Your splitting hairs Buck. The gate is across the access to the stadium 'bowl' The boundary in other words. It was installed on the advice of the Home Office. Imagine the outcry if the club had of ignored the advice and done nothing and then god forbid something did happen ? You believe or you don't, I'm not that bothered but it does seem that some on here will believe anything as long it's another stick to use the wack the owners over the head with. Personally I think it's a storm in a teacup and could have been sorted quite sensibly but someone appears to want to score political points over this issue.
That's because it's another utterly stupid thing, added to an ever increasing list of utterly stupid things, done during the Allan's tenure.
It might well be but if the Home Office advised about security for your business would you ignore it or act on it ? Not forgetting this is a stadium where people gather.
I was referring to the handling of the whole thing, rather than the specifics of the gate itself, though as it didn't even prevent Nick and his young daughter from getting in, it's obviously not going to stop a terrorist attack. There's also too much being made of this terrorist advice, stadiums are given guidelines which they implement as they see fit, I don't believe they were specifically told to install that gate, it's utterly pointless.
There is something not quite right here, if it is true that the anti terrorist people have said a gate needs to be put up, then surely the gate has to be of a height and design to stop people easily scaling it. If it is as OBI has said, that the gate should be higher than 2 metres, which in my opinion it should be, but the SMC has decided to reduce the gate size in order to avoid planning permission, then they have to be in breach of the directive from the Anti terrorist people. If the anti terrorist people are happy with a 2 metre gate, then they want sacking, and God help us if these are the people protecting us from a terrorist attack.
The gate is useless as a security measure. The fact a young family climbed over it last night shows how useless it is. The Government advises all businesses to get planning permission for any security measures. The Allams after receiving the advice applied for planning permission and then reduced the size of the gate to avoid the need for it. They have waited nearly a year to install the gate and then shut it. They are either totally incompetent, or they don't care about the people of Hull, or the Home Office advice wasn't to install the gate. There are no gates at Wembley, nor any gates at St James' Park, both of which are likely to face bigger terrorist threats than the KCOM. Installing and closing the gates is just another testament to the Allams failure as owners of Hull City AFC.
I cannot argue against that and don't wish too. But I do think the main threat was seen to be from vehicles driven into crowds of people which is why we have concrete bollards in Queen Victoria Square and the reason the Food Festivals were moved from trinity Square to Zeeberdee's Yard.
I can't believe that the only stadium the Home Office think needs a gate on just one of the many ways of approaching it is the KCOM. Or that it would make any difference to anything. Who did the Home Office inform this action was necessary? Surely that would have been the people responsible for the footbridge, the council.
I don't know. There are enough security experts replying to this thread perhaps one of them can advise ?
Apparently the new breed of terrorist will target empty stadiums, only approach them over footbridge and be deterred by a 6', or just under 6', fence.
But no-one wanted be believe that be true. Like no-one wanted to believe what was written in the SMC statement issued last week.
That's because it was misleading and inaccurate and as with all the SMC's statements, it reads like it was written by an eight year old.
If it was true the advice from the Home Office would have been included in the original application for planning permission in November last year. The Council would have kept the document secret as they are entitled to and the planning application would have been agreed. There is no way a Planning Committee would have rejected advice from the Home Office on fighting terrorism. A suitable sized gate would have been installed months ago. Instead the Allams withdraw their planning application and reduced the size of the gate. In doing so it allowed at least one young family to climb over it. Are you seriously saying that the Home Office recommended such a puny security measure to stop terrorist attacks on an empty stadium?
