About me
About me

What happened in Birmingham?


Hold up! Before you read on, please read this...

This post was published more than 13 years ago

I keep old posts on the site because I often enjoy reading old content on other people's sites. Not everything that is old is bad. It can be interesting to see how views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured.

But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:

  • My views might very well have changed in the 13 years since I wrote this post. I have written some very silly things over the years, many of which I find pretty embarrassing today.
  • This post might use language in ways which I would now consider highly inappropriate or offensive.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.

Okay. Consider yourself duly warned. Read on...

A very strange story, this one. The centre of Birmingham – almost 20,000 people – evacuated for a night due to a ‘real and very credible threat’. So what was this threat? I can tell you some things it would appear it wasn’t

It would appear not to be a bomb threat. I’m lead to that conclusion from the fact that the police said the threat ‘was specific about the time and also the locations’, so there would be no need to evacuate the whole city centre when the particular locations could just be checked out. Also, the suspicious packages found were said to be ‘incidental’ to the greater alert. The only other bomb theory would be the idea of a suicide bomber – but that doesn’t seem credible when the police evacuated a whole load of people to a confined space at Aston University. So this was no bomb threat.

What other kind of threat could there possibly be that would necessitate this unprecedented level of evacuation? My thoughts turned to some kind of plane-crashing nineleven style attack, but that again seems unlikely, as the most simple thing to do in that situation would be to enact an air exclusion zone all the way around the Birmingham area, and attack anything that breaks that exclusion zone before it gets too close to the city. That’d be a fairly awkward thing to do, but a lot less awkward than evacuating large parts of a city, particularly when the exclusion wouldn’t have to be enacted for too long a time given that the threat was specific about time.

Clearly, the information we’ve been given shows that this attack could not have been relating to anything stationary, such as a bomb, nor any easily moveable threat like a suicide bomber or car bomb. It must be something coming in from outside – since otherwise it would be easy to just clear the specific locations – whose course cannot be changed – since otherwise they could simply attack Aston – and something that would could widespread distruction – otherwise there would be no need to evacuate so large an area.

The only thing my limited imagination can come up with is that this could be some kind of electrical threat. If intelligence on such a threat had already been received over some time, then this would explain why it was the conclusion initially jumped to in the tube bombings. It could also cause widespread destruction – a huge power surge could blow up large parts of a city. The power supplies to specific parts of the city could be affected at specific times. But if someone can cause a credible threat to the city centre using this method, then why not to Aston? It would appear that this is where my theory falls down.

So what could the threat possibly have been? Was the threat actually carried out, and damage simply prevented by the lack of people? Or was it prevented? And why won’t the police tell us anything about the threat or the operation? I suspect there’s something going on here, and perhaps it isn’t over yet…

This 668th post was filed under: News and Comment.

More posts worth reading

What I’ve been reading this month (published 3rd December 2018)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 3rd November 2018)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 6th October 2018)

Printing made easy (published 4th July 2005)

Photo-a-day 88: Sustainability bag (published 28th March 2012)

Photo-a-day 92: Arthur’s Seat (published 1st April 2012)

Sorkin on Bartlet’s lack of swearing (published 29th April 2012)

Comments and responses

Comment from sjhoward (author of the post)

by sjhoward

Comment posted at 13:33 on 10th July 2005.

The police officer in charge has just said “It was not a false threat”. So clearly something happened. Surely can’t be long until it’s leaked.

Comment from sjhoward (author of the post)

by sjhoward

Comment posted at 13:15 on 11th July 2005.

More information has come out on this subject today, indicating that once the evacuation had been completed, a search operation was initiated. So the threat must have been about something which could be found. Which makes it seem a little more like a bomb – perhaps a biological or chemical bomb threat, which would require the evacuation of such a large area, as they wouldn’t want to risk just searching a single location with such a big risk – best to clear a wide perimeter first, before messing with anything like that. So, to me, that now seems the most likely solution to the problem.

Trackback from elsewhere on the site

Trackback received at 11:06 on 2nd July 2006.

This post has been referenced by another on this site:
sjhoward.co.uk » Shrewsbury evacuated

Compose a new comment


You may use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> .

If you would like to display a profile picture beside your comment, sign up for Gravatar, and enter your email address above.

By submitting your comment, you confirm that it conforms to the site's comment policy. Comments are subject to both automatic and human moderation, and may take some time to appear.

The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. This site uses cookies - click here for more information.