What level of security would you accept?

[Eyebrow]

• CRITICAL means an attack is expected imminently

I personally (with my limited knowledge) think this is exaggerating the threat. 

Its the highest threat level and I'm not sure thats where we are on the basis of what happened in Manchester. And that is not to understate it in any way.

[Levitz]

I don't think there any problem in questioning decisions. It is easy to do it when you won't be held accountable, but it is also legitimate and it's part of democracy. 

 

[Keithy]

58 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

oh fuck off, one minute we`re talking about not giving into terror and doing our best to carry on as normal.....then all of a sudden the armys taking over from the police and no doubt thats just the start, if that doesnt worry you then your fucking naive esp as technically theres no parliament in session at the moment to oversee it and make sure these measures `dont` go to far. 

It's not about the army taking over. It's an established protocol to give the police additional armed resources. Temperer has been in place for several years. Whilst London is well protected in terms of armed response personnel, the other major cities in the UK have much smaller units and don't have the manpower to deal with a potential increased security threat.

Putting aside the threat level is decided by an non political body, if one was to don a tinfoil hat, there's little to gain from May increasing the threat level given (a) any voters who believe a tighter immigration policy would have prevented this attack are not people minded to vote for a left leaning party and (b) May is going to walk this election even without the events of the last 24 hours.

Carrying on as normal doesn't mean you ignore that there potentially might be a terrorist network in place. I was pleased to see Dot To Dot festival have said that the Manchester day of the festival is going ahead as planned on Friday. That's carrying on as normal.

[fewcloudy]

Friends, please, these are very emotional times. It's too soon and too raw to get angry and abusive with people who you clearly have a great deal in common with (festivals, music, Glasto, etc). In a months time you could easily be chatting and laughing and sharing great moments with the same people that you are really pissed off with just now and have no idea. For myself I find it very difficult to always convey the correct meaning of my feelings in such a one dimensional medium as text on s message board and I doubt I'm the only one.

Face to face conversations with the same people would almost certainly involve words like "No, no, I didn't mean like that", or "I see what you're saying but...". People are writing in anger and dismay and helplessness, and replying in a similar state. Nuances and meanings may be misinterpreted. Keep calm; we're all upset here, but still friends.

[Keithy]

55 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

you cant call women `mate` now? 

 

Because a decision such as this is meant to be overseen by an elected parliment not one women alone who lets face it hasnt exactly been very `stable` herself as of late....do you trust theresa may with the safty of this country? and the use of such measures without going to far? my answer would be fuck no but because theres no parliment she doesnt have to answer to anyone so its all ok eh? 

You are wrong. To raise the threat level is a decision made by the sitting government. Which still exists. Parliament is there to pass laws. There is no change in law so no parliamentry oversight is needed.

 

[Bonaneas]

13 minutes ago, Keithy said:

You are wrong. To raise the threat level is a decision made by the sitting government. Which still exists. Parliament is there to pass laws. There is no change in law so no parliamentry oversight is needed.

 

I honestly wouldn't lower yourself to responding to the guy and telling him how the real world does actually work. He's proven how uneducated he is about a great many things, especially the subject he's spouting about, factually incorrect on pretty much everything he's posted about how government works, how parliament works, what happens during elections & major incidents because he learned things  off YouTube videos from conspiracy theorists who think all government is out to enslave us. 

Then when pulled up and he got found out he resorts to editing his posts and name calling. Sad really. Amazing what a little self/education and respect could do for some people if they only let go of their anger. 

 

Back to the very original post. Scanners should be at every major event. Ive been through them at sporting events, and had the wand over me at the MEN itself a number of times. Glasto can install them easily enough I imagine, and yes there would be a back log and queue when the early birds get in at 8am, but it's a small price to pay. And with 'racial profiling' (scary sounding thing I know) it would all move very quickly. 

(Thats just probably set another big row off, the idea of racial profiling at entry to events.)

[waterfalls212434]

25 minutes ago, Bonaneas said:

I honestly wouldn't lower yourself to responding to the guy and telling him how the real world does actually work. He's proven how uneducated he is about a great many things, especially the subject he's spouting about, factually incorrect on pretty much everything he's posted about how government works, how parliament works, what happens during elections & major incidents because he learned things  off YouTube videos from conspiracy theorists who think all government is out to enslave us. 

Then when pulled up and he got found out he resorts to editing his posts and name calling. Sad really. Amazing what a little self/education and respect could do for some people if they only let go of their anger. 

 

Back to the very original post. Scanners should be at every major event. Ive been through them at sporting events, and had the wand over me at the MEN itself a number of times. Glasto can install them easily enough I imagine, and yes there would be a back log and queue when the early birds get in at 8am, but it's a small price to pay. And with 'racial profiling' (scary sounding thing I know) it would all move very quickly. 

