Staff will be alerted to an attack with a tannoy announcement urging them to run from the building as fast as they can.Or annoyed that they clearly believe that staff will obey these instructions and leave the injured to their fate.
The injured will be abandoned, with workers told to continue to make their way out unless they are certain they can provide assistance and will not themselves be hurt in the process.
Well? Could YOU?
16 comments:
They'll be stomping over each other in a bid to escape. I can't see any of them being heroes, so no worries there!
Since when have politicos grown a spine?
So basically they are saying that the security the HoC is so bad that when the enevitable happens that its everyone for themselves.
Where are the armed police wandering round the corridors as has been noted by some of the new intake of MPs. Where are the armed police at all the entrances to the palace. Where are the metal detectors and other security devices.
The palace is a bit different to a hotel. One naturally has security the other doesn't.
In my case it would depend whether i liked them or not.
I believe a lot will try to help the wounded or injured, even at risk to their own lives. I have my suspicions though that most of those wont be politicians...
Politicians only think of themselves.
In a way this is hillarious, none of our MPs are able (and trustworthy enough) to be armed properly, and it does not even occur to them to demand it either.
And... no-one notices either, and to top it all up, they even need instructions how to run away, bless.
The Dodo didn't die out, they moved to the UK...
If such a thing did happen, I'm pretty sure there would be a ring of people outside chucking the fuckers back in.
These are not instructions. This is damage limitation in advance for when our politicians behave like jobsworth PCSOs at a drowning party. As they use human shields and leave injured MOPs to bleed to death, staining underwear as they run, they want to be able to say, afterwards, that they so wanted to stay and help but had been instructed not to. Pity Woolas has been sacked - I's have had my second tenner on him to be first out, or a close second by a neck from my own dismal MP.
Of course they could run into all the terrorists waiting outside, which would be a triple whammy: first the expenses scandal, and then terrorists (aka constituents) inside and outside the palace.
In what way does this instruction fundamentally differ from the standard instructions to employees/users of buildings in the event of Fire ?
Those instructions advise people to evacuate as quickly & calmly as possible .. and not to attempt to tackle a blaze, unless safe to do so .. and specifically, not to re-enter the building for any reason ..
The idea being not to add to the difficulties which will be faced by the Emergency Services by potentially adding to the casualty list ..
a) Receiving prior instruction to ignore anyone needing assistance means that unrepentant MPs will be able to say 'I was only following orders/the rules'.
b) I still think that people would help others - it's a human instinct & most peoples' moral outlook. I think that even politicians would try to help the injured - and even if they weren't being shown risking their necks live on News 24...
c) As others have pointed out, even having to give this instruction indicates the shameful state of security in Parliament. The public view it as an anachronistic members club, and so it appears do the members & employees.
As an afterthought, if an enterprising terrorist group managed to blow up Parliament, would we rebuild it in the same image? Why bother to televise a draughty chamber if every MPs' constituency office could have a mini teleconferencing suite? Maybe tradition demands face to face abuse in the Commons, but why couldn't committees be conducted by teleworking?
"I can't see any of them being heroes, so no worries there!"
Remember the Brighton Hotel bombing?
Mind you, that was quite a different breed of politician to today's crop...
"So basically they are saying that the security the HoC is so bad that when the enevitable happens that its everyone for themselves."
Yes, it does seem to have had the effect of handing over a huge propaganda victory, doesn't it?
"In a way this is hillarious, none of our MPs are able (and trustworthy enough) to be armed properly, and it does not even occur to them to demand it either."
I think the safest place to be, should they ever arm our politicians, is ion front of them!
"If such a thing did happen, I'm pretty sure there would be a ring of people outside chucking the fuckers back in."
Now, THERE'S an idea! :)
"These are not instructions. This is damage limitation in advance for when our politicians behave like jobsworth PCSOs at a drowning party. "
Good point...
"In what way does this instruction fundamentally differ from the standard instructions to employees/users of buildings in the event of Fire ?"
We have specific instructions to assist disabled staff or visitors in our office...
" I still think that people would help others - it's a human instinct & most peoples' moral outlook. "
Indeed. Witness the 7/7 bombing inquest and the stories told by survivors.
"As an afterthought, if an enterprising terrorist group managed to blow up Parliament, would we rebuild it in the same image? "
I'd hope so - it's more than just a nicely-appointed sty, after all, it's part of our history.
*Staff will be alerted to an attack with a tannoy announcement " unless it occurs to the 'terrorists' to cut the wires.
This is all about Security covering their backs and not getting sued for failing to give advice in what to do about the bleedin' obvious.
Official elfinsafety advice to taxi drivers is that, in the event of their passenger collapsing or injuring themselves after they have exited the vehicle, they are to drive away as it is no longer their responsiblity. What a crap country we have become.
and so why are the rest of us being told to fill our offices with disabled people?
From what I can see most of them are never there anyway unless it is to push through some more liberty removing legislation and none of them need advice like this they will be gone the instant they hear the tannoy. Running over women, children, disabled people and those that slow down to help in the British way.
They are a long way from the politicians that were at Brighton, Intellectually and in morals.
"Pakistani terrorists". Hah. Full marks for actually growing a pair of balls and using the word 'terrorist', while the BBC uses 'activist' or 'militant', but 'Pakistani'?! I would suspect that their primary identity is religious, not nationalistic. And what could that religion possibly be?
Anyway, why attack Parliament which is protected by armed police? Their target will be an undefended target with plenty of Jewish civilians, because Western Imperialism forces them to machine gun Jewish children, or something.
Rob is quite right.
I foresaw the Bombay attacks, not the location or timing obviously, but the method. It was a simple prediction that a small party with AKs and a few spare magazines could cause murderous havoc.
At the time I was reflecting that post Hungerford and Dunblane, we are effectively disarmed. It is still a long stretch to see a private shooter stopping a Cumbria or a Bombay, but the chance would be there. Those of us who, properly equipped, could do it are getting fewer and out of practice.
Post a Comment