In the first report by the Manchester Arena Inquiry, published yesterday, the chairman Sir John Saunders addressed the security arrangements at the Ariana Grande concert on May 22, 2017, when at 10.31 a suicide bomber killed himself and 22 people and injured hundreds. The BBC TV news that evening made the report its lead, and correctly headlined its reporting by quoting what Sir John had to say about ‘missed opportunities’; that the security arrangements for the Arena failed; for they ‘should have prevented or minimised the devastating impact of the attack’. Mark Rowe writes that the report has a failure of its own; Sir John has missed an opportunity.
The 60,000 word report is impeccable in style and content. Sir John has digested the months of evidence, spoken and documentary so far, and concluded that the Arena operator SMG, its stewarding and event security contractor Showsec and British Transport Police (BTP) are ‘principally responsible’ for the missed opportunities. “Across these organisations, there were also failings by individuals who played a part in causing the opportunities to be missed”. As he also wrote, there was ‘an opportunity to act’.
Oddly – having gone into the evening in such forensic detail – Sir John has not said anything further about how either non-SIA-badged stewards, SIA-badged security officers or police officers were supposed to act. Nor did the expert witnesses that gave evidence to the Inquiry and that are referred to in the report, nor any commentator, dwelt on what anyone at the scene was supposed to do, either.
Sir John in his way is as much on the front line as those stewards, security officers and police; on the BBC TV Six O’clock News last night we saw him face the TV cameras and say that the report was not to scapegoat. That was in keeping with his work, at the top of his profession; he is a retired High Court judge and was the coroner at the Manchester Arena inquests. The public inquiry is to ‘to explore the circumstances’; not to be wise with hindsight; to make recommendations, but not to judge. Rightly the report begins, and Sir John began in his statement on the launch of his report yesterday afternoon, with the point that while there were ‘serious shortcomings’ in the security, responsibility for what happened lies with the bomber.
“Others may consider that I have not been critical enough.” In sum, the Inquiry is balanced; thorough (‘scrutinised with the greatest care’).
In his statement, Sir John went on: “What I cannot say with any certainty is what would have happened if those opportunities had not been missed.” As Sir John said, the bomber “might have been deterred from committing this outrage or might have done the same thing elsewhere. He might have detonated his bomb earlier in a different location, in or close to the City Room.” And in his next line he spoke again of ‘the shortcomings in security’.
Why so little said about this matter of life and death, when the 22 victims are treated by the Inquiry as so important – and have been regarded respectfully by the Inquiry all along – that they are listed at the beginning of the report?
It would not be in keeping with a public inquiry, to speculate about might have beens; if someone had confronted the bomber. But there are precedents, such as the Stade de France bomb in November 2015 on the night of the Bataclan massacre. Once a suicide bomber is halted, he may well detonate where he is, even short of his intended, more crowded target. That is basic security and has been since the days of moats and keeps; to keep bad at bay as much as feasible.
But for ‘security shortcomings’, if – it’s implied – security had not failed, the bomber, then, would have gone to another place (the Arndale Centre? Victoria station next door to the Arena? perhaps even killing more?) or detonated if in fear of being detained. Sir John and society and everyone in between is proposing that a steward, security officer or cop risks violent death.
They are doing and already have done, such as at Fishmongers’ Hall in November 2019; and PC Keith Palmer, among the victims of the March 2017 Westminster terror attack. There is however some difference between police (powers and responsibilities that come with the badge, pay and pension, equipment; age and experience) and 19-year-old casual labour.
We can further speculate from the death of PC Palmer what would have happened later: many flowers in tribute at the scene; a plaque, perhaps, officially unveiled, not by a public inquiry chairman but by someone political, a mayor of Manchester, a government minister or a quite senior member of the royal family. And hopefully the nation would rally round and give generously if the dead security officer left dependents.
If you are asking security people to die to save others, Sir John, you might at least say so.
