ClumsyMonkey.net

Should be an interesting day tomorrow as Bush arrives in London. I for one have a very bad feeling about it. By the sounds of it security isn't what it should be and with all those protests it'd be rather easy for someone to cause a large problem.

Venom wrote:By the sounds of it security isn't what it should be.

Where did you hear that? I'm not saying it's not true, just wondering. Because I got the impression security has been pretty tight in preparation for the arrival of Bliar's best buddy.

5000 police men along the Mall doesn't sound too bad to me.

but they are stopping the protestors from using the traditional "protest" route which the protest organizers promise will result in "trouble"

so who knows?

Venom wrote:Should be an interesting day tomorrow as Bush arrives in London. I for one have a very bad feeling about it. By the sounds of it security isn't what it should be and with all those protests it'd be rather easy for someone to cause a large problem.

well I read in the paper that US officials were somewhat unhappy with the security at Buchingham (sp?) palace. All i've got to say to that, is if it's good enough for the queen, it's more than good enough for George W. and good for the queen for saying no to their requests.

I heard that protesters were frustrated that the security was so heavy that they were not even allowed to protest in certain places. They felt the White House had no say in where they were and weren't allowed to protest in Great Britain.

Either way, there's no possible way this could be worse than last summer at the G8 summit when the security plans (including where Bush and other world leaders would be) for the entire convention ended up on the internet

Not to mention that if a sniper really wanted to, it would of been really easy for them to get in, considering it was in the middle of a mountain, and it would of been impossible for security to close off the freaking wilderness. If someone really wanted to hike in, I doubt they could of been stopped. Oh, Canada

actually we were just going over this in Psych, the british public are much diffrent from us in North America esspecially USA. The police oficers don't even carry guns there......where as "toys r us" security does in America. the people are to a certain extent diffrent. And the violence rate is the lowest in the world. Although 5000 police may not sounds like enough in America, it more then enough in Britain

And the violence rate is the lowest in the world. Although 5000 police may not sounds like enough in America, it more then enough in Britain

Add that Al Qaeda has already threatened the Bush visit and that is no where near enough security. I'm not really worried about the common British citizen, its the terrorist that has come to blow people up that worries me. Chances are they wouldn't even get close enough to Bush. They'd end up taking out hundreds of thier own supporters that are there protesting instead.

Dude, you just called the anti-war protestors "terrorist supporters".

in his mind that's what then are..................i know, i know, it doesn't make sence but to him it does

It's Bush's whole "you're either with us, or against us" quote.

Dude, you just called the anti-war protestors "terrorist supporters".

They protested against going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda murdered thousands of people in New York and Washington and continue to murder people all over the world. If they protest the US and its allies actions against terrorists they are basically supporting the terrorists. They would rather more innocent people die than going after those guilty. They are also Saddam supporters. Protesting the Iraq war is protesting against giving the Iraqi's a government of thier choosing which is a right of all humanity. These protestors support despots and their murderous ways. I see that as wrong.

Venom, do you ever read anything outside the U.S. Security is fine in London, the city has never been safer probably.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3279179.stm

In contrary to most of American media, the BBC is pretty trustworthy and objective.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=464815

another example, The Independent, quality British newspaper

Maybe you should keep up with more sources like these instead of your regular american papers and websites, because then you wouldn't have such a one-sided view on global issues. It's not about being with or against the U.S. We're all against terrorism, nobody thinks violence is good, yet there are wars all over the world. These need to stop, I don't think anyone disagrees with that, it's just difficult to find a way to stop them. What the terrorists are trying to do (very poorly and wrongfully) is stop being oppressed (at least they feel that and in a lot of cases it is true) by using violence. Which is wrong of course, but these people have never lived in peace, they don't have access to objective media and they have not had proper education). I'm not condoning terrorist actions whatsoever, but I can see why people do such horrible things. I too, think the terrorist should be stopped, but I don't think starting more wars will do the trick, it will just increase their anger and provoke more.

well said Eelco.

Just because the met. said no to shutting down the entire tube network all the time Bush is here doesn't mean security's lax. There's £5,000,000 worth of extra security for his visit. And remember that the police here have had years of experience with terrorists while the IRA were on their bombing campaigns - it's not like we can't cope.

Also, and I can't find this anywhere online at the moment, but there was apparently a letter to one of the newspapers today which said that it would like to remind the CIA that the Metropolitan police had never lost a prime minister, while 3 or 4 (sorry, I don't know exactly how many) serving US presidents had been assassinated.

Maybe you should keep up with more sources like these instead of your regular american papers and websites, because then you wouldn't have such a one-sided view on global issues. It's not about being with or against the U.S. We're all against terrorism, nobody thinks violence is good, yet there are wars all over the world. These need to stop, I don't think anyone disagrees with that, it's just difficult to find a way to stop them. What the terrorists are trying to do (very poorly and wrongfully) is stop being oppressed (at least they feel that and in a lot of cases it is true) by using violence. Which is wrong of course, but these people have never lived in peace, they don't have access to objective media and they have not had proper education). I'm not condoning terrorist actions whatsoever, but I can see why people do such horrible things. I too, think the terrorist should be stopped, but I don't think starting more wars will do the trick, it will just increase their anger and provoke more.

Actually I do read all those. The American media is saying the same, that there is a lot of security. I was forming my own opinion that there wasn't enough. This opinion was in no way influenced by media sources. I looked at the situation (terrorist threats, thousands of protestors, where the President is gonna be, the number of officers in those locations at given times, etc) and to me its dangerous. I don't think he should have gone.

i'll have to agree with Soozy, the IRA has definatly been a huge issue for protecting the prime minister and they're never had a problem, where as america doesn't really have an openly hostile group like the IRA, and they've still had a hand full of assainations and attempts. Perhaps you should start a thread about how Bush doesn't have enuogh protection in America

Perhaps you should start a thread about how Bush doesn't have enuogh protection in America

LOL are you serious. Do you know the kind of security Bush has had since 9.11?? He doesn't go anywhere that hasn't been fully secured well before his arrival. There are no more daily tours of the White House. You have to schedule tours 6 months in advance, they have to be approved, and group size is limited.

Heres how good the UK's security is:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13637615_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-WE%2DEXPOSE%2DBIGGEST%2DROYAL%2DSECURITY%2DSCANDAL%2DEVER-name_page.html

I was gonna post it this morning but seeing as its from a tabloid I didn't know if it was true. Now its all over the news so it has a bit more validity.

all i'm saying is the British have more experience in dealing with a hostile terorist group then America, and it's America with the nast y record for getting their presidents killed