to seriously resent security charades

[Morphene]

My DD has some SEN like issues so the unexpected appearance of a security charade at the Sage Gateshead was basically game over regarding her attending her lesson there this morning.

I seriously resent this bullshit. Actual security where needed is one thing. Standing around wearing yellow jackets glancing in people's bags is not actually providing any security whatsoever. On top of this it was creating a bottleneck and a nice juicy looking queue outside the building - so actively increasing the security risk from basically zero, to very slightly more than basically zero.

So on the basis that their security charade both made the members of the public marginally less safe, and also prevented my girl from accessing education, AIBU to award the Sage the Morphene for doing the terrorists job for them?

my DD has a problem with security checks because she has an irrational but deeply affecting fear of police/security personnel.

So because your dd has a problem with security checks we should just do away with them then?
Just because it's highly unlikely they're needed anyway?
I'd rather they were there rather than not.

myrtle DD won't be able to go back now regardless what they do to help, and seeing as how most people are mysteriously happy for the security charade to occur there isn't much point complaining.

First thing we could do to help loads more: Stop publicising terrorists and their causes.

When the westminster bridge attack happened we gave the perpetrator and his cause 2 weeks of wall to wall publicity. For driving a van across a bridge and attacking 1 person with a knife. 2 WHOLE WEEKS. What effect do you think that has on the people teetering on the edge, wondering if they can really do enough damage to make it worth losing their lives?

cheese yes. I don't see why your irrational need trumps hers. The default of our society is NO checks. You want to have checks to satisfy your irrational fears. Why should you be pandered to?

For driving a van across a bridge and attacking 1 person with a knife

Wow. You think it was only "driving a van across the bridge" and then attacking one person?
It was a bit more than driving a van across the bridge!

I am not living in fear and one of those that carry on as usual because I won't let "them" win.

I am also a person who if,for whatever reason,a venue has decided it will carry out security checks will comply without moaning about it.

They will become a fact of life from time to time going forward and you will need to educate your daughter that this is likely to happen and get her help/give her help as to how she can cope when she comes across these situations.

So YABU insofar as today's check whether you think it was real or a sham.

nancy due to the circumstances I had a very good view of them checking around 200 odd bags. Or zero as it really was.

They may well have been profiling. Everyone there was either a child and parent combo going to a lesson or part of a large party of tourists all wearing the same kit and bags. Maybe no one fit the profile for actually checking. Hence they very much did not need to be there, visible at all.

I am not living in fear and one of those that carry on as usual because I won't let "them" win.I am also a person who if,for whatever reason,a venue has decided it will carry out security checks will comply without moaning about it.

Absolutely, same here.

I do think we spend too much on security and should focus more on catching people before they need to be tackled at security.

Barriers on bridges....people move to streets.
Security at crowded venues? Creates a large bottleneck of people who could be attacked.
A determined attacked could easily overwhelm security and blow themselves up or do worse.

It doesn't bare thinking about.

We could target resources far more effectively.

cheese so you are in favour of publicising terrorists and against actual security measures rather than pretend ones. I'm guessing we may as well agree to disagree now.

'For driving a van across a bridge and attacking 1 person with a knife. '
You missed out mowing people down. It isn't 'publicity' it is news.

There isn't an easy answer. I agree with pp, just because some get a cursory check doesn't mean that everyone does. Imagine the outcry if they only searched those that fitted a 'terrorist' appearance.

Its a shame your dc won't be going back. Bag searches and security are par for the course now. Have you rang the Sage? why not show your DD there are sometimes solutions rather than just complain, ask if you could be fast tracked due to dds medical needs. They may well have an alternative.

against actual security measures rather than pretend ones

In one breath you seem to be saying that your dd can't cope with security measures so we need to do away with them, then in the next one you're saying we need to have actual security measures that properly check and not just pretend ones.
Make your bloody mind up.

Personally I would have complied with an actual security check without moaning.

I would have complied with a fake security check with moaning because it is ridiculous to stack people up in a queue outside unless you are actually improving the security inside.

But it wasn't up to me sadly.

It isn't 'publicity' it is news.

Exactly! What should we do, not publicise the news? Then in 20 years time when our kids are on Mumsnet, there'll no doubt be loads more people not "up" on the news and aware of the troubles going on that we're going through right now.

Pictures all over twitter, facebook, the entire BBC website devoted to it.

That isn't news. That is publicity.

I was SO pissed off that for several days the BBC website lead with massive pictures of the london bridge perpetrators and only tiny little side stories on the victims.

They have a choice how they report the news and giving more column inches to the terrorists than the victims is pure bullshit.

We don't need to know who they are. We don;t need to know anything about them. The security services do - the public don't.

'Personally I would have complied with an actual security check without moaning.'
Imagine the queues then if everyone was patted down and they had airport x-ray machines at every venue!

Op be realistic. They need to be seen to be searching, they can't do a full on security check on every single person. Something is better than nothing. I think your are understandably projecting your frustration at your dds condition and inability to queue onto a situation that is now the norm.

they very much did not need to be there, visible at all.

They might have been acting on a specific piece of intelligence.
They might have been conducting a training exercise for the security personnel.
They might have wanted to do a trial run, to see how a system of searches might work, before introducing it for real.

We don;t need to know anythig about the terrorists, that should have read.

We do need to know the victims, to hear their stories and remembers them.

I don't think the BBC should ever show the faces of the culprits. Not once.

With you on the showing of their faces. It was too much focus on the perpetrators. There was no need for it.
However, that's got nothing to do with proper security checks. They're still needed, whether you like them or not.
I can't believe the things some people moan about, honestly.

myrtle it isn't the norm. There has never previously been any such thing at the Sage.

Whatever was going on today wasn't happening a month ago.

It isn't necessary and it isn't helping.

It's making the place less safe, and preventing my DD from going to her lesson.

I really can't quite see why I should be pleased with this....or why anyone else would be either.

' I don't think the BBC should ever show the faces of the culprits. Not once.'
Yes I agree with you there. They should focus on the victims and not show the murderers, just name them and that's it.

Why are they needed?

They apparently weren't before?

'it isn't the norm. There has never previously been any such thing at the Sage'
I mean the new norm. We've never had 3 attacks in a matter of weeks before either.

The changes of catching a nihilist would-be mass murderer are like finding a needle in a hay stack. Wouldn't it be better to spend this money on giving young people are reason to be optimistic and to love their fellow human beings?

More people died in the last week on the UK's roads than the total sum of those killed in all three attacks.

Since the first attack (which was almost 3 months ago now btw) around 300 people have died on the roads. so that's more than 10 times as many as have died in all 3 attacks together.

So explain to me why our whole way of life has to change because of these attacks and why we need to accept this new norm?

We could save more lives by banning driving for a week than by actually preventing terrorism entirely....let alone this ridiculous glancing in bags BS.