More thoughts on 7/7

1. 99.92 per cent of people traveling into London yesterday morning were unhurt (assuming one million made the journey). This isn’t fatuous Panglossianism. It shows that even on a day when the terrorists do their worst, the odds are hugely in our favour. This is one reason why we shouldn’t be scared.

2. Blimpish cites the “thoughts” of the SWP’s Chris Bambery: "The British government cannot avoid its responsibility for these terrible attacks, which are a consequence of its support for war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.”  What I find odd here is the SWP’s vision of moral agency. On the one hand, it thinks our rulers can be responsible not only for their own actions, but also for others’ actions that are (very arguably) the consequence of those actions. But on the other hand, workers have so little moral agency that they do nothing to escape poverty and exploitation. Is such a differential view of our free wills really remotely plausible? Or am I missing the point?

3. There’s talk that the attacks represent an “intelligence failure.” Now, I guess I have a lower opinion than most of our spooks and coppers, but unless we get more information, I don’t blame them. Perfect security is unattainable. We should not trust a group of experts to offer us full protection, any more than we should trust them to do any other job. The interesting question, though, is: can we do more to protect ourselves. Take this:

Richard Jones, 61, a passenger, recalled an agitated man he described as “suspicious”. He said: “This chap started dipping down into his bag and getting back up, then dipping down and getting back up. He was getting more and more frustrated. He did it about a dozen times in two or three minutes and looked extremely agitated. He was fiddling away but he was getting annoyed with something.” The IT consultant got off the bus at Woburn Square. Only seconds later it exploded. “I don’t know whether the man had anything to do with it, but he was acting very strangely.”

Now there are obvious reasons why Mr Jones didn’t challenge the man; the thought he might be a suicide bomber probably never entered his head, and anyway, what was he supposed to do? But could he – meaning we – have been better prepared? What more can we all do to protect ourselves? Is there anything we can learn from the Israelis – who have lived with this stuff for years? Is there any way of looking after ourselves that won’t encourage anti-Muslim vigilantes?

4. If you must drink London Pride, can I urge you to drink it bottled, not draught? One reason why I’m not proud of London is that many publicans don’t know how to keep their beer, with the result that too many pints of Pride taste like a Sumo wrestler’s piss. Bottled Pride, however, is a fine drink.

Comments

[Chris]

Perhaps the bombers took Mao's dictum to heart "kill one and frighten a thousand"? And so the glib calculation at the beginning of this piece looks fragile. Naturally given the stellar qualities of Londoners Mao is clearly wrong (?)

[Steve]

My experience of London Pride is very different. I find it one of the more reliable beers. It is usually found in Fuller's own pubs, so the publicans have learnt the tricks of keeping a specific range of beers.

I find beers such as Adnams, usually a great pint, more risky in London where you find it served as a guest beer by people who don't know how to keep it.

BTW - Thanks for the above link.

[Rob]

I'd say the differential view of free will is about as plausible as the one where the poor are responsible for their fate and the wealthy have no choice but to respond to the incentives provided by a tax system but then a) I would say that, just for anti-libertarian kicks. Am I responsible? Hell yeah.