Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

7/7 bombings one year on

Page: (1)2

09:21 / 07.07.06

One year on since we did the Barbelith head count- and a real reason to be thankful for this geeky interweb timewaster.

The tube was very quiet this morning and for the first time in just under a year armed police were very much a presence at my station (Finsbury Park).

My habits on riding the tube have changed very slightly. I try not to ride before 9am in order to miss the really really busy time- also in the vague hope that i'll miss a bomb, as i did by chance last year. I used to leave my house at around 8.40- 8.45 and arrive at work at 9.10- 9.15, last year i helped SO take some stuff to work and got a taxi to Tuffnal park- by the time i'd helped her out it was about 9.00 and the tube was shut- all the buses were full so i walked in to soho.

I generally skip between trains riding either the Victorian Line to Oxford circus or the Picadilly line to Leicester Square and always ride in the first carriage. I found out last night that on the picadilly line train that blew up between Kings cross and Russell square it was the first carriage that went- creating the most casualties of any of the bombs.

I didn't ride on that train for ages but i do again now- it was quite unnerving this morning and the first time in months that i've found myself checking out unclaimed luggage and passengers with rucksacks.

Life goes on though and largely it all seems to have been forgotten. anybody want to addtheir own thoughts? Has it changed how you travel - i know people that will not ride a tube anymore. Non londoners has it changed how you view our city?

09:34 / 07.07.06

Nothing unusual on my way form North London to London Bridge. Packed train as usual, slow train as usual, and the same rushes at Camden, Euston and King’s Cross. Didn’t see any police anywhere.

Frankly, I’m not too keen on this two minutes silence. I don’t think it’s disrespectful to those who died not observing it – surely a better way of showing respect to these people and their families is to show that our lives are not disrupted. I heard people contemplate not using the tube today, but really they may as well just lay down and die now.

I think having a two minute silence for every time someone dies is a bit stupid and misses the point of the two minute silence on Armistice Day which was to pay tribute to those that died and remember the cost of war.

09:58 / 07.07.06

Yes, I’m not entirely comfortable with the 2 Minute Silence thing either. I don’t mind if people want to shut up for a couple of minutes of course, but it’s not something I’ll be observing.
How do these things become instituted, by the way? Is this one ‘official’ in anyway. Is there a quango that hears proposals for 2 Minute Silences, and decides which ones are worthy?

I’d be lying if I said that 7/7 changed my attitude to public transport, London or people with rucksacks.
Everyone entering the building this morning had their bags checked, and it took me a moment to work out why.
Is an attack more likely on the anniversary of another attack? Personally, the perception that it is more likely makes me feel it’s less likely. (If I were going to launch a terrorist attack, I probably wouldn’t do it on a day when there was a heightened awareness of terrorist attacks). But what do I know.

Tryphena Absent

11:24 / 07.07.06

Observed the 2 minute silence because someone at work was on one of the trains. I'm going to go to the Requiem Mass at Westminster cathedral today because people died in my hometown on the way to work a year ago.

All Acting Regiment

11:28 / 07.07.06

Not a nice situation at all, is it? Let's not make any quick decisions. But you knew that.

11:31 / 07.07.06

surely a better way of showing respect to these people and their families is to show that our lives are not disrupted.

If you're going to have a public rememberance for something like this, then you need to mark it somehow. Carrying on as normal would just be... carrying on as normal. I would've been more than happy to observe the silence if I'd been in work today.

11:38 / 07.07.06

If I were going to launch a terrorist attack, I probably wouldn’t do it on a day when there was a heightened awareness of terrorist attacks

So true- i guess the point of a 2 min silence is to remember that it could have been any of us that died/ were maimed etc- and specifically those injured aren't forgotten. The whole thing that no MP's visited victims stinks to high heaven of paranoid twats trying to justify their jobs.

It also means that they don't belive they have any accountabilty for the bombings despite the mess of iraq and although it's not the sole reason (as 9/11 tells us) i do wonder how much it contributed fuel to the fire that led the events to happen as they did.

I get the point that terrorists shouldn't disrupt our lives re: 2 min silence, but i'm not sure where i stand on it. It's a very different memorial to Rememberence day etc. The reasons the bombings happened are still there and could happen again at any time- maybe the 2 min silence could give us time to think about more lobbying and action against the Iraq war? Maybe a more aggressive stance should be taken against Isreals war crimes?

11:45 / 07.07.06

Will there be a Two Minute Silence on the 22nd, I wonder.

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:46 / 07.07.06

Well, you could suggest one and then observe one with like-minded people, I suppose.

