Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Reactions to the London Attack, Helpful and Unhelpful
Jon, I was prompted to write this when I saw your post this morning.
I spent the day yesterday with two friends who were visiting from London. They live quite close to London Bridge. One used to be a Ricochet member. Both were, until recently, solid Atlanticists — and still are — but they’re both offended beyond words by the tone of hostility and contempt for Britain that’s oozing, non-stop, out of the US these days, starting with the President, and echoed by many Americans on social media. I don’t blame them for being offended.
“Instructing Londoners to run, hide, and tell,” Jon writes, “is a dramatic departure from the can-do, stiff-upper-lip, globe-striding empire of a century ago.”
Actually, it’s not.
This guidance has been in place since 2014. It’s not a dramatic departure from anything, although it is a response to studying hundreds of similar situations around the world, including many in the United States. You’ll note that Britons are being told, explicitly, not to surrender or negotiate. The reason they’re emphasizing the seemingly obvious — run — is that we now, unfortunately, have a lot of evidence about how civilians (everywhere) behave during terrorist attacks and other emergencies. Some small percentage of them do behave as we all like to fantasize we would: They become superheroes who defeat the terrorists using any implement available. Unfortunately, in reality, many people don’t do that. They freeze.
“Freezing” seems to be something like a biologic default. It’s a cross-cultural reaction to fear. So people do in fact need to be told, specifically, not to obey that instinct. They need to be warned that their first response may be to deny what’s happening, or be confused by it, and freeze. They need to hear (often, repetitively) that this is not the reaction most likely to result in their survival.
This is why we get a lot of seemingly-obvious warnings about what to do and not do in other kinds of emergencies — e.g., “If you need to evacuate this plane, do not stop to get your luggage.” The reason we hear that all the time isn’t because the airline officials condescendingly suspect we might be idiots. It’s because they know we are. There’s evidence, and a lot of it, that a significant number of people will try to get their luggage, even though every second matters when you’re trying to evacuate a smoke-filled plane, and even though people who try to get their luggage put everyone behind them in mortal danger. And yes, this happens in the US as well as the UK. An NTSB study found that 50 percent — yes, 50 percent — of the passengers in emergency evacuations tried to take their bags. Now, why would they do such a stupid thing? Because most people have no experience of situations like this, and most people don’t respond heroically — or rationally — to them, unless they’ve had a lot of training. No matter what you think you would do, the reality is that in emergencies, many people do dumb things, and unless you’ve been in the situation yourself, you don’t know for sure you wouldn’t be one of them.
“Run, Hide, Fight” is standard protocol for active-shooter situations in the US, too. Are Americans wimps because we, too, need to be told to run and hide? Ah, but you say, part of the advice we get is to fight. Well, no one is telling the British not to fight: And indeed, they fought — they fought back with everything they had on hand: chairs, pint glasses, bottles, discarded bicycle parts. They’ve emphasized “Tell” over “Fight” because that actually makes a lot of sense if you’re living a country where the cops are armed and the terrorists aren’t, and it makes even more sense if the cops are able to get there and kill all of the terrorists within eight minutes. That is, by the way, an impressive achievement, and the appropriate reaction from allies to that news is, “Well done,” not “You remind us of Neville Chamberlain.”
Larry Barton, an American researcher at the University of Central Florida, is the highest-rated instructor at the FBI Academy and US Marshals Service. His research supports both the “run” advice and the giving of the advice. He analyzed 61 deadly assaults in public places from 2006 to 2016 — mostly in the United States. Among those who survived, 73 percent did so by running. Those who ran wound up with no no injuries or only moderate injuries, e.g., a sprained ankle. Of those who survived by hiding — 20 percent — a third were more seriously injured. “Running” is generally the best strategy. It is not always and everywhere the best strategy; there is no such thing as a universally successful solution. But it’s statistically likely to be the best strategy. A highly pro-Second Amendment group, The Truth About Guns, ran simulations of the Charlie Hebdo attack, for example, in which one or more of the civilians were armed. The civilians “died” in every scenario except immediate flight from the scene. So overall, based on evidence, the responsible advice to give the public — whether it’s armed or not — is “run.”
