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?

But you cant just single out one stereotype of person can you???
Doesn't mean that police and security aren't watching some people more closely than others, but no way could you only scan and search only certain individuals!
The high presence of police, inc armed police, outside venues is because of the chance of an incident outside - they are watching and listening, and ready to act.

When security are checking bags they aren't allowed to put their hands in the bags incase there are anything sharp etc in it. It also means if someone loses something they can't blame the searcher for it.

Yes you could have something concealed on your person but there isn't the man power to pat down everyone at an event etc.

We try our best but if we aren't given enough bodies then we just can't do it.

I was searching bags at a football game one day and my supervisor told me to ask people to remove hats as well. I was on my own covering 4 turnstiles so I know people got in with stuff as I cannot search every single person.

Blimey, I didn't know that a Geordie accent was a protective factor against radicalisation

"I'm also thoroughly annoyed by places that make you sign in but don't bother to check IDs"

Actually I had that explained to me one day, it is so they know who to look for if there is a disaster.

I don't mind anything if there is an intelligent reason for it. But as another poster pointed out, Who will guard the guards themselves?

security theatre! Of course! I knew there was a term for it....and I knew it wasn't either charade or pantomime - although both work I think.

It is for a reason / to make people feel reassured and to prevent public fear and changes in spending patterns.

And people are reassured by it (see this thread for example!), so it does work - it's just that the measure of success isn't the one people think it is.

It's all pretty awful and unpalatable, but people want to believe they are safe and that there is something happening that others or they themselves can do to mitigate the risk.

I do agree with you OP, but I don't think you'll convince many by being so openly and remorselessly pragmatic!

So sorry your DD was upset, I hope you find a way so she can continue doing lessons.

Thanks well. Myrtle has very nearly convinced me its worth trying to find a way....but I doubt I'll get DD within a mile of the building after today.

I remember flying in 2005? and there were tanks outside Heathrow. I did wonder how helpful a tank would be and what it could do.

A tank? Wow!

I was trying to work out the other day whether the recent attacks were evidence for or against the idea that our nuclear deterrent works....

Maybe we could park a North Korean style missile in the car park? That would DEFINITELY make people feel safe right?

Apparently most terrorists are already known to the authorities, so I question the usefulness of searching bags.

It would be more efficient if they watched the men who are bragging about their allegiance to terrorist organisations on the internet, and kept an eye on abusive men. (I know police can't do much when courts just let abusers run free, but several men who committed terrorist acts first terrorized their wives, there's an obvious connection there)

Considering that the most recent terrorist acts I heard of were committed with a car as weapon, I don't think searching bags will prevent that.

Fair enough to do it at airports, where they actually have the means to do it thoroughly, but otherwise ... not so sure.

I sure hope this glancing into the bags of random people is just a cover because they'd get shit about targeting a certain demographic of young immigrant males with suspicious looking luggage, and that's they're actually searching those people.

In the Paris concert attack the incident did happen inside the venue. We went to a concert in England not long after and were searched then also.

News is news, and transparency in the news is a reasonable expectation. I don't expect my news to be censored.

If your DD has such serious anxieties, seek help for her.

What are you on?

Instead of moaning about increased security maybe try and accept this will be the world we live in for a while and come up with some strategies to explain things to your dd in an age appropriate way. If she has SEN you could perhaps work with her HCP's or SENCO at school to come up with some social stories, acting out scenarios, looking at age appropriate news articles etc.

My dd is nine and has friends who were actually involved in the Manchester attack. Her school have dealt with it very well and dd and a few of said friends attended the large One Love concert last week, there were bag checks, it was not a "masquerade".

trinity just because you want to think it isn't a charade, doesn't mean it isn't. See the posts from people who have done this job - they admit it is for show only.

What if they didn't do searches at that concert and someone had a stanley knife in their bag/pocket?

In the thick of the crowd in the middle of it, a lot of damage could have been done.

You just sound pissed off and selfish that it upset your kid and are trying to complain about a totally reasonable measure.

They'll stop with the bag searches soon anyway. Then you can start having a go at the armed police for alarming you and your kid.

What drives me insane is the arbitrary nature of 'security'. At gigs they seem most interested in bottles of water (because of course they won't be on sale at vastly inflated prices at the venue) I am not disputing that it may not water in the bottle but it seems odd that once a bottle of water is found the Search ends.
Airports: ok liquids in a bag. Since when has face powder been a liquid? ( Possibly the clue is in the name) take your hair dryer and straighteners out of the bag (when flying out but not flying in). Flying other week: you can only have one lighter and don't ask stupid questions - that was in response to saying that 3 lighters hadn't been a problem 3 weeks earlier when apparently the rule has been in place for 'years'.

trinity someone on this very thread got a knife through a security charade (by accident).

So your whole argument is flawed.

I have every right to resent people demanding ineffective security performances that have no other effect than to prevent my child (and many others with anxiety or ASD) from accessing activities.

You argument boils down to 'my irrational fear of terrorist, trumps your child's irrational fear of security guards' which is a fairly childish argument when all is said and done.

When you've been directly affected by terrorism it is not an irrational fear.
If bag checks made some nine year olds feel safe enough to go to a concert then who cares if it is a charade?

Or is your dd the only child in the world that matters, therefore we should design the world around her?

What if they didn't do searches at that concert and someone had a stanley knife in their bag/pocket?

A security "charade" as this thread is about wouldn't have found it. The point of this thread is that a lot of the security checking is very superficial so completely pointless and achieves nothing. If they're going to check peoples' bags, pockets, etc., then they should do it properly and consistently.

This is a typical example of a security "charade".

trinity but this wasn't manchester and literally no one was being reassured by the pointless charade. Similarly you are incorrect that my DD is the only one affected.

Your final incorrectness is to assume I haven't been affected by terrorism. Some of my family were caught up in the 2005 attacks, though not fatally so. None of them are in favour of security charades either. They would rather not be constantly reminded.

bad that is actually crazily funny. I mean wtf?

my DD also got assaulted (in the strictest definition of assaulted) by a security guard at an airport, so her fear is no more or less irrational than anyones fear of terrorists.

We should ALL be more afraid of cars, beer, fags, and red meat than we are of terrorists/security guards.