ONLY NICE THINGS

11:52 / 07.07.06

I'm a bit torn - I don't have a problem at all with people taking a two minute silence, or with people not taking a two minute silence, depending on how they feel about the events - it's a useful way to express that one is still affected by it, has not forgotten it or the victims. Even though my whining lefty tendencies also prick my conscience about how many times in the last year people in Iraq have died in comparable numbers...

On the other hand, I do object to the enforcement of it. It's good manners not to try to strike up a conversation, of course, but I've just had a group rounding people up to stand outside on the street, which felt a bit like mourn-upmanship. I guess I've been profoundly suspicious of, for want of a better term, the culture of threnody since Diana...

12:02 / 07.07.06

Indeed, and they bring out a strange kind of facetiousness in me that runs counter to their goal. I, for example, insisted that I was observing a *5* minute silence (such was the depth of my compassion) and that the caller holding for me was just going to have to wait.
It's not even as if that's funny.

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:25 / 07.07.06

No, I think the word is "cockish", is it not?

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:26 / 07.07.06

Obviously rounding people up for an enforced silence is just as cockish.

Tabitha Tickletooth

12:38 / 07.07.06

I work in a press office, so obviously my exposure is high, but it really does feel like a bit of a 'mournathon'. BBC news and radio (okay, R4/R5) have been pretty much wall-to-wall survivor interviews, descriptions/coverage of wreath layings, how it's changed my life/what I was doing at the time vox pops.

It's not that I object, so much that it seems excessively mawkish and makes me feel uncomfortable. I want to remember what happened but not 'celebrate' it, if that makes sense.

But then again, maybe it helps people somehow and I don't want to take away any grain of comfort from anyone. Just because I don't have the desire to relive every moment of the day and hear everyone in London's opinion on it doesn't mean that other people don't. For me, it's more quiet reflection - taking a moment to remember that yes, we all got on with it, but it reall did happen and it was awful. And very scary and shocking to feel our wonderful London attacked.

It's a bit like the not taking the Tube thing. I cycle to work and have done for years. Since last July, there has been a huge increase in the number of people cycling to work in London, which is cool. I have no concerns about taking the Tube, but then I only do so rarely. However, I could never criticise someone for not wanting to take the Tube because I don't know how frightening for them the prospect might be. If not taking the Tube makes your life better, then don't take it. It doesn't mean the terrorists have won, it means your life is a tiny bit better.

12:48 / 07.07.06

Unlike Diana though it affected a lot of us for real- rather than a public figure dying in a tragic accident with her playboy lover- 56 (?) innocent people died and hundreds were injured. Public mourning is in that sense at least far more justified (if that is the right term) as it effects all of us in this city.

As for the two min silence thing- its not like standing for the national anthem (which i was asked to do when watching the football the other week by our twat of an accountant at work- i refused) its about showing respect for the dead and injured one year on- if it becomes an annual thing then i may be a bit more dubious- at the moment though i have no problem with it.

Kiltartan Cross

12:52 / 07.07.06

I've wondered, with all the time given to survivor interviews and the like, if there isn't a deliberate message to some of the programming, addressed in an oblique way to those who support the attacks. Something along the lines of "are you really proud to support the deliberate maiming and killing of civilians? This is what it means." Or, at the least, whether this has been considered by the programmers; there will, presumably, have been some serious discussion within the halls of the BBC as to how to present this news.

13:17 / 07.07.06

Something along the lines of "are you really proud to support the deliberate maiming and killing of civilians? This is what it means."

Yeah, I think they probably already know what it means. I’m pretty sure they plant bombs because of what it means.

Kiltartan Cross

13:22 / 07.07.06

Yeah, I think they probably already know what it means. I’m pretty sure they plant bombs because of what it means.

I wasn't referring to the bombers, but to the supporters of the bombers; it's one thing to say "I support violent struggle", it's another to actually go out and do it.

13:26 / 07.07.06

What supporters?

Kiltartan Cross

13:29 / 07.07.06

Those who view the bombers as "martyrs for the cause". It was recently widely reported that a sizeable minority - 13% was quoted - of the British Muslim community viewed the bombers as martyrs. While this figure may or may not be accurate, it is undeniable that there are some people who supported the attacks, and, presumably, would support further attacks.

Here's a link to a Times Online article about their recent poll. Here.

13:30 / 07.07.06

I was genuinely moved this morning listening to an interview with the bus driver who placed a big wreath along his route. I think part of it was tied up with the fact that he had a Greek name and a pretty thick accent -- so much for those scary immigrants, or something like that. But also, it had to do with the fact that he wasn't talking in terms of "this was something I survived" but in terms of mourning his passengers.

Oh, and Haus: the culture of threnody since Diana...
I think you're now obligated to write an essay or something with that title. It's a good one.

