Off-topic discussions about regional news, issues and politics. Pretty much everything goes here, but keep it polite: Flaming and spamming aren't welcome.

Security for the Queen

User avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

22984

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

Security for the Queen

by Robin Garr » Wed May 02, 2007 5:33 pm

Okay, I guess it's nice that we're having the Queen come calling on Derby Day, even if we did get over that Royalty thing in 1776.

But am I the only one who thinks that shutting down all traffic along her entire route from the airport to Churchill and back ... on Derby Day! ... is a little bit excessive?
User avatar
User

Doogy R

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

1862

Joined

Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:15 pm

Location

The purlieus of Louisville, KY

Re: Security for the Queen

by Doogy R » Wed May 02, 2007 5:49 pm

Robin Garr wrote:Okay, I guess it's nice that we're having the Queen come calling on Derby Day, even if we did get over that Royalty thing in 1776.

But am I the only one who thinks that shutting down all traffic along her entire route from the airport to Churchill and back ... