Civil Protection Miscellany

The media may be turning on the emergency services.   Slowly the police are becoming the target of criticism for their role in the current crisis.   Today the media is full of comments about the over zealous use of powers by police forces.   The dyeing of lakes, the use of drones and telling shopkeepers not to stock Easter eggs all feature the press today.   Most papers feature the comments by retired Supreme Court Justice Lord Sumption. Lord Sumption's views are his own and debate such is this is a sign of a healthy democracy and I don't think that people should be criticised for expressing responsible opinions (there is another debate about what is 'responsible' of course). My starting point is to support those who are making really difficult decisions on a daily basis. For policing Sumption makes a key point. Police officers enforce the law, they do not enforce government guidance . The emergency regulations are complicated and very forceful. The police service

All organisations need to be able to look beyond the current crisis.   Peering into the post pandemic world is a necessity for public agencies and businesses.   But there is no guarantee that we will get through the current crisis without another coming to test our readiness at a time when the national and international effort is aimed at the coronavirus. This week has seen an earthquake in Croatia and an attempt to derail a high speed passenger train in Germany.   Both incidents could have been worse and would have been had not a few variables fell on the right side of incident/disaster divide.   We also have our daily crises throughout the world: hunger, homelessness and disease.   Add to this the fact that bad people will continue to do bad things even when the country is uniting to confront a present danger.   I was reminded of this a couple of days ago when I saw that somebody in Northern Ireland thought that leaving a hoax device was a good way of distracting the emergency

Tomorrow, 23 rd March 2020, emergency legislation will receive its second reading in the House of Commons.   The Coronavirus Bill 2020 is a big piece of legislation.   It is an impressive piece of work.   Many people must have worked long hours to pull this together in such a short period of time, even taking into account material that has sat in the background waiting for when it was needed (I would guess that this represents only a small proportion of the Bill).   Inevitably it looks like what it is, a rushed job.   Probably the best that could be achieved, but a rushed piece of work nonetheless.   The requirements of various government departments have been stitched together to provide the tools that government believes are necessary to confront the current pandemic. The Bill is an enabling piece of legislation.   It is not known when its various provisions will be used, or indeed if they will be used.   However following on from the Royal Assent one imagines that there will

The news that a man in Germany has been charged with attempted murder after allegedly removing   bolts from 80 metres of high speed railway track in an attempt to de-rail a train, is scary indeed.   Leaving terrorism aside it is hard to understand the motivation behind such incidents, which are not that rare.   Perhaps some research is required. I might use this period of enforced inaction to try and search the literature.   Last year the British Transport Police reported 624 cases of railway obstruction or endangerment.   Most of these cases are not on the scale of the incident in Germany, but the science behind railway safety is complex.   A small obstruction, let alone damage to the line of route, can result in disaster.   Crime committed against the railway line of route is often regarded by the public as minor.   Public confidence in the safety of the network is based on a protective ignorance of what can happen when people seek to use the system as an attack vector or even wh

I have received quite a lot of interest in the discussion around using volunteers and recalling recently retired staff.   In response I would make a couple of suggestions – largely aimed at the emergency services. There are distinct areas of need within an organisation and no way of knowing who will be available and who will be afflicted.   For convenience I would suggest that organisations concentrate on the point of delivery and on the command tier. Increasing availability at the point of delivery is not easy but solutions need to be considered before the peak of the contagion is reached.   It is hard because delivery requires the most up to date skills, certifications and fitness – the later not being the universal hallmark of the retired.   Ex staff need to be approached, assessed and brought back into the organisation.   They could be paid a retainer and left until they are needed but it would be better if they got used to the workplace and used the time for training and ref

I was shocked the other day to be told by an emergency planner   that there was no point planning or thinking about anything other than Covid19 at the moment and that if anything else happened ‘we’ would have to ‘muddle along as best we can’.   Of course at one level that is what we all do, all of the time, but I had rather hoped for more from an organisation that is supposed to have expertise in planning for, and responding to emergencies.   Just because one thing has gone wrong (even a pretty big thing like a pandemic) it doesn’t mean that nothing else will happen.   It doesn’t mean that if you prepare properly that can’t optimise your response to a second or third incident.   Tomorrow there could be another Grenfell Tower, or a Ladbroke Grove or a 7/7 and it is our responsibility to be as ready as we can be in the prevailing circumstances.   Finger crossing is not a strategy.   There is nothing surprising about the current situation.   Pandemics have sat at the top of the Nation

The Use of Retired Staff in Times of National Crisis I have been following the debate around the suggestion that NHS staff could be asked to come back from retirement. I have no expertise. Especially not when it comes to the complex world of health, but I have previously been involved in discussions on this subject elsewhere.  The retired have a lot to give. They have experience, skills and, often, time. The Home Guard and the ARP during the last war were largely staffed by pensioners. Unfortunately we see their efforts largely through the prism provided by the fantastic sit com Dad’s Army. The truth is these organisations of community volunteers (together with the WVS etc) made a huge contribution when the country faced it biggest challenge. A lesson that should not be forgotten. I expect that many agencies, particularly in the public and charity sectors, have considered this option in their planning for disasters. The key issue is that this is only viable if it is planne