13:33 / 07.07.06

well statistics aside, it's a bit of a jump to assume that describing someone as a martyr presupposes supoport for their actions. Moreover, the kind of people who might actively support this behaviour (and I really don't think there are many people - let alone even 1% of the population) aren't going to be put of by the BBC editorial policy... are they?

Kiltartan Cross

13:34 / 07.07.06

Here's a link with a more detailed breakdown of that survey's findings. Here.

(edit)

And I don't know. It'd be nice to think that the BBC could have an effect; that it would, perhaps, bring things a little more into focus. Agreeing with something like this over a coffee table is (I guess) easier than watching the results.

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:00 / 07.07.06

(and I really don't think there are many people - let alone even 1% of the population)

If we assume that the poll accurately reflects Muslim sentiment in the UK, which I think is a dubious assumption and will remain so until more details of the methods are shared, and if we assume that saying that the bombers are martyrs is equivalent to supporting the bombings, and the figure of 13% is accurate, then 13% of 1.6 million Muslims is...208,000. In a population of just over 60 million, thats around 0.3%. Obviously not ideal, but I reckon we can take them in a fight if necessary.

14:56 / 07.07.06

Would we be allowed to use headlocks?

In other news, what about the term "moderate Muslims" then? Who fucking hates that? Me, that's who.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

15:00 / 07.07.06

Oh fuck yeah. Because obviously it is VITAL to distinguish this rare breed from the seething mass of normal ordinary Muslims, who've all got boxes of C4 stashed under their beds.

15:04 / 07.07.06

but boboss! "moderate muslims" are just like you and me. They read the sun and go to the pub and basically fly St George flags and go to school fetes and things. The unmoderate muslims though - tsk! what are they like eh?!

15:28 / 07.07.06

Evil mad bombers, I reckon!

It seems to me that the term "moderate Muslims" has the unfortunate side effect of defining all Mulsims in relation to yer dangerous extremists, so even the most "moderate" of "moderate Muslims" comes out stinking of terrorism.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:31 / 07.07.06

There was an interview with the Bishop of Pontefract this morning, where he expressed a simialr view - that he wouldn't like to be called a "moderate" Christian, because it made it sound as if his Christian beliefs were a bit undeveloped or non-passionate. But what's the best alternative? I;m racking my brains a bit here...

15:37 / 07.07.06

Granted, it's a tricky one this, but I feel the term is being used far too much, and with very little in the way of proper forethought.

Kiltartan Cross

15:48 / 07.07.06

I think 'moderate' stands reasonably well if it's used to describe an individual's interpretation of the religion, rather than their commitment to it. That is to say, that they believe that Islam (or Christianity, or whichever religion) exhorts one to respect others (of different faith). By constrast a 'fanatic' or 'extremist' could be someone who believes that their religions exhort them not to respect others (of different faith).

I include 'of different faith' in brackets, as I predominantly mean the behaviour of religious people towards others unlike themselves; however, there are many religious ideologies (for instance, the Catholic stance on abortion, or the Muslim stance on women's rights) which could be considered as showing disrespect and/or harming fellow believers. In a broader context, a 'moderate' would be someone who believes their religion wants them to generally act in line with generally accepted standards of human rights &c. &c.; an 'extremist' someone who believes otherwise.

15:50 / 07.07.06

So, er, what time was the 2 Minute Silence, then? Must admit the whole thing kinda passed me by: I was vaguely aware of the date when I wrote it in patients' notes, but no-one mentioned it and it hadn't occurred to me that anything might be different, risk-wise, today. Tube seemed same as ever.

15:56 / 07.07.06

Dunno. Wasn't observed in my office

Kay, I think you're getting a little hung up on meaning and not paying enough attention the effects of language *in practice*. Moderate makes sense from a strictly descriptive point of view, sure enough.

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:07 / 07.07.06

Noon.

Also, whilst there actually _is_ a [Roman] Catholic stance on abortion, in the sense that there is a single head of the church with an orthodoxy about it, there isn't really a Muslim position on women's rights. So, while the views of an Asma Barlas may not be wildly popular in Saudi Arabia, they are nonetheless part of Muslim thought.

The danger is that we might be thinking of "westernised" or "secular" as synonyms for "moderate", which I think limits conceptions of potentially liberal or progressive Islam. Which, of course, one might think is impossible, but for our sake had better not be.

Regrettable Juvenilia

16:14 / 07.07.06

Yeah, well certainly using "moderate" to mean "the exception to the rule" is worsened by saying "Muslim" without any qualifier and then only describing the nasty versions of the faith...

Page: (1)2