When Americans respond to an event like this by insinuating that the victims of the attack are wimps, or that they would have performed better under the same circumstances, it — unsurprisingly — offends the victims. It offends them terribly, in fact. And pointlessly. As one of the friends who was visiting me yesterday wrote on my Facebook page (in response to an offensive comment to this effect):
Before you sneer at us, may I remind you that the UK has the longest continuous experience of terrorism on its soil of any western country, and the greatest expertise in stopping it. Yes, we have had far too many terrorist incidents, but they are a drop in the ocean compared with the myriad plots that have been foiled. I think it’s fair to say the 9/11 plot would probably have been detected here. A little respect for us might be in order, too.
I agree. A lot more respect might be in order.
Many Americans believe the British were offended that Obama moved a bust of Churchill. Obama denied that it had been moved. Whether or not it was moved, I’ve never spoken personally to anyone in Britain who was offended by this story. Many have never even heard it. But everyone I know in Britain — and remember, I lived there for seven years, so I do know many people there, and I stay in contact with quite a few of them — is wildly offended by this kind of sneering. It causes real harm to our relationship with the people of Britain. What we say, in fact, on social media and other public fora, causes more offense than anything our politicians say: A politician’s comments can be dismissed, by people with a generous nature, as unrepresentative of the American character. But when ordinary Americans use social media to sneer at our allies, it really leaves a bad taste — and let’s not pretend we would not feel precisely the same way were the situation reversed. We would.
More than 220,000 British personnel have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to Ministry of Defence figures, 456 Britons have died in Afghanistan. More than 7,300 have been treated for battlefield injuries, non-combat wounds, or disease related to their service. In Iraq, 179 British service personnel were killed. Some 5,800 were treated in field hospitals. This is a heavy toll. Britain wasn’t attacked on September 11. We were. They are in Afghanistan because we asked them to be. They entered war in Iraq because we asked them to. They did so despite believing it would increase the risk of terrorism on British soil. They did it because they are our allies.
When in response they hear sneering contempt from Americans to the effect that they’re sheeplike, cowardly wusses reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain — illustrated by wartime enlistment posters, clearly meant to suggest that Britons no longer enlist — they respond exactly as Americans would were the situation reversed. They did enlist, and do enlist, and they have been fighting, by our side, since September 11. Here are photographs of British men (and a woman) who died in 2010 in Afghanistan. In this link, you can see more photos of the British men and women who’ve died in every year of that war since it began.
So why would an American, in the wake of an attack on British soil, taunt the British for failing to enlist? Every one of the men above died because they took seriously the promise that an attack on any one of us would be an attack on all of us. Is taunting the British for being “sheeplike” and unwilling to enlist in the fight the right way to show our respect to their families?
Jon posted a photo of the famous “Keep calm and carry on” poster, intimating that the Britain of calm, dignity, and resilience is dead, replaced by a bunch of cowering ninnies. As it happens, that poster — precisely — has been widely circulating on British Twitter in the wake of the attack. But I suspect that if it were a new poster, Americans would be mocking the British for urging calm and normalcy. Our president would be Tweeting, ‘At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and the British are saying, “Keep calm and carry on!”‘
President Trump’s tweets caused grave offense. You may think the offense misplaced, but I can promise you they did cause offense, and I don’t find that offense at all hard to understand. What on earth would possess him to use an occasion like this to criticize the Mayor of London? Jennifer Rubin’s description of this is accurate:
After receiving blowback for that obnoxious missive, he tweeted out, “Whatever the United States can do to help out in London and the U. K., we will be there – WE ARE WITH YOU. GOD BLESS!” But then he decided to slam the mayor of the city attacked, who had calmly warned his fellow Londoners: “Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. There’s no reason to be alarmed.” Trump took the second part out of context and responded viciously, “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’” (The mayor, of course, was telling them not to be alarmed by the heightened police presence.) Trump was not done, however, inanely tweeting, “Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That’s because they used knives and a truck!”
The offense caused by this kind of boorishness has real consequences — for us. It’s insane, right before a British general election, to hand ammunition to a politician like Jeremy Corbyn. But that’s exactly what this kind of behavior from Americans does. It puts defenders of the Anglo-American alliance in a terrible position. And this time, the people who are offended aren’t the usual suspects — they’re not British leftists who have always hated Americans and always will. We’re offending people who have always considered Americans their closest allies. And it isn’t because they’re delicate snowflakes, either. It’s because we’re being offensive. The tone of contempt from Americans, above all, is one no amount of rational argument can counter. If American voters didn’t care for being called “deplorable,” how do you imagine British voters feel about being called cowardly, sheeplike, and a disgrace to their heritage?
The UK has committed 1,250 military personnel to the fight against ISIS. Apart from us, the Royal Air Force has conducted more airstrikes in Iraq and Syria than any other Coalition country. It provides intelligence and surveillance to Iraqi Security Forces. It’s trained 39,000 Iraqi soldiers in engineering, medical skills, and infantry. In Syria, UK armed forces are training Syrian opposition groups in infantry, emergency medicine, and explosive disposal. How does undermining this alliance help us?
Why would we mock the British in the wake of a terrorist attack that killed seven innocent people on their soil? We know what it means to be the victims of terrorism. Why would we spit on our friends? What do we get out of it?
My answer: We get nothing out of it. So I suggest we not do it. It’s not in our interests to harm the friendship between the United States and Britain. And more importantly, it’s just not decent.
Published in General
“oversexed, overpaid, overfed and over here.”
Claire is an intelligent and thoughtful writer but spends too much time in Europe and Asia Minor to be anything but tone-deaf to American concerns. This illustrates that.
The British (now 5% muslim) have gone out of their way to undercut Western civilization and to give it away to the muslim mob. So have the French (8%).
So when we here on the west side of the Atlantic, who twice saved said Frenchies and Brits from totalitarianism, condemn them for their cowardice and for opening the floodgates to those who would destroy our culture, it is understandable.
Europe is a lost cause (Germany and Sweden 5%, Netherlands 6%, Denmark, Italy and Spain 4%), and will be part of the islamic world by the end of this century. I just hope it’s not too late for the US (1%).
Just as there is in the US, there is a wide variety of perspective and opinion on this subject in the UK. It is exemplified by my siblings, who could hardly be further apart on the issue. It little profits any of us to pretend that everyone’s in lockstep, one way or the other.
As for what’s next, perhaps this is a hopeful sign. Not perfect, just hopeful. The fact that it’s being said so tentatively, this late in the game, is a crying shame, though.
PS: @claire, I think it’s incredibly insulting, foolish and, one might even say, tempting of Fate, for one of your friends to write “I think it’s fair to say the 9/11 plot would probably have been detected [in the UK.]” It is, actually, neither fair, nor wise, to say that. Talk about unhelpful rhetoric. Particularly when one of the headlines, and main stories of the day is this.
Claire, there’s much sense in what you say. We shouldn’t sneer at the Brits. I doubt most doing the sneering think they are directing it to the people, but rather to their (and our) politicians and their supine response to these events.
I think the willful blindness of elites (“Islam is a religion of peace” etc.) is pushing the hoi polloi to more extreme positions (“No Muslim immigrants!”) than they would naturally take otherwise.
Ah, this seems to be where that comes from. (I saw someone else say the same thing, but couldn’t find anything like this in any other account of what happened, which is why I thought it was an unconfirmed rumor.) Apparently there is a source for this, so I owe that person an apology.
I assume that there’s extensive footage of all of this — London has the most surveillance cameras per square inch of every city in the world — so we’ll be able to see exactly what happened. If this is what happened, then yes, it supports the idea that the community police officers should have been armed.
Yes, it did. It won’t happen again; the police are now — everywhere — highly armed. (Actually, I don’t know that this is true outside of Paris; it may not be true in rural areas. But certainly in Paris, the police and the military are packing a lot of heat, and visible everywhere.)
Our leaders should fight for us. This could be ended in a fortnight, a month at most.
Close the terrorists’ mosques, raze them, sow the lots with salt
Expel any of their family who are not British citizens and detain the rest brusquely and repeatedly for questioning. Ditto for their imans.
Destroy their ancestral home towns in Libya, Pakistan or wherever with terror from the air.
And close the borders.
This would require politicians who have the courage and stones to recognize that we are in a war with islam and have been for a millenium. Why have weapons if we will not use them in our own defense?
I remember getting a cab in some village in France some years ago. I knew what the rate for the ride should be, but when I arrived at my destination, the cab driver charged me double. I was very, very upset. I admit that my Yankee pride got a little bruised as I felt the dude was taking advantage of me, and I was absolutely having none of it.
Unfortunately, I speak very little French, and that cab driver spoke less English. There was me jumping up and down like Rumplestilsklin and the cab driver getting equally heated and pointing up to the sky.
Was he mocking my religion, too???
Ultimately, I practically threw the notes he wanted at him so I could repossess my suitcase and stomp off muttering about a grandfather who had liberated Paris.
Well, then I was with French friends. Turned out in that village the cab rates doubled at dusk… just when my trip ended.
That’s why the guy was pointing up.
We simply did not understand each other.
I think that happens a lot when it comes to Americans and Europeans.
It was a good lesson for me, and I’ve hoped ever since the guy thought I was Canadian.
So what you’re saying is that the primary reason for the sneering was something you totally missed.
I don’t know anyone who thinks random, unarmed passersby are at fault for running. The whole point of the sneering was that even the cops were disarmed and even they ran away.
Perhaps you should rethink your entire article attacking sensible thinkers in light of knowing the public facts of the subject. Very sloppy.
Blaming the actual evildoers leads down the unacceptable path of profiling, anti-immigration, and (perhaps most importantly) offending Arabs and Muslims with whom Brits have cheerfully and quietly done very profitable business for a very long time. The Brits have absolutely no desire to anger Middle Easterners, so much so that expensive cars that might be owned by rich Arabs are “whitelisted” by meter maids in London.
So if they cannot blame Arabs or Muslims, who should they blame? Why, the messengers, of course. America makes a fine target, and one that won’t do the UK any harm in the event of some sound and fury.
The point, Skyler, is partly about tone. When you want a friend to hear constructive criticism, you don’t say, “You’re a stupid head because…”
That feels a lot to the Brits like all the “constructive” criticism Europeans have doled out to Americans over the years about how we get our own house in order.
In both cases, the big response is… Don’t you have your own problems?
At least that’s what I think.
How Brits feel about what happened in London itself, how they should confront terrorism or radicalized Muslims, or even if more guns should be given to their police force are separate issues.
I agree entirely that there are lots of divergent opinions to be found on those fronts, and those debates are being had, I think, in the UK itself.
It’s not about the bravery of the soldiers. Soldiers do things that I stand in awe of.
It’s about empowering the bravery of the citizenry. It’s about realizing that the people we call “first responders” (cops, paramedics, et al) are actually second responders, because the first response to such attacks will always, ALWAYS be from the intended victims.
What will the next attackers see, when they jump of their trucks after mowing people down? Targets of opportunity, or will they themselves be the target of people willing (and able) to end their carnage right at that moment?
In “1984”, Orwell talks about how the ultimate goal of Newspeak is to change the language and the culture so that the very idea of rebelling against the state is removed from people’s mind altogether. Britain (and indeed, all of Europe) has spent the last 50 years removing the idea that the populace can and should be in charge of their own security: The state is there to take care of you. Soldiers and police stand ready to do violence for you, you don’t need to worry about defending your life, that’s what we’re here for.
But what if that doesn’t work? What happens when we face a threat like this, which is designed to inflict as much violence on an unaware, unarmed and cowering populace so quickly and so brutally, the horror is accomplished before the call goes out to central dispatch? It took eight minutes for UNARMED policemen to show up at the vehicle ramming / stabbing death of Fusilier Lee Rigby, and the armed cops who took out the attackers showed up fifteen minutes after the attack.
Fun fact: The human body usually bleeds out from a cut to a major artery in around 3 minutes, and it’s a matter of policy for paramedics not to treat the victims at the scene until it’s first been secured by the cops (Medics don’t like to get shot at. Go figure.).
My friend Erin Palette of Operation Blazing Sword said it better than just about anyone I know: Concealed carry is a herd immunity against crime. Want fewer victims of horrific terror attacks? Stop encouraging a culture of victimhood.
A brave man.
I’m not at all surprised that a rugby player would try to stand his ground. I remember one of the men on the plane that crashed in PA was also a rugby player, though an American. I’ll pray for the police officer.
When Reagan was President, West Germans protested our nukes put in place to protect them. I remember that happening, and you cannot tell me there is something “new” going on. America was willing to be burnt to ash to defend Europe from the USSR. Not only were they not grateful, they were hateful about it. I have spent a lifetime seeing people on TV, in the media in Europe, in magazines, telling me how sorry I am as an America. This is not new. This has been ongoing and constant.
How is it possible I just happened to have bad luck, and you have spent years and had no problems at all? I do not buy that I “just happened” to run into rude people, anymore than I believe the client who claims the only two times he drove drunk were the two times he “just happened” to get a DUI. Life does not work that way. For someone to feel compelled to lecture me on both trips, 4 years apart, says something. And this was in the 2000’s. Maybe since you live there you don’t get the “tourist treatment”.
The bulk of the sneering is being done by Americans? I am sorry, Clarie, but that is not the case. The anti-American sentiment is ongoing and constant. Maybe you should come live in the states for a bit an see. All we get from Europe in the US is how bad we are. I am willing to wager that might be a distorted picture since we are not on the ground, but it is what we see. My own trips on the ground did not offer significantly different data, but those trips were not months long.
