I was discussing with Ravi the prospect of getting a few of the uni gang down here when he mentioned that Irish Dave was coming over to our shores for a few days around that time. However, he’s been instructed by his parents not to go into London during his stay. This all seemed rather unfortunate but understandable until Ravi’s preposterous suggestion that perhaps we could all go to his house in Birmingham instead. The audacity of that boy to suggest that his city is in fact safer than mine astounds me. Allow me to demonstrate by way of the charts below:
Fig.1 uses our basic safety comparison algorithm to show the proportionate risk index of the two cities, with Birmingham clearly the more dangerous of the two because not only do they have bomb scares that clear out the entire city centre, they also have natural disasters like stealth tornados that spring up out of nowhere to wreak havoc in seconds. Now I’ll take my chances with the odd derranged bomber but how exactly am I expected to fend off an unstoppable force of nature at the same time? There’s risky and then there’s plain stupid.
Fig.2 goes into significantly more depth, using our Comaparative Risk Analysis Process* (C.R.A.P.) to demonstrate the relative risk in comparison to other well known areas. It once again shows that London remains fairly safe, while Birmingham comes in as marginally more dangerous than war-torn Iraq. The apparent anomaly of Hull being more dangerous than London puzzled our researchers for some time but was eventually explained due to the considerably elevated risk of dying of boredom.
This conclusive proof that London is by far the safer of the two cities will surely make Dave’s parents reconsider their decision once they read our analysis. In the meantime the US Department of Homeland Security have asked me to give a presentation regarding one of their own sophisticated charting systems…