Is the security risk at the 2012 games too high???

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by cavemandave, Nov 14, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Personally I would not work security at the games even if they paid me £50 per hour. It is gonna go tits up spectacularly and i would like to stay as many miles from London as i can. Door Supervisors and Security Staff will be under equipped, under resourced, lack any powers, have no basic first aid training, and in a mass casualty scenario it sounds like a nightmare in hell if Terry/AQ came to play at the games :shock:

    London 2012 Olympics: US to send '1,000 agents' as UK security shortfall is revealed | Mail Online

    Surface-to-air missiles could be used to protect the skies over London during the Olympics, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said today as he insisted 'all necessary measures' will be taken to ensure security.
    Mr Hammond told the Commons 'appropriate ground to air defences' could be in place if that was recommended by the military.
    His comments came as it was reported that the US was prepared to send up to 1,000 of its own agents, including 500 from the FBI, to look after the US's contestants and diplomats at the event in a sign of unease at the security operation.
    And the body organising the Olympics has started a recruitment drive to double the number of security guards at the Games after admitting it had underestimated how many would be required - but the new recruits may have to be funded by the MoD.
  2. Some one shout "JOURNO" for me, im too small
  3. Ahem...JOURNO!!!:biggrin:

  4. That's well thought out then.

    Surface to air missiles are primarily designed to take on military aircraft, many times smaller than that of the highest threat of possible highjacked passenger aircraft.

    The missile will still bring the passenger aircraft down, just in big chunks on the very heads of those it's supposed to protect.

    Although I don't really think that will happen. The most likely is a RDD (radiological dispersion device).
  5. Thanks!, and its not hard to make bombs from smoke detectors so im with dingerr on that one
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Security to cost over 700,000,000.00!!! While we cower around a fifteen watt lightbulb for warmth and sign for bogroll! (QM wants an OBE)
  7. Given that it looks like only about four members of the tax paying public actually got tickets to the running, skipping and jumping corporate love-in, I'd say no.
    The fallout will only land on members of Parliament, Seb Coe and his back-handing chums. Bring it on.
  8. No im not little tits. I work as a Door Supervisor here and there when i'm free on weekends. I posted the above because i've been asked to work it by several companies and i am unimpressed with planning and resources based on the info i have been given so far :O)
  9. How can the security risk be deemed as "too high" when the TA 's being asked to provide?
    • Like Like x 2
  10. They'll be no more use than an SIA badged door supervisor... what if any training will the TA have in crowd control/ticket gates/searching people/evacuations of venues etc Alpha? I'd rather sit at home up North :O)
  11. It'll be great, blackouts and Spitfires doing fighter sweeps over London, officious twats shouting "Put that light out". If I were AQ I'd mallet somewhere else while everyone's looking the other way.
  12. Keep your NBC suit handy and take a holiday well away from London for the duration......agree with vinnie the cat.... utter load of bollocks and waste of money
  13. Like Glasgow? Who'd notice/care?