Comment by Robert Bollard

July 18, 2006 @ 11:39 am

The SMH in its Monday editorial (sorry I have no link, I’m getting this off a hard copy) had a bit about rail security entitled “Other ways to foil bombers”.
They quote at length a “Dr Chalk” who works for the Rand Corporation, and therefore probably knows a bit about bombing civilians. Dr Chalk is not happy with our rail security in general. One of his beefs is apparently that the “rigid design and bullet-resistant windows of many trains may amplify the destruction wreaked by explosives.”
Now, I have actually been on a train, with my head against the window (late at night), when a stone was thrown and cracked the glass, If the good doctor had his way, I’d have been severely injured. What is the bigger likelihood do you think: a stone thrown by an alienated youth or a bomb in a bag?
It’s not about the threat, its about the fear.

Comment by Moderator

July 18, 2006 @ 1:11 pm

A story from Sue Hoffman.

On authorities’ response to ‘suspicious’ activities, an interesting experience this morning.

An Iraqi friend phoned, wanting a lift home from where he’d parked his car about 10 minutes walk from Perth city centre, in an area with some housing but mainly offices. The car key remote control thingy wasn’t working and he couldn’t open the car doors.

Took me about 30 minutes to get there and in the meantime, he’d tried to get into the car in various ways including enlisting the aid of the mechanic at the local garage. Cut a long story short, he noticed he was under surveillance. When he did something ‘suspicious’ like crouch down to play with the lock which also gave him a good view through the wing mirrors, his watchers’ fingers went into overdrive on their mobile phones, as they did when he engaged in further suspicious activity, viz. leaning against a tree whilst looking up and down the street as he waited for me to arrive. He reckoned there were three cars and six or seven people, presumably police, watching him for 30 minutes.

Once I arrived, respectable white woman, off they drove. I don’t know why they didn’t simply ask him what the problem was. It would have been easy for them to confirm a) it was his car, and b) the problem he was having which turned out to be as the result of a flat battery because he’d left his lights on. RAC (WA roadside assistance) sorted it very quickly.

Although we found the incident entertaining, the not-so-funny undercurrent is why such innocent behaviour by a law-abiding citizen attracted such a response. I’m just glad that of the friends he called for assistance, it was me that turned up rather than one of his Arab friends. Two Arabs, one car and an RAC roadside mechanic – what on earth could they be up to?

Comment by Gary

July 18, 2006 @ 1:50 pm

Great description by Jeff of interaction between conscientious citizen and harassed state employee. Not sure though that bomb threats can’t be taken a little more seriously than this. I fear Jeff’s piece will get the nanny state moving on training for drivers on how to make citizen feel reassured that they are being taken seriously and that emergency procedures will come into effect at the earliest opportune moment. Perhaps even a bit less pragmatism about blowing up bags carrying dangerous cargoes of sandwiches and fruit if only to remind everyone of “what could happen.”

Comment by eekamouse

July 18, 2006 @ 1:58 pm

I wonder what the union policy is on this stuff. I don’t see how Connex can, on the one hand, urge us all to worry about stray bags and then, on the other, get ordinary employees to check bags that might potentially explode in their face.
Of course, the other alternative is that they don’t really take these things seriously at all, that the whole alert/alrmed thing is just a PR stunt. I suspect that’s probably the case.

• Melbourne events
• Sydney events