When I read a BBC News article that was sent into us by a Medic oppo, questioning as to why there were “only” three paramedics initially at the Manchester Arena following the disgusting, vile, evil and cowardly attack by the terrorist Salman Abedi, it annoyed me. And here’s why:
The article in question seems to try and convey to the public, the impression that this initial response to tragic events such as these was a ‘standard’ one, but without first giving due regard or consideration to the rationale for not immediately sending all of our brave emergency services First Responders directly into the blast zone.
The same article mentions about the fact that the emergency services were initially sent to a nearby Rendezvous Point (RVP), but without adding any comment in relation to why this practice is sometimes utilised during major incidents and suspected terror attacks. When really, this information is something that the journalist who wrote the article ought to have known about/found out.
Before I continue, I feel that it is important to mention that I was a Police Officer on shift in an inner-London Borough shortly after the disgusting, vile and evil cowards detonated their bombs on the London Underground/Buses on 7/7. On that day, I was posted to my (then) Boroughs “bomb car” (which had the task of responding to ‘suspect package’ calls etc).
My oppos and I, had to drive to incidents where members of the public were reporting suspect packages/devices in the aftermath of the evil terror attacks.
Ordinarily, if we felt that a package was a ‘suspect’ one, then we would have to call out specialist teams in order to come and investigate the suspicious item(s). But on that day, we had to carry out our own ‘physical’ inspections of the suspect packages, as resources were understandably stretched.
In reality, the media do not seem to understand how the emergency services work and how they respond to critical incidents and why they do so in the manner in which they often do. But it does not take a great deal of delving to find this sort of information out. That is, of course, if they can be bothered to do so.
When there is a major incident, there will normally be an RVP that is set up near to the incident location. Why? because, especially when it comes to suspected terror attacks, the emergency services need to, as far as is reasonably possible & practical, be sure that there are no further devices or no additional disgusting, vile, evil and cowardly terrorists lurking in the shadows ready to murder in cold blood the brave men and women who will put their lives on the line, to try and save the lives of others.
Because if the emergency services, the first responders, are attacked, then who is going to render the assistance necessary? Beyond the emergency services, there are not any other Agencies who can offer immediate help (unless, of course, since I have left the emergency services, there is a secret band of heroic journalists who have undergone emergency life-saving first aid/counter terrorist/HAZMAT training who can be deployed at a moments notice if the emergency services ‘cannot make it’).
So clearly, it makes sense not to send the emergency services directly to the incident without first gaining an understanding of what is actually going on, what the threat is, and where the threat is. This can, unfortunately, take time.
Of course, this situation isn’t always the case. As we saw recently in London, our colleagues in the Met Police went straight to the scene of the terror attack that was unfolding in Borough Market, and eliminated the vermin who were running around with knives.
It should also be kept in mind, that the emergency services often do want to go directly to the scene, but are not able to do so. When we join the emergency services, it is because we want to help others. So our instinct is to do all that we can to do just that.
I can imagine that my oppos who responded to the Manchester Arena attack, were extremely distressed to have to wait at an RVP before being sent directly to the scene. When you are in the emergency services, your instinct is to go straight to the danger, rather than wait at an RVP. But with terrorism, you cannot always go straight to the incident location.
But can you imagine what would happen, if the emergency services had of gone directly to the scene, and there was an evil-obsessed child of Satan waiting there with an AK-47 ready to mow down the emergency services? The very same media who berate the emergency services for convening at an RVP prior to deploying to the scene of a terror attack, would be criticising the emergency services for not carrying out some sort of ‘dynamic risk assessment’.
The emergency services seem to be a popular punching bag for various news agencies, and it has to stop. Owing to a debilitating obsession with Political Correctness, most bosses in the emergency services cannot really speak their minds.
So this leaves the emergency services open to the ‘sniping’ that often comes from the usual suspects from within the National Press. The emergency services becomes an ‘easy target’ to berate, because they cannot (officially) stick up for themselves, owing to the constant bowing down to the pressure of the Politically Correct Brigade.
But why don’t the same people who are quick to criticise the emergency services (without having EVER served on the front line of the emergency services) instead channel their frustration into helping to PREVENT further attacks, rather than bashing the people who respond to these attacks?
Why don’t they highlight the truly amazing & thankless work of our Security Services, such as MI5, MI6, GCHQ and SO15 who are dedicating their lives to try and keep us all safe from the evil that lurks just around the corner. Most people will have no idea of the sacrifices made by the men and women of the security services.
We should all come together and expose, hunt down and bring to justice the evil and twisted souls whom think that murdering in cold blood, will somehow earn them a fast-track ticket to Paradise. How utterly deluded such ‘lieforms’ truly are.
Personally, I think that the public have more of an appetite for hunting the evil that dwells amongst us, rather than critiquing how our emergency services react to such heinous acts of pure evil.
Don’t get me wrong, if ever I read a related article that I know has been written by someone who has actually served in the emergency services, then I will always listen intently to what has been written.
But reading articles that criticise the emergency services which have been written by individuals who have never served on the front line? that just pi**es me off.
Of course we are all entitled to express our feelings. But I personally would find it hard to motivate myself to criticise the brave men and women who serve in the emergency services, unless I had of actually had the balls myself to sign up. But then, that’s just me….
Written by a regular contributor to S__ts & Giggles, our fortnightly satirical eMagazine. Sign up by clicking here —>
Before you go...
WE NEED YOUR HELP. As former emergency services & armed forces personnel, we pride ourselves on bringing you important, fast-moving and breaking news stories & videos which are free from the negative 'anti' bias which is often directed at the emergency services & NHS by some sections of the mainstream media.
One of the reasons we started 'Emergency Services News' back in 2018 was because we became tired of reading badly informed stories about the emergency services.
We want to be the unheard voice of the remarkable men and women who serve in the emergency services, NHS and armed forces. And with around 500k page views each month, we are getting there!
As income from ads, the mainstay source of income for most publishers, continues to decline; we need the help of you, our readers.
You can support emergency services news from as little as £1. It only takes a minute. Every contribution, however big or small, is vital for our future.
Please help us to continue to highlight the life-saving work of the emergency services, NHS and armed forces by becoming a supporter.