.) The body count is likely to stay much the same, it IS climbing a little, but we're not talking about finding 200 more dead by tomorrow. The only significant point of contention I'm aware of is the bus bomb, my figure of +-40 included an estimate of 10 dead at that site, that number has been revised downward to 2 whilst the underground casualties were raised slightly. At the latest official count the total number had risen from 33 to 37. At day's end I think we'll be more concerned about whether any of the more serious injured (as noted by Patrick) will end up being counted amongst the fatalities than any new bodies being found.
Will: Hear hear! We shall overcome! Or to be frank, we already have, as I mentioned elsewhere most people I know in my immediate vicinity are already back to worrying about the miserable mess the govt has inflicted on us by taking on the 2012 Olympics.
Anna: Just to be clear, there's no intention to be insensitive here, we're more intent on getting on with our lives ASAP, London is a pretty high-stress environment and we've got a plateload of problems to deal with already, no time to stop and take a break cos some (bleep)heads fancied blowing bits of the city up. I'm sure most of us will go to bed and feel awful for the victims, and spend some time looking to see if there's anything useful that can be done to help them, besides that though, we were back to the daily grind less than an hour after things stopped blowing up, some of us never stopped. So there's really no reason to "lose it" against those of us who were at ground zero and are NONETHELESS urging perspective.
and if I may suggest keeping things in realistic perspective as well, this isn't WTC 9/11 London Version, it's a set of 4 relatively limited bombings with +-40 casualties. Yes this is terrible, yes there's much sympathy for the victims and their families, but that aside most of London is largely unimpressed by this all, an apocalypse this is not.
... So.. Who all has actually read through that first pitching to Bloggers article? If you haven't take a look, there are a few gems of deeply offensive stupidity in there. The one that trully slays me is this:
"Many of them still consider their sites to be personal forums for their views and perspectives, and are wary of corporate or PR interference."
Just where the HELL do they get off implying that OUR blogs somehow AREN'T our personal forums?? Quick review of elements relative to my blog (which I won't link cos it really is total tripe :P) that MAY suggest otherwise...
-My name is plastered all over it.
-The server it's on cost me a couple grand and was hand-built by yours trully.
-I pay an unspeakable amount per month for colocation and bandwidth.
-I own more than half the domains on the server including of course the one the blog is under. Those have my name and address plastered all over them as well.
That there isn't just my PERSONAL FORUM, it's my property, an extension of my home onto the net, and it's been payed for in cash, blood and sweat!
Unsurprisingly, neither Trufelman or Goldberg have their e-mail address in easy sight anywhere. I wouldn't mind giving those two a piece of my mind that's for sure.
Meantime, and mind you this is just to be fascetious since no one actually reads my particular corner of the net, I'm going to be adding a disclaimer stating any individuals not here strictly on personal business are unwelcome and risk being sued for unlawful consumption of system resources. Might be a move worth considering for y'all who DO have a readership and might be actual targets for that sort of nonsense.
In keeping with this week's cheery outlook on life and the future: "me, the undead, and a shotgun."
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 9 |
Total: 9 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Guy Matthews:
Show all comments by Guy Matthews.