London 2012 - troops to provide security

[EdithWeston]

Telegraph article here.

It says that 4,000-5,000 troops are already due to marshall events at Weymouth and provide air-based security at other sites. Now there seem to be discussions about a further 6,000 for more security.

Now, although I appreciate there may be no alternative, I find this unsettling, both in terms of what this indicates about the risks to the Games and what it means to inuring the public to troops carrying out policing (if that is indeed what they'll be doing, it's not totally clear yet). And then there's the question of whether, with other commitments they actually have this number available (will they have to cancel summer leave?) and what sort of training they will be providing for such activities.

I'm usually a great supporter of the military, but the scale of what is being proposed here has left me feeling uneasy and I can't quite pin down why. What does anyone else think?

No, I'm uneasy about this role for the military too. Security is normally our police forces role, is it not? Unless there's a huge threat - then we call the military in. I feel very intimidated by military (and, am not a supporter).

I don't like the idea that people will be coming into our country, and will be leaving with the idea that we are policed by the military - I thought we frowned upon this sort of thing.

Why would this put you off supporting the military? The military aren't saying they want to do this; they will work as the MoD directs.

Yes, leave may be cancelled, what's new? Leave is always dependent upon the exigencies of the Service and is a privilege and not a right (or so dh tells me). I'm sure training will be provided; HM Forces are pretty good at that sort of thing. They may not choose to enlighten the public as to what that training is though.

There was always going to be a massive risk having the Games here and an increased and visible presence will do no harm and may even put off those thinking about attacking the Games. I'm used to men in uniform, so it doesn't worry me.

It's probably cheaper to use the military than pay the police overtime bill, as the military don't get overtime, or time off in lieu.

MP- the world knows we are not policed by the military, and I do not understand why you are intimidated by them...they all sit on the loo with their trousers round their ankles like the rest of us.

It doesn't put me off supporting them!

I simply feel uneasy about - well what? The scale of the operation? The possible shift in the British tradition of civilian policing by consent? The implications of the scale of the threat?

It's a one off event and the powers that be are just planning for all possible contingencies and making sure they can cover their arses; seems sensible to me.

We may as Brits be used to civilian policing with consent but many of those who will come here aren't. I don't think it's a shift at all in that, just a back up.

The implications of the scale of the threat should have been evident to everyone from the outset. I am more worried by the police being armed in Belgium, than I am about the military helping to police the Olympics. Does it worry you seeing them at Wimbledon?

I don't understand them I suppose, which is why I'm intimidated.

There are only 300 at Wimbledon, and their role is clear.

The role (and type of dress) is not yet clear, and there is an enormous difference in numbers.

What don't you understand? They are just people who do a specialised and technical job within a defined hierarchy and set of rules.

Wimbledon is smaller though Edith - they are just scaling up. The article doesn't say that the extra troops will actually be deployed.

I doubt they'd be in G4S kit though!

Motivations for choosing that career I suppose. It seems a very odd thing to want to do.

Why MP? As a electronic engineer, my dh has been able to work with bits of kit the civilian world doesn't have; he has been able to change job every 2.5 years on average, and learn new skills. He has gone from working in submarines and the technical challenge they pose, to teaching on an MA course, getting his MA, and now he works in the international and diplomatic arena.

He has had an interesting and varied career, travelled the world, picked up various sporting qualifications and hobbies along the way; has a good social life, enjoys the sense of camaraderie and team work and made friends from when he was 18 that we still see now that he is in his 50s. He has not been bored in the 26 years I've been with him, and you can't say that of many civvy jobs.

Oh I don't doubt that there are brilliant opputunities from being part of the military, but personally I dissaprove of the fact that you become a disposable pawn. I am no doubt shielded because i'm a pacifist and in England we havn't been touched (invaded, if you like) by war for a long time so its very hard for me to see the need.

I don't understand why its illegal to murder, but once war is declared the rules don't count any more.

I get very upset by military parades (I make a HUGE exception for remembrance day, because there was very little choice involved)- and I don't really understand charities like help the heroes (my brain equates it to help the librarians).

Sheltered, Dyspraxic brain, perhaps. There's a lot of fear involved in the unknown.

You could argue that actually we are all disposable pawns - and those I know in the military certainly don't think of themselves like that at all.

If you talked to those in the military they would tell you that they don't want war any more than you do, as they have to go and fight. The clue is in who they work for, the Ministry of Defence. Sometimes, to protect something, it is necessary to fight for it.

I disagree that we haven't been touched by war for a long time; in my life time there's been the Falklands; Northern Ireland; Iraq; Afghanistan and the long running Cold War, which actually got quite 'hot' at times. You only have to look at the world around you to see the need. I feel far less secure now than when the Cold War was going on.

I think sometimes the 'rules' are grey areas. I would argue that terrorism suspends all the rules as well, without declaring war.

I like military parades; we do ceremonial better than anywhere else on the planet, and it shows the hours of planning, the intricacy and practise that have gone into it. When I was a kid, my alarm clock was the Royal Marine band practising on the parade ground at Dartmouth - Hearts of Oak always woke me up and if I wasn't dressed by Rule Britannia, I was in trouble with Mum.

Help for Heroes provides support for those injured in Afghanistan for the rest of their lives, support that HM Govt doesn't give. That can range from specialist rehabilitation centres once they're out of Headley Court; adaptations to their homes; specialist prosthetic limbs etc.

The surface to air missile contingency was certainly a surprise. However, when you consider that the day after the London Games were announced in 2005 we had four arseholes blow themselves up on public transport, the organisers have to show they're covering all eventualities. If there wasn't adequate home-grown security - and I'm far more relaxed about serving military personnel taking that role than I am about temporary staff employed by Group 4, for example - then visiting teams will want to bring more heavies of their own. The US and Israeli teams will be on high alert. Events like the 1972 Munich massacre are still relatively fresh in the memory.

What dress would they be wearing? I thought people spent most of their time in PECOC these days, but is there still working dress available?

I can only "speak" for the Army but there are still lots of types of dress available. Yes, on ops or on ex PECOC is worn but FAD is worn in office/barracks, Blues on ceremonial occasions and Mess Kit where appropriate. Can't say that FAD is an improvement. The issue set my husband got was so dire and the "tailoring" so poor that he simply went to his own tailor to get a set made - a vast improvement.

Anyway, what does it matter what they wear?

I think there would be quite different perceptions from the public depending on dress. Perhaps you are so used to seeing it that the distinctions that are obvious to civilians don't register any more. PECOC/DPM is much more "warlike" than some other options and dies create a different impression. If early reports of call up of TA are correct, do they have anything else available? Or are those reports about TA wrong?

But all this might be nugatory - has anything been said about what it's going to be?

If they follow the example of those who attend Wimbledon, then it would be Service Dress.

I think it will depend on their specific role - I would not be surprised to see DPM worn and it wouldn't bother me to see it. Neither would it bother me to see them bearing arms. Unlikely to affect my husband as he'll be on POTL.

MotherPanda you're a pacifist because the military give you that opportunity by defending you.
Let's be honest here.
The army/military are more working class than say the police force.
That's probably the problem right there.

jcscot: see JSP760 chapter 3: in particular 3.003 and 3.005.

POTL can be messed around, just like any other leave.

I think the reason they're needing to bring in the military is because there simply aren't enough police to adequate protect such an event (went to a talk by a security officer; it's going to be a nightmare). You have to maintain the city on High Alert (I think that's the term?) and normally the police can only operate at that level for a few days, whereas this would be over a number of weeks and over a large area (the games are all over the place).

You have the events themselves which are, let's be honest, a very good target for any terrorist organisation with an agenda. That's over a number of weeks, so you have to have security all the time - I think it's a bit much to ask the police to stay awake for a few weeks. Then, around the events you also have pretty much every world leader (bar Kim Jong Il and Mugabe) in London, and all the events around that (State Dinners, parties etc.) which also need to be protected. I don't think it is the government wanting to lull the populace into a false sense of security before they inadvertently bring about Martial Law.

MotherPanda, as xyfactor says you only have the opportunity to be a pacifist because we have armed forces to defend all of us and leave you to believe what you wish.

In fact I wish everyone was a pacifist but alas they are not. But until there is world peace (which I doubt will be in our lifetime or the next) then we'll always need an army.

One of my favourite quotes "We sleep peaceably in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf."

I don't have a problem with the military providing security. Defending us is their job and as a one off event I don't have an issue with them being deployed in our capital. In fact I'd rather have the army providing security than some bored minimum wage security guard.

Kind of makes you think that there has been 'intelligence' to indicate there will be 'stuff' planned..... Well does me anyway ( we are police/ military background)

POTL can be messed around, just like any other leave.

I am aware of that. However, unless there is a need for someone of his specific rank and speciality, he's not going to get called up for Olympics duty. I would imagine (hope?) that due consideration would be given to those just returning from/preparing for deployment.

LLOTT - I would be surprised if there wasn't intelligence to suggest that 'stuff' is planned; better to have the military and the police than inadequate measures in place.