(Thats just probably set another big row off, the idea of racial profiling at entry to events.)

your accusing me of editing my posts now? lol!  and whats this `he learned things  off YouTube videos from conspiracy theorists who think all government is out to enslave us` bullshit

alright mate this is it, prove I said these things....show me (and I want fucking quotes) where I mentioned ANYTHING about the nwo, false flag attacks or youtube conspiracy videos as you claim.....put up or shut the fuck up. 

can you do that? or are you just talking shit? do it or fuck off im fed up of this shit, your being a fucking asshole and all can see that. by all means argue with people but dont make up a load of shit they said that they didnt to give yourself a fake argument your being a  child and quite frankly a massive keyboard warrior, I mean who the fuck are you? where did you come from? you dont know me, whats your  problem with me so bad you'd actually go so far as to make stuff up to try and slander me? you some kind of bad troll? (and if you are you picked the wrong fucking day for that shit) or are you just an utter whack job?

anyway im going to bed-ill expect to see proof of the claims your making about me when I logon tomorrow, eh?  so youve got about 8 hours to fake up a screen shot or something lol

Edited May 23, 2017 by waterfalls212434

[Pink_Tequila]

15 minutes ago, Bonaneas said:

I honestly wouldn't lower yourself to responding to the guy and telling him how the real world does actually work. He's proven how uneducated he is about a great many things, especially the subject he's spouting about, factually incorrect on pretty much everything he's posted about how government works, how parliament works, what happens during elections & major incidents because he learned things  off YouTube videos from conspiracy theorists who think all government is out to enslave us. 

Then when pulled up and he got found out he resorts to editing his posts and name calling. Sad really. Amazing what a little self/education and respect could do for some people if they only let go of their anger. 

 

Back to the very original post. Scanners should be at every major event. Ive been through them at sporting events, and had the wand over me at the MEN itself a number of times. Glasto can install them easily enough I imagine, and yes there would be a back log and queue when the early birds get in at 8am, but it's a small price to pay. And with 'racial profiling' (scary sounding thing I know) it would all move very quickly. 

(Thats just probably set another big row off, the idea of racial profiling at entry to events.)

Surely the problem would be before the scanners when people are queuing? do you then have to scan every car on the way into the car parks? 

[DeanoL]

The one quick and (relatively) easy solution would be to ask people arriving Tuesday night to stay in their cars, and let each car block through to the queue one at a time on Wednesday morning.

That's the festival's main vulnerability point.

Can't imagine it going down too well here though.

[Bonaneas]

8 minutes ago, Pink_Tequila said:

Surely the problem would be before the scanners when people are queuing? do you then have to scan every car on the way into the car parks? 

Good point but i have been in queues to events where the car was searched briefly with those mirrors to check under neath for devices. It's a logistical nightmare obviously and you get to point of endless regression of where do we stop? As someone said earlier about checks on motorway services and the like. The festival or arena can only do so much, but as last night proved, the entrance & foyer were open public space, one Ive been in dozens of times as a gig goer and with my kids watching stuff, (my daughter was very nearly there last night but luckily she missed out on a ticket but her best mate went, home safe this morning after being stranded overnight near arena.) so how can we guard & protect every inch of public space without people crying out that their civil liberties are being impinged or that we live in a police state under martial law? It's a fine line but it has to be crossed for our safety. 

Again we hear today that the bomber was 'known to security services' which raises the point that more can & should be done to PREVENT these murderers at source. I'm sick of hearing that after every single one of these. It's not right. 

[Bonaneas]

21 minutes ago, waterfalls212434 said:

your accusing me of editing my posts now? lol!  and whats this `he learned things  off YouTube videos from conspiracy theorists who think all government is out to enslave us` bullshit

alright mate this is it, prove I said these things....show me (and I want fucking quotes) where I mentioned ANYTHING about the nwo, false flag attacks or youtube conspiracy videos as you claim.....put up or shut the fuck up. 

can you do that? or are you just talking shit? do it or fuck off im fed up of this shit, your being a fucking asshole and all can see that. by all means argue with people but dont make up a load of shit they said that they didnt to give yourself a fake argument your being a  child and quite frankly a massive keyboard warrior, I mean who the fuck are you? where did you come from? you dont know me, whats your  problem with me so bad you'd actually go so far as to make stuff up to try and slander me? you some kind of bad troll? (and if you are you picked the wrong fucking day for that shit) or are you just an utter whack job?

anyway im going to bed-ill expect to see proof of the claims your making about me when I logon tomorrow, eh?  so youve got about 8 hours to fake up a screen shot or something lol

“The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life.” 

