OK, first, the disclaimers. I am not a terrorism specialist; I am not a specialist in anti-terrorist weapons and tactics; I am not a security specialist of any kind.

What I am is someone who is trained to spot a bollocks argument, and I present, ladies and gentlemen, this: tenants lose missile siting appeal.

A British judge has found that if the Ministry of Defence wants to have the option of shooting down an aircraft threatening the Olympic sites – for which, read “9/11, The Sequel” – then certain tower blocks in East London are the only effective option.

Let’s just picture the scenario for a moment. Hi-jacked commercial airliner, credible threat to crash into the Olympic stadium, versus a missile or three striking an airliner full of fuel over, er, East London.

What? No, let me rephrase: WTF?

From a terrorist’s point of view, that sounds like “heads I win, tails you lose”. Thousands of people in a stadium, versus thousands of people in homes and offices, the latter indirectly caused by those people’s own government. And the latter is “security”, is it? And feelings of anxiety about the presence of troops in the city are just greenie pinko hysteria, right?

And even on a fairly grim body-count assessment, the right thing to do is not remove one of those enticements to mass mayhem, but create it?

I merely ask for information.

For those with a finely-tuned sense of the absurd, or perhaps those now bored with their Yes, Minister collections, check out the Secretary’s recent statement to the Commons, here.

Advertisements