Update: St George's Bomb Scare

This time last week, skribe and I were scouring the net for info on the bomb hoax on St George's Terrace. After all, we were there, trapped in traffic, and unable to glean anything useful from the cops. When we got home, we found no mention of it anywhere.

Clearly, we had imagined the barricades, traffic gridlock, and circling news helicopters.

Last night, we finally learned what'd happened (thanks to Milchfrommler's other half): some street derelict had shuffled into the Commonwealth Bank, dumped a bag that he claimed contained a bomb, and shuffled out again.

Security forces had to follow procedure, which meant evacuating the building, blocking off the streets, and ordering the media to report none of it.

Absolutely none of it. See, reports of one bomb hoax could inspire a whole photocopier of bomb hoaxes. Bomb hoaxers, like streakers, are not to be acknowledged by the media in any way. One news story about the effects of a bomb hoax would be seen as encouragement.

Although it is a tad difficult to look the other way and chat inconsequentially about seagulls when you've bloody closed off half of St George's Terrace just before the start of rush hour.

The best the media could do was say the police had had to cordon off part of St George's, and that you might want to find a different route home.

And the media will go along with this, because frankly, they need the cops on side, or they lose access to crime alerts and stories.

Channel 9 was the only news to mention the bomb scare, and have since got into trouble because of it. (Frankly, Channel 9 don't get dragged into the law courts often enough for my liking, but that's a seperate issue).

So, were the authorities right to impose a media blackout? Everybody on the streets knew it was a bomb scare, and their biggest concern was how they were going to get to the other side of the city. Was anyone panicked? No. Bemused, certainly. Mildly put out, yes. Some, particularly the news camera operators, were bored out of their minds.

Were the media right to accede to the cops? I guess it depends on whether they believed it was in the public good to keep the public ignorant, or whether their motives were entirely self-serving. Those helicopters cost money flying around, and there was no story at the end of the day to justify the expense. How did they explain this to their shareholders?

Given the circumstances, did the authorities over-react? Probably, but they were following procedure, and did nothing wrong in that regard. This is the reality of life today.

And Howard wants to give them the right to shoot-to-kill? The police do a difficult enough job as is. Why make their lives harder? Why make our lives more fraught? For what?

Political point-scoring, that's what. In a long-forgotten time of common sense and plain human decency, a security guard would have checked the abandoned bag, ascertained that it was harmless, and tossed it out. End of story. Actually, in that mythical age of common sense and plain human decency, we would have kept our mentally ill in functioning psychiatric hospitals instead of forcing them out onto the streets to fend for themselves.

Maybe Howard's shoot-to-kill policy is really just his solution for all the insane homeless wandering our cities today, fighting incomprehensible battles inside their heads, and unknowingly disrupting our lives.

Okay, rant ends now. I just hope by the time Bub arrives, the world will be a more sensible place again.