The Elephant in the Room.

[Wooderson]

Is it only a matter of time before Glastonbury is targeted? I don't remember armed security - but is that an inevitability in 2016?

Sorry to bring the tone down, but Glastonbury festival would appear to me a really obvious target for IS.

[Gnomicide]

Not sure they're organised enugh to get tickets.

[A Guy Called Matt]

1 minute ago, Wooderson said:

Is it only a matter of time before Glastonbury is targeted? I don't remember armed security - but is that an inevitability in 2016?

Sorry to bring the tone down, but Glastonbury festival would appear to me a really obvious target for IS.

Anywhere is a target if they or anyone else wanted to.

If we pick one thing to not go to then we have to pick everywhere to not go to. 

I grew up with the threat of the IRA and carried on my life.

I will not be changing what I do or where I do it because of anyone.

[russycarps]

I imagine there are thousands of places that would be targeted before glastonbury. 

There have been only a microscopic amount of islamic terror attacks in the UK ever. Yes what happened in france is appalling. But we live in one of the safest countries in the world, in its most peaceful era ever. There is no reason to live in fear.

Armed guards at glastonbury would be the most ridiculous overreaction imaginable.

If the threat was as real as the authorities want us to believe, why has there never been a big attack in this country since the 2005 bombings? It would surely be the easiest thing in the world to blow up/shoot/stab a load of people to death on a train or something wouldnt it?

 

 

[mungo57]

I doubt they would but me and my other half had this conversation on Saturday. Festivals are the perfect place to target - even better than at a concert or event at a stadium.

As Matty said, once we choose one not to go to then thats it, we can't do ANYTHING and the terrorists win.

I will still be strolling round carefree ('god' willing) at G with my joint and cider causing carnage for 5 days and I will not let these inconsiderate compassionless fuckwits spoil my fun.

[Wooderson]

My point is that the festival, like a variety of other aspects of society will have to change.

Change has taken place already FFS. Last night in Vicar St in Dublin, an audio announcement of where the emergency exits were was made. Never happened before. I know the Foos are friends with EODM, but they weren't directly involved and have cancelled their tour.

Read Zoe Williams piece in the Grauniad today:

"If the raison d’etre of the terrorist is to poison a society with terror, that society must find the antidote, not pretend that it wasn’t toxic."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/fear-terror-victims

Armed security at British airports has always stood out for me as an Irish person - but are we looking at a time in the not too distant future when security at festivals will be on a similar level? Stiff upper lip is one thing, but refusing to adapt to this new madness would seem to me a counter-intuitive move. Glastonbury has always been a potential target for a random act of lunacy like any significant gathering of people... but Friday night's events brought acts of barbarism for the first time to a music event.

[russycarps]

1 minute ago, Wooderson said:

My point is that the festival, like a variety of other aspects of society will have to change.

Change has taken place already FFS. Last night in Vicar St in Dublin, an audio announcement of where the emergency exits were was made. Never happened before. I know the Foos are friends with EODM, but they weren't directly involved and have cancelled their tour.

Read Zoe Williams piece in the Grauniad today:

"If the raison d’etre of the terrorist is to poison a society with terror, that society must find the antidote, not pretend that it wasn’t toxic."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/fear-terror-victims

Armed security at British airports has always stood out for me as an Irish person - but are we looking at a time in the not too distant future when security at festivals will be on a similar level? Stiff upper lip is one thing, but refusing to adapt to this new madness would seem to me a counter-intuitive move. Glastonbury has always been a potential target for a random act of lunacy like any significant gathering of people... but Friday night's events brought acts of barbarism for the first time to a music event.

The foos cancelling their tour is absolutely the worst thing they could have done. Exactly what the terrorists want. To spread fear and disruption. 

The bali bombers targeted music venues, back in 2002. 

 

[Gnomicide]

The attack at the Stade De France was stopped from happening inside by a security guard patting the guy down. That would be impossible at Glastonbury and most other festivals unless you started queing 3 days before.

I think all police/security/whoever can do (unless they have intelligence beforehand) is react to situations as quickly as possible. France is a more obvious target as they are carrying out airstrikes in Syria, at the moment the UK aren't, though that probably isn't far away.

I've thought about it before when at festivals, football matches or any large gathering but if you worried about it all the time you'd either go nuts or never leave the house.

[efcfanwirral]

yeah I've always thought about Glastonbury as a potential target - high profile, very much a hedonist type thing which they obviously don't like, but at the same time full of a lot of liberal people who recognise that the root cause isn't simply "evil", but Western policies as well. It'd be the worst thing they could do because they'd turn a lot of people onto emotional rather than rational thinking. Or maybe thats what they want, i dont know

Obviously a disclaimer, as you stupidly have to do every time you mention something like this, I'm not justifying anything I'm just saying our country is not completely innocent in the causing of it. 

Edited November 16, 2015 by efcfanwirral

[DeanoL]

Glastonbury does have random searches on the gates though.

And, ugh, much as it pains me to say - you could profile those random searches pretty well at Glastonbury. I feel icky even typing that.

[Wooderson]

We will only stop going when the festival itself stops.

However - security is a different matter. I would wager that we're going to see a new level of "presence" in the future. 

[efcfanwirral]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Glastonbury does have random searches on the gates though.

And, ugh, much as it pains me to say - you could profile those random searches pretty well at Glastonbury. I feel icky even typing that.

I said the exact thing about Everton matches the other day when a friend mentioned it to me! 

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Is it only a matter of time before Glastonbury is targeted? I don't remember armed security - but is that an inevitability in 2016?

Sorry to bring the tone down, but Glastonbury festival would appear to me a really obvious target for IS.

Chill! :)

As the other night got to prove, terrorists aren't very good at hitting places they're not able to check-out beforehand (which is why they didn't get into the football).

History shows they much prefer to check out their targets beforehand, and that's not really possible with Glasto.

But if they were to try and hit a festival, the chances of you being a victim of it are still very tiny. With captive victims the other night they still only succeeded in getting an average total of 30 people each when using bombs and machieguns.

Suicide vests score much worse. One blew himself up in a crowded restarant and didn't succeed in killing anyone (tho there was at least one person very seriously injured).

As things stand there's a much lower chance of being affected by 'Islamic terrorism' (it not Islamic at all!) than there ever was of being affected by Irish terrorism, and the world didn't come to an end and people weren't running scared.

It would of course be a dreadful thing to happen but even if it did the numbers affected would be comparitively small.

Sit back and relax, and don't change your life. You've a much greater chance of dying in a car crash, but that doesn't have you making posts about the chances of dying on your journey to Glasto.

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

"If the raison d’etre of the terrorist is to poison a society with terror, that society must find the antidote, not pretend that it wasn’t toxic."

The antidote is not to live in terror of something that is less likely to happen to you than being hit by lightning.

Get back to me about this when you've stopped travelling in cars because of the danger.

[mrtourette]

Elephant in the room? Why would it be a really obvious target? They can't scout beforehand, it's on one weekend a year so opportunity is limited and despite the general belief of these forums the festival isn't the most important place in the world to the vast majority of the country/world, so as a target doesn't really make much political sense (and neither is it in a city/area that hitting would be a statement). Also due to it's location and the infrastructure access/escape wouldn't exactly be smooth.

It might be a large gathering of people but there are plenty of those that don't have Glastonbury's drawbacks.

Edited November 16, 2015 by mrtourette

[Vanderlyle]

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Glastonbury does have random searches on the gates though.

And, ugh, much as it pains me to say - you could profile those random searches pretty well at Glastonbury. I feel icky even typing that.

I'm not having a go at you for suggesting this... I just think it's plain wrong. Surely the whole point is (as always) to encourage Glastonbury to be a place where all different cultures in the UK com and play together nicely. Suggesting that we have security that profile anyone Islamic would run counter to the entire point of the festival.

[Cheesey]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The antidote is not to live in terror of something that is less likely to happen to you than being hit by lightning.

Get back to me about this when you've stopped travelling in cars because of the danger.

This has always been my own internal logic. I absolutely refuse to be scared of these people.

[DeanoL]

5 minutes ago, Vanderlyle said:

I'm not having a go at you for suggesting this... I just think it's plain wrong. Surely the whole point is (as always) to encourage Glastonbury to be a place where all different cultures in the UK com and play together nicely. Suggesting that we have security that profile anyone Islamic would run counter to the entire point of the festival.

Not suggesting they do it. Just suggesting they could. And anyone who thinks security don't already profile... I've never been searched once in eleven festivals, my friends who look and dress like genuine hippies get drug-searched 90% of the time.

That said, you don't actually have to do it. Terrorists are obviously going to be reluctant to target somewhere with "random" searches where they would stand-out. Especially when they could target another festival, cause just as much damage, and stand out less.

[Vanderlyle]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The antidote is not to live in terror of something that is less likely to happen to you than being hit by lightning.

Get back to me about this when you've stopped travelling in cars because of the danger.

Although I basically agree - it's not quite the same, is it? I mean the thing about driving is you normally have some (or at least feel like you have some) element of control. You don't really stand a snowballs chance in hell of reacting if someone detonates a bomb next to you. 