At some point, self-control runs out. There are studies to show we only have so much. After a lifetime of being told I am a “dumb American” I am done being nice about it. Not sneering has done zero to improve the situation. How long should any of us tolerate it? Forever? Just smile and nod, and say “well, those Europeans, you know how they are.”?
I am going to put the “why” back at you: Why do they sneer constantly at their closest friends? Why do they sneer at the nation who three times in the 20th Century saved them from tyranny? Why are we, who even in the shadow of the USSR, were portrayed as the universal bad guy?
I can tell you why I sometimes give in to sneering at Europe: Because it feels good. Because I am human in this fallen world. Because when you keep getting kicked, you want to kick back.
I’m not so sure. You think the city of London will release footage showing it’s police running away?
I’ve traveled to Europe many, many times and lived in both the UK and Germany. There are some people who have a real problem with Americans and who aren’t quiet about it, but Claire is correct when saying that’s the minority.
Think about it this way.
Are you from the South, per chance? I am. I can’t tell you how many times my region of the country has been portrayed by other Americans as backwards, racist, stupid, whatever. The media concentrate on Honey Boo Boo. If there’s one asshat marching around in a town while yelling out racial epithets, that’s the guy who is supposed to stand for all of Georgia.
If you asked someone from New England why they think all Southerners are backwards, racist, stupid, whatever, they will say, “Well, that’s what I see when I look at the South. Plus when I drove down I-95 on my way to Disney World, I had the worst experience. Do you know how many Confederate flags I saw? Horrible, horrible people…”
Don’t believe that the segments you see highlighted per protests or whatever are truly representative.
Many, many Europeans like Americans.
However, I should also point out, if you tell a Brit that the US “rescued” them from WWII when they were the only country standing against Hitler for a very long time, then… Someone will get a bit upset.
Claire, I wasn’t sneering at anyone. There have been reports since the beginning that there was significant resistance from those who were there. If you see someone walk into a crowded place with something that looks like a bomb and he draws a knife and starts stabbing people, there may well be a reason for that. I would tend to choose ‘fight’ over ‘flight’ because I don’t run very fast.
We received much the same advice in a training session at one of my employers. They also mentioned, as part of the ‘hide’ advice, to try to obtain some kind of weapon for self-defense. If you get to close-quarters, perhaps you can turn a gunfight into a knife fight.
Trump has never learned enough self-control to be allowed a Twitter account.
@claire, First, allow me to apply @kevincreighton‘s generalization to the particular link you cited. The defenders did die, but the tests showed they bought time for others to flee.
Second, those particular tests were close to a best case scenario for the terrorists. The terrorists were highly trained and armed. The defenders were not. The story mentions a prior school shooter simulation they did against untrained shooters where the defenders came out on top.
Thus, if an unarmed @claire is in a restaurant/office/etc. that is attacked by highly trained attackers or idiots, you should flee, but your chances of successfully fleeing are increased if someone else there is armed.
Some will always be inclined to take anything Trump says in the worst possible light. Sometimes Trump makes it easier than it should be to do that. However, in the larger picture, Trump is working harder, along with his team of Mattis and Kelly to take the fight to Isis in Iraq and Syria. His visit to the Arab summit seemed to have positive results even though his language was as blunt to their faces as his tweets are to his base.
What the west has been doing to fight these disgustingly cowardly acts by Islamic terrorists against innocent people has not worked. Admitting millions of Muslims into our countries while being fully aware that over 25% believe in Sharia law and would like to have it supercede our own legal systems is simply suicidal.
So far the perps of this last tragic act in London have not been identified. Any bets on who they may be and why they did this? How about a change of tactics after the act has been performed and they have been identified? Would it help stifle this lunacy if we rounded up all remaining family members (it has been shown that they nearly always are aware of what was happening) and deport them. Let it be known that if you terrorize us, your family will suffer consequences. If the West doesn’t toughen up, it is us whose hearts and minds will have been changed, not the Islamists.
I think there’s a very good chance of an open inquiry, yes. I don’t say I think the chances are 100 percent — just yesterday one of the friends in question was telling me a story about police malfeasance that was covered up with the aid of the police union, although the moral of the story was that the truth did come out in a second investigation. But given that everyone knows that every bit of this will have been filmed, I think it would be extremely hard to get away with any kind of cover-up.
That is completely reasonable.
That said, (I think) the gun debate must be had by the British themselves. It’s very hard for Americans to understand–at least it was hard for me–but they have a very, very different viewpoint on arms.
Incidentally, I have it on good authority that off-duty police officers in Paris are now being asked/required to carry. Good idea. Hope the same is true for British cops.
Claire, I think that at least some of what sounds like sneering is displaced anxiety; it’s normal and human to hear a story about an attack and think “well, in that situation, I’d do X and survive or even win!” It’s healthy: mentally rehearsing a response does count as a kind of training, which is why those RUN/HIDE/TELL posters are distributed ahead of time.
At the same time, of course, it is deeply irritating and even hurtful to those who are actually going through it. I have reason to know an unusual number of victims of violent or traumatic events and to train others to interact with survivors. Lesson number one? “You weren’t there.”
In addition, though, there is also frustration that people we identify with and care about—Brits, in this case—are being subjected to such horrifying crimes. We want them to be protected, and we believe (with some justification) that they aren’t being protected and are not being taught/empowered to protect themselves.
Having said all of that, there is a third (or maybe I’m up to a fourth?) layer to the broader discussion. It’s not just “how should a given person protect herself when threatened” for which RUN/HIDE/TELL might well be the best advice. It’s how can terrorism of this kind be defeated?
This is what I took from Jon’s post: that during WW2, a sixty-five year old guy was encouraged to see himself as part of the defense against a German invasion. Ordinary Brits could, now, similarly be encouraged to see themselves as part of the fight against Islamic terrorism. A counter-attack with bottles and chairs is not just about fending off these particular terrorists, but also about discouraging the next gang of wanna-be martyrs.
This —the defeat of those who stab women and bomb little girls —is worth dying and killing for.
I actually think there’s a much larger problem within conventional liberalism itself which holds that Islam is by-and-large benign, and only provocation from jingoistic westerners and racists causes these outbursts of violence.
Of course those assessments rely upon those who gravely nod at such pronouncements being ignorant of the astounding levels of violence within most Muslim majority nations and the astonishingly backwards ideas held in the majority of Muslim minds, as revealed by the Pew survey.
I don’t want to diminish the standing of the Troubles. I’m merely pointing out that Sinn Fein and most of the IRA are boy scouts compared to these home grown jihadists. And that’s saying something.
Admittedly, my number here is a combination of guesstimate and constructive hyperbole. My suspicion is that the politicians have a strong incentive to put a happy face on this number because they don’t want to stoke a panic or lend the impression that the situation is out of control (pro tip: the horse is out of the barn.) This is probably pretty close to the number of pawns that the jihadists have. Their extended network likely reaches out to at least two more people per jihadist. The percentage of Muslims who desire Islamic supremacy over Western institutions also indicates that it isn’t a bad guess or even unlikely.
Obviously. But the issue is that bien pensant leftist and cult Marx concerns like “racism” and “Islamophobia” allowed the situation to fester and grow out of control for years. It’s a thing that we see playing itself out all over Europe where women won’t report rape for fear of being labeled racists.
Imagine the treatment a western institution like a church would have received in a similar situation.
People are dead and the concern is over the feels of continental Europeans? Really? Tweets are by and large irrelevant, and a thing whose impact is limited to a relatively tiny number of journalists and masochists. Twitter is going broke and sooner or later won’t even be around in its current form. How will people hashtag warrior themselves then?
I do think that it’s also worth pointing out again that London really is a city in which pretty much every public inch in areas with tourists have cameras recording all the time. I mean, I know that’s been said, but I think it’s hard for Americans who have not been there to know the true level of the recording. It used to freak. me. out. This is not about a gas station having a fuzzy picture above the cash register. Like… every inch of pavement you walk… you’re on camera.
Oh Bryan….it takes a special talent to prompt a French waiter to dismiss tipping as a bad thing.
Frankly I’m terrified of you coming to Australia (forget about India)…what would you make those surfers say? I can’t bear to think of it.
Just one more point about this. It seems as if there’s much more terrorism now than there was before. But it’s in fact declined. The perception that terrorism is rising sharply is a function of wall-to-wall media coverage, not statistics:
I suspect the numbers will rise again as ISIS is wiped out in Syria and Iraq. We’re in for a bad decade. But unless they get their hands on WMD — a possibility I don’t at all rule out, but it isn’t so easy to do that — I don’t think it’s apt to be worse than the 1970s, which were just God-awful.