 - Bertrand Russell 

[Sasperella]

3 hours ago, Pink_Tequila said:

Surely the problem would be before the scanners when people are queuing? do you then have to scan every car on the way into the car parks? 

Yeh, I'm inclined to agree with you. It seems counterproductive to have people waiting in mass in the one place a person can get to without a ticket and, by definition, without going through security

[lukemack]

I think the level of security the festival has now is more than adequate, though am expecting more bag checks this year.

[kalifire]

Alright lads, calm down. We've all had a terrorism.

I'm personally happy to accept any level of security that the police deem necessary. If there's one thing their Glastonbury operations have proven in all the years gone by, it's that they know what they're doing. For all the anecdotes about tent thefts etc., I feel very safe inside those gates and that's largely down to the police, security and volunteers who work so hard.

Keeping people safe is an unenviable business. You get none of the credit when it goes right and all of the blame when a mistake is made. I wouldn't dream to presume to know more than the unit who decided to increase the threat level, or to start issuing armchair instructions on how to run the world's largest outdoor festival. It's mind boggling that anyone would, except... we're all trying to cling to anything to make sense of madness. Maybe if we feel we've got a handle on what constitutes a reasonable response from the government, or what constitutes appropriate security, it might give us a structure to occupy our thoughts with.

The horrifying truth is, we're all deeply ignorant. Even the intelligence services are just trying to do their best without all of the information at hand. But they have more information than I do, and that's good enough to me to let them handle this however they think best. I draw the line at rectal probes.

I guess my point is, working out what to do and making it happen must be the headache of all headaches. I have nothing but respect and support for the people who work so tirelessly to keep us as safe as possible.

[oneeye]

The car parks themselves are a weak point security wise, from a potential threat of a driver mowing down queues to IED devices being driven in and parked; absolute nightmare to police.

Unless there is a credible known threat to the festival then I suspect you will see very little change in security. Best not to over analyse, just crack on as normal, life is too short (as if anyone needed reminding).

Still deflated by the actions of scum this morning, I feel some loud music coming on with my commute to work; maybe some Angus and Co.

Have a good day pop pickers, remember most people in this world are good.

[Wanderlei]

It's a horrible thought, but Glastonbury is the ideal target for an attack. The event is iconic, and there are lots of people crammed together. I remember thinking about it before the Rolling Stones came on. I felt like a sardine and I wasn't even anywhere near the stage.

The only way to be 100% safe from an attack at Glastonbury is not to go (but then that's also a victory for the terrorists). But if you do go, you should know that you're taking a risk.

[babyblade41]

I'm a born stress head and admire all of you for standing up and staying strong although I will still be a little fearful come 4 weeks time 

Lets not make it a political thread, all the figure heads have far more info than we do and their sole purpose is to keep us as safe as possible.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing , 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

As I've mentioned a couple of times I think the likelihood of Glastonbury being targeted (as big a target as it is) is remote, unless somebody specifically wanted to target Glastonbury. I'm sure Arianna Grande's concert wasn't specifically targeted as such, it probably just fitted in with the target/venue/date that the terrorist decided to aim for. As horrible as it is there will have been multiple gigs at the M.E.N what would've had young kids attending the terrorist could've targeted, this one probably just happened to fit from a timing point of view. To target the Queues at Glastonbury you'd probably have a window of three hours to target it at its busiest, so I as I've said, you'd realistically have to have a terrorist who had it in their mind Glastonbury should be targeted way before October last year and have been planning it ever since. Of course it could happen, but in terms of likeliness I'd rank the risk way below any event held at a physical venue, and well below any other festival that doesn't require pre-allocated tickets.

As for the raising of the threat to critical, the Westminster bridge attack required no more planning than to think of the idea, and it was also completely indiscriminate, anybody could've been walking over that bridge. This attack is completely different, there was clearly far more planning involved, but crucially the target was young children, which changes things completely. At this stage if they don't yet know (just over 24 hours later) for sure he was or wasn't a lone wolf, then surely they can't make the assumption he was? Wouldn't that be massively irresponsible? Until they know for sure, which you have to assume they either don't know yet, or they do actually know he wasn't a lone Wolf and there is actually a wider network, they have to react accordingly. 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[squirrelarmy]

Looking at the profile of the attacker it does seem highly likely that there is a cell behind this. The bomber fits the profile of the average dumb trigger man. 

The people with the brains aren't stupid enough to blow themselves up. They'll recruit young vulnerable people and brainwash them into carrying out the attacks.

I'm definitely not defending the bomber, he committed a terrible act but the real problem is getting the people who organised the attack, the fact that they are still out there will be a factor in why the terror level was raised.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

4 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Looking at the profile of the attacker it does seem highly likely that there is a cell behind this. The bomber fits the profile of the average dumb trigger man. 