Also - we've spent decades regulating and  the roads and educating people aroudn safgety etc. So people have always tried to find ways of minimising these types of dangers.

[DeanoL]

7 minutes ago, Vanderlyle said:

Although I basically agree - it's not quite the same, is it? I mean the thing about driving is you normally have some (or at least feel like you have some) element of control. You don't really stand a snowballs chance in hell of reacting if someone detonates a bomb next to you.

It's technically the same, it just feels different. That's not to be discounted of course, it's a significant factor. But there are car accidents you're just not going to be able to avoid, no matter how you react.

It's kinda like the gun control argument in relation to terror attacks. Your survivability doesn't realistically go up much (if at all, and that of the rest of the crowd may fall), but you get to imagine that in such a situation you'd be able to go all Rambo and take out the attackers yourself. You wouldn't, but the idea you could makes you feel more comfortable.

Edited November 16, 2015 by DeanoL

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, Vanderlyle said:

Although I basically agree - it's not quite the same, is it? I mean the thing about driving is you normally have some (or at least feel like you have some) element of control. You don't really stand a snowballs chance in hell of reacting if someone detonates a bomb next to you. 

Also - we've spent decades regulating and  the roads and educating people aroudn safgety etc. So people have always tried to find ways of minimising these types of dangers.

An extra risk is always an extra risk, but the car analogy is a good way of showing just how low the risk really is.

I'm not sure how old you are, but I lived thru the full time of IRA terrorism which included a bomb in my home town (Aldershot) - which was also a clear 'top target' as "home of the British Army".

It didn't change a jot of what I did. If you're going to end up as a random victim of a targeted attack, you're going to be that victim - but because it's basically random there's not really anything you can do to avoid it.

I could have chosen to avoid Aldershot, but then I might have instead been in the town down the road (Guildford) when the pub bombings there happened - which only gets to show the futility of changing what you do, unless you change to be someone who does nothing at all.

 

Edited November 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[maelzoid]

I do think the risk to Glastonbury is actually pretty low.

Firstly, the pre-registering and photo for obtaining a ticket would expose any wrong-doers much in advance, and I would not be surprised if Glastonbury and the police cross-check their lists for a number of reasons, so any attackers would have to be certain they are not on any watch lists.

I also think the practicality of getting in with weapons would be difficult, just through the trial of parking up, walking miles to the gates, queuing etc. And although most of us get in without being searched, there are security checks that could easily foil such plans, and I hope would deter these people.

I'm not naïve enough to say its impossible, but I suspect there is enough deterrent to make it incredibly unlikely.

[Avalon_Fields]

Glastonbury may be a target, but the terrorist would chose to attack with the biggest publicity, chance to kill as many people as possible, and had a good chance of success.

The first two make Glastonbury a risk. The chance of success is by my reckoning much less that many targets. It would be comparatively easy if they had tickets or passes, but the downside is that would take months to plan, with the risk of being found out (By usual techniques of communications eavesdropping). Without tickets they could shoot their way in, but easier to create carnage in an enclosed space rather than wide open area.

Much bigger risk meeting all 3 criteria by attacking the London Underground again, or a high profile building with little security (Big London hotel, train station, shopping mall) and not so easy to escape from a hail of bullets.

Scary.

. 

[Vanderlyle]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

An extra risk is always an extra risk, but the car analogy is a good way of showing just how low the risk really is.

I'm not sure how old you are, but I lived thru the full time of IRA terrorism which included a bomb in my home town (Aldershot) - which was also a clear 'top target' as "home of the British Army".

It didn't change a jot of what I did. If you're going to end up as a random victim of a targeted attack, you're going to be that victim - but because it's basically random there's not really anything you can do to avoid it.

I could have chosen to avoid Aldershot, but then I might have instead been in the town down the road (Guildford) when the pub bombings there happened - which only gets to show the futility of changing what you do, unless you change to be someone who does nothing at all.

 

I'm 33 so remember the latter IRA days pretty well.

I basically agree with you. We should definitely not be changing where we go, where we live, etc etc. I just meant that people still drive everywhere now - but the govt will fine you if you speed, or drink drive etc. So measures are taken to protect. So I don't think the OP was wrong to ask whether Glasto maybe needed more policing etc - I just think that the answer to his question is 'no'. The overall threat to the country isn't that high (as Russy said, one or maybe two attacks in UK over past dozen years), Glastonbury isn't likely to be a high risk itself, and the festival is built on freedom etc, so additional security should always be a last resort.

[The Nal]

I remember this conversation after the London bombings regarding the 2007 festival. And all the of the festivals in 2005 and 2006. All you can do is carry on.