(written in response to a 500-word challenge about taking risks. before you get yourself all worked up into a lather ... 1) The issue is more complex than 500 words can cover and yes - I have more to say than this, 2) a major reference group of mine are first responders, 3) the world is a very big place ... )
Risk is about probability and severity of outcome. If the potential outcome is sufficiently likely and/or severe, odds are people will dedicate themselves to mitigation and avoidance.
What happened this weekend in Toronto was a fine example of a police force successfully managing a myriad of risks while enduring an embarrassing lack of appreciation for their efforts and a need for some media outlets to create a story bigger than it actually was and feed confused hysteria under the guise of “getting the story out”.
Let us be clear. G20 in Toronto was not Metro Police’s idea. Neither was the months of risk management of the city their sole responsibility. In truth – if one thinks about it – there would be no way a local police force (no matter how world class) would be allowed to plan a G20 response in isolation of provincial, federal and international input – across military, police, first responder, air, sea and land mobilization groups and intelligence organizations. Metro Police are, however, the “face” that many put to the force that presented itself in Toronto to keep order. Combine that with the average citizen’s lack of understanding of risk management, law enforcement or a clear picture of the real risks and then observe the vitriolic accusations of a of purported abuses (where – it seems – accurate definition of terms is abandoned in favour of frenzied story-telling).
Risk management is simple. List what could possibly go wrong and then take steps to avoid, mitigate, share or accept these defined risks. Create a plan. Plan for contingency. Execute as required.
To be clear – no one – delegate, citizen, officer - was critically injured this weekend. No one died. There was no catastrophic event. When it all went sideways, the police acted with focus and patience. As a parent might when faced with an unruly two-year old, the police contained those having the Big Snit and put them in a safe (although inconvenient and temporary) time-out zone.
Lest we forget, there were three other factions who were central to this weekend’s ballyhoo. The wilfully lawless made their own counter-plans and struck first. The wilfully stupid were oblivious to what might happen, and decided to protest anyway. The vast majority just stayed home and tormented themselves with the risk-free occupation of arm-chair quarterbacking the decision-makers. Thus we had one group managing risk, one accepting (and arguably revelling in) risk, one unable to accurately anticipate risk and one happy to avoid it all in favour of watching selective feed on TV.
As with all successfully executed risk management strategies, the complaints will always round up like a Maslow’s Hierarchy of complaints. The post-game show is focusing on issues like trying to argue inappropriate methods for mitigating risks. With no material outrage to be had, the proletariat must satisfy themselves with a meal of petty and self-righteous indignations and attempt to equate what happened in Toronto with genuine and outrageous human rights violations, stifling state dictatorship and – in some cases –war zones.
Toronto. Get a grip. In the grand scheme of things – a little property damage, a few inconvenienced people and the odd moment of high tension is a nominal price to pay for mitigating the substantial risks at hand.
If it all bugs you that much, call Metro Police and ask them to delete your address from their 9-1-1 response CAD. But I bet you won’t, no matter how wounded your tender sensibilities.
Not having the Police? Why, that would be risky.
No comments:
Post a Comment