The people with the brains aren't stupid enough to blow themselves up. They'll recruit young vulnerable people and brainwash them into carrying out the attacks.

I'm definitely not defending the bomber, he committed a terrible act but the real problem is getting the people who organised the attack, the fact that they are still out there will be a factor in why the terror level was raised.

Early days, but from what is being suggested so far you could well be right. Born and raised in Manchester but made regular trips to Libya, possibly to be trained. That suggests there is a network behind it and therefore unfortunately further attacks couldn't be ruled out. Not raising the threat level would probably be deeemed irresponsible by most sane people.

[CaledonianGonzo]

31 minutes ago, babyblade41 said:

Lets not make it a political thread, all the figure heads have far more info than we do and their sole purpose is to keep us as safe as possible.

If that were the case then no one would be doing arms deals with Saudi Arabia.

[Mr.Tease]

43 minutes ago, kalifire said:

Alright lads, calm down. We've all had a terrorism.

I'm personally happy to accept any level of security that the police deem necessary. If there's one thing their Glastonbury operations have proven in all the years gone by, it's that they know what they're doing. For all the anecdotes about tent thefts etc., I feel very safe inside those gates and that's largely down to the police, security and volunteers who work so hard.

Keeping people safe is an unenviable business. You get none of the credit when it goes right and all of the blame when a mistake is made. I wouldn't dream to presume to know more than the unit who decided to increase the threat level, or to start issuing armchair instructions on how to run the world's largest outdoor festival. It's mind boggling that anyone would, except... we're all trying to cling to anything to make sense of madness. Maybe if we feel we've got a handle on what constitutes a reasonable response from the government, or what constitutes appropriate security, it might give us a structure to occupy our thoughts with.

The horrifying truth is, we're all deeply ignorant. Even the intelligence services are just trying to do their best without all of the information at hand. But they have more information than I do, and that's good enough to me to let them handle this however they think best. I draw the line at rectal probes.

I guess my point is, working out what to do and making it happen must be the headache of all headaches. I have nothing but respect and support for the people who work so tirelessly to keep us as safe as possible.

I do find it worrying how thick and clueless security staff are- I always get additional security and extensive grilling at airports because my dad was Egyptian (I remember when they pulled him over to check his car belonged to him and he hadn't stolen it- he was 70 at the time!).

Most recently I got off the plane at Frankfurt having just flown from Rio de Janeiro, to be met by 4 plain clothed police officers who took me aside for a full grilling before being swabbed and searched. But the questions are so stupid, I don't get how they'd detect an actual terrorist. And I don't even get what they thought I was up to- that I flown all the way to Rio, where I had somehow assembled a bomb, then flown all the way back, through airport security and somehow stored it invisibly in my Backpack which they had already unpacked and searched? 

Furthermore I'm as clean as a whistle, have no record, I'm frequently DBS checked because I work with vulnerable people - they're literally just stopping me because of my second name and the fact I visited Egypt - what worries me is that's the extent of their Intel! I always assumed they had some sort of extensive database they were working from.

I think the worst one was when they followed me in the car for 30mins before pulling me over for "yawning in the passenger seat of the car". Absolute morons!

I'd rather they focused on quality over quantity, personally, and had a few smart well trained security rather than some big show. 

[fur_q]

7 hours ago, Keithy said:

You are wrong. To raise the threat level is a decision made by the sitting government. Which still exists. Parliament is there to pass laws. There is no change in law so no parliamentry oversight is needed.

 

TFW you're telling someone they're wrong, but getting it completely wrong yourself.

 

"The main functions of the UK Parliament are to:

Check and challenge the work of the Government (scrutiny)

Make and change laws (legislation)

Debate the important issues of the day (debating) 

Check and approve Government spending (budget/taxes)"

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/

[CaledonianGonzo]

It's an odd one.  My passport has visas in it for Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Uzbekistan, etc. and I've never had any issues at passport control.  At least, not to date.

 Albeit I never try to enter the US.

[kalifire]

14 minutes ago, Wanderlei said:

The only way to be 100% safe from an attack at Glastonbury is not to go (but then that's also a victory for the terrorists). But if you do go, you should know that you're taking a risk.

If everybody cowered in the face of the tiny minority who're intent on causing harm, that's how they truly win. It's the only way they truly win. They only way we truly win is to put one collective middle finger up to their violence and carry on, not only living but growing in empathy and community. If there's one thing over the last couple of days that's touched me more than the horror of what happened, it's the spirit of togetherness that Manchester has shown in spite of people for whom togetherness is an enemy. Manchester wins.