Not to mention the threat from *****s. If this gate doesn't keep them away then the removal of concessions (and by extension, most u18s) surely will.
I questioned it because it struck me as a load of bollocks. I still think it's a load of bollocks. I was told at that meeting, that gates were being put up to prevent an explosive device being placed on the waste ground, that could then be triggered on a match day. As the gate is only at one end, it does not prevent this, so it was nonsense. You can still walk straight up to the stadium from the other sides, so unless they're only targeting very lazy terrorists who live on Argyle street, it's double bollocks. They also said it would only be shut during unsociable hours (midnight to 6.00am, which also now seems to be bollocks. In summary, it's all a load of bollocks. I'm back by the way.
Is the anti terrorism stuff bollocks? Have they made up the agency etc? I agree it's strange, I've not said differently, are the other things they are doing round the stadium too? There are lots to get excited about and call the Allams, this,isn't one of them.
There was a small piece in the HDM a few years back, which actually turned out to be true, but seemingly Tesco's on Hall Rd had a planning application rejected, because the security services objected on terrorist grounds. I forget what they wanted, but it was nothing startling.
it's actually very straightforward what is and isn't a PD. You can pay the council a small fee, literally tens of pounds, and they'll tell you whether something will need planning permission without you having to do much work. I don't get how the club don't know if it does or not. Edit: above happens with ERYC not sure about HCC.
Idiotic statement. The gate is down to experts from the security service and advice designed to mitigate risk. Think of Manchester arena. If the club ignored advice and listened to public whinging, and something bad happened, it would be indefensible. Whether anyone thinks it will make the slightest bit of difference is irrelevant. It has been suggested on a very high level assessment, by agencies who are experts in managing crowded place threats. I don’t get anyone who uses this to blame the owners. The fact it doesn’t prevent anything outright is a non argument. It’s one piece of target hardening. Other routes may be covered by cameras. Any restriction has to balance public need. The gate is one part of a plan and any crowded place or key infrastructure will be subject to such assessments. Years ago the emphasis was on farms and fertiliser stores... how times have changed! Now it is all concrete barriers and dispersal flows.
I agree with this, as it is easier for them to conform to advice and avoid accusations of negligence. I also agree that the advice is bollocks and should be challenged. It is clearly just one element of a security plan, so it would be good if it could be seen how it interacts with the other elements. But not only is that not likely to happen due to security reasons, but also because it is bollocks.
I don't think some bloke from the terrorist unit rocked up and said 'right lads, you need to build a gate there', they write a set of guidelines that go to everyone responsible for large scale events and it's up to each organisation to implement those rules as they see it. It quite obviously isn't going to make the stadium any safer. I think it's been done to deal with an antisocial behaviour issue on a night.
The SMC applied for planning permission and then withdrew the application. The only people, other than those at the SMC, who will know if the Police or Home Office recommended the gate is the Planning Committee Councillors. I'm sure the SMC would have included the recommendation in its application. Such a recommendation is not in the public planning application papers, but I wouldn't have expected it to be. If walking to the park is such a terrorist threat why have they waited so long to close the gates? Is it a coincidence that the statement has been made now the Council have told them they need planning permission? It smells like another fit of pigue by the Allams in their long running battle with the Council. I wonder if the Police or the Home Office have told the City Council to put a gate on Poorhouse Lane. Will Sunderland City Council be building a gated fence around the Stadium of Light? What about Newcastle City Council and St James' Park? Will the new White Hart Lane have a security fence around it? Finally, what about our national stadium? Will the Home Office or the Met be telling the FA to erect gated security fences around Wembley?
Any reason to call them is good enough for me. **** em, **** em all and the sooner they **** the **** off the better. Now I feel ready for that protest thing.
I googled newcastle its terror threat and the first hit comes up with road closure etc round the stadium due to terror threat. I'd say it's something intelligence services are concerned about, they've probably got info they won't share with us the ****s them. I've no idea what the gate has to do with it but I doubt it's the only measure in place and being recommended. Move on. Nothing to see here.
I wouldn't expect them to share it publicly. There is provision in the planning rules for the Council to withhold certain papers from publication. I'm sure anti-terrorist advice would be one of the things they'd withhold, for obvious reasons. I would have expected the Planning Committee, if it received such a recommendation, to have rubber stamped the application months ago. Here's what I found on St James' Park http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/changes-anti-terror-match-day-13690812 Seems it only applies on match days. Other times the stadium is open to terrorist attack just like the SMC. There's plenty to see for me. Notice how Newcastle United worked with the local community and the Council to come up with the plan.
Where both stadiums are isn't comparable is it. Again I have no idea what or how the anti terror advice decide bu they do and I'm. Happy to leave them to their job. They recommend a gate, get a ****ing gate. Move on it's boring.
On the one hand it seems ludicrous that the gate is open at the specific time when there is a threat to life. On the other hand, if a device was going to be planted rather than worn, it would probably happen at a time when nobody else is around. In conclusion, having a 2m gate on one of many access points is completely pointless with regards to terrorism. It's not like most of them need an escape plan ("oh no, I've been spotted on cctv. They will be able to retrospectively observe my path to martyrdom").
I think its another example of the Allams' failure to do something as simple as putting up an anti-terrorist gate. That's of course if its true the anti-terrorist unit recommended a gate. Newcastle United implemented their proposals in July. They then adjusted them. Its now nearly October and the Allams have only just got around to implementing the so-called proposals. Right before an important match and just after the Council said they need planning permission. I find it all fascinating, so no need to move on.
WATERGATE!!!! It started slowly, but resulted in the resignation of Richard Milhous Nixon...the 37th POTUS Fact of the day... Maybe its the beginning of the end of the Allam's. One can only hope.
