[HPFGU-OTChatter] Talking of losing perspective ....

[Shaun Hately]

On 27 May 2005 at 3:28, Kathryn wrote:

> I wasn't disagreeing with their mandate so much as their definition of
> threat, which in this case would coincide with most reasonable
> people's definition of joke. Or at least would in the UK, I know you
> Americans are a tad bit more sensitive on these matters, but seriously
> if that were to be the worse thing anyone said about Blair this week
> (hell this hour!) he'd probably consider it to be cause for
> celebration.


The thing is Kathryn, telling the difference between a joke or other 
obvious non-threat, and a real threat can be *very* difficult.

Imagine - it's 1981. You're a Secret Service agent and a report comes 
to you of a man in a bar telling someone that he's going to shoot the 
President because he is in love with Jodie Foster, and he thinks that 
this will mean they can get married.

How seriously would you take that in terms of being a serious threat, 
you really need to worry about?

Probably not that seriously.

Yet, that is why John Hinckley, Jr shot Ronald Reagan in 1981 - and 
came very close to killing him.

Squeaky Fromme went to see Gerald Ford to try and persuade him to do 
something about the environment - and wound up trying to shoot him.

These people basic motivations don't sound like something you need to 
be worried about - and you don't in most cases - but you do need to 
check whether the person is stable or unstable. If they are stable - 
OK, don't worry.

If they are not, then *anything* can set some people off.

Personally, I am glad that they don't take these things that 
seriously where I am - because some of the things I said about our 
Premier when I was at school, might have got me in a lot of trouble.

And I was quite serious about what I was saying.

I did get to give the Prime Minister an electric shock once - that 
was fun (-8

You cannot tell the serious threats apart from the real ones - unless 
you look into them.

And people should be aware that in the UK, SO14 investigates threats 
against Her Majesty and other members of the Royal family, just as 
intensely as the Secret Service investigates threats against the US 
President. There are probably less threats - but they get taken very 
seriously.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/790000/images/_793548_bguard300.jpg

is a photo, I personally find quite interesting - I can remember when 
that happened, back in 1994 in Australia.

The Prince of Wales was speaking at an Australia Day function when a 
man ran at him firing shots.

It really drove home just how seriously security is taken. There was 
really no obvious security presence (and, in fact, in that photo, the 
men you can see in suits are, actually the then Premier of New South 
Wales, and the Australian of the Year for 1994! I don't know who the 
third man is - there was one very active bodyguard, Superintendent 
Colin Trimming, but he's off to the right of that photo putting 
himself between the Prince and the assailant - who, luckily, was 
firing blanks.

Within seconds of this happening (admittedly too late to do anything 
if the gun had been real), the stage was flooded with police and 
military coming in from all sides. The senior police who were on the 
stage as part of the official party also came forward - but they 
weren't there as security.

There's a surprising level around these people sometimes - you just 
often can't see it.


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia