We well remember the sad controversies that followed the July 14 attack and the accusations of local officials who pointed to the state services to hold them responsible for inadequate security organization.
Commissioned by the Minister of the Interior, a report by the General Inspectorate of the National Police (IGPN) concerning the “assessment of the security and public order measures in place in Nice on the night of the attack” concluded that “the measures in place were not undersized.”
Yesterday, the national assembly’s law commission heard from Marie-France Moneger-Guyomarc’h, head of the general inspectorate of the national police, who signed the report.
The head of the IGPN has not changed her stance one bit: “the presence of mobile forces on the night of the Nice attack would have changed nothing.”
Ever vigilant, Eric Ciotti, Republican deputy from the Alpes-Maritimes, notably asked if the measures in place were sufficiently sized “for Nice, the 5th largest city in France, which sees its population double during the summer period, but also Nice and its 500 inhabitants flagged for radicalization.”
The president of the departmental council also questioned the absence of mobile force units, whereas there were such units in Carcassonne, Montpellier, Marseille, and Avignon on the same evening.
The head of the general inspectorate of the national police, accompanied by Jean-François Bas and Serge Rivayrand, general controllers, first recalled the number of national police officers engaged in Nice on the night of July 14: 64 on the Promenade party. With the presence of municipal police officers and considering that the event was expected to gather between 20,000 and 30,000 people, “the measures were not undersized,” she repeated for the umpteenth time.
Her analysis of the events is precise: “Regarding the absence of mobile forces, she explains that if there had been any, the number of national police officers would have decreased accordingly. The truck arrived on the Promenade des Anglais two kilometers before the fireworks area.”
“And it is not two kilometers away that mobile force units would have been stationed. They would have inevitably been placed in the area. The truck would have taken the same path and caused as many victims,” she specified, disregarding the many approximate or even bad-faith comments expressed by officials seeking to blame others to defend themselves.
Because the conclusion could lend itself to an interpretation: “The real way to secure a site is the implementation of technical measures for this type of attack.”
The head of the general inspectorate of the national police speaks of “bollards installed on the roadway, the raising of sidewalks on the Promenade des Anglais. In certain places, there are no sidewalks on the Promenade des Anglais. To secure a site, one must consider material, property, and human factors.”
Listening to these remarks, the views of independent municipal councilor Benoît Kandel come to mind, who, in a press briefing in the following days, had recalled that the evening was organized under the municipality’s responsibility and that it was the only one with a special truck equipped with a crane and bollards.
Yet, it remains that this truck and its equipment never left the garage where it was stationed…
End of the controversies? Reading Eric Ciotti’s final comment, “I hope we can adapt the security measures in view of the tragic aftermath of the Nice attack,” one might think so.
Will he convey the message to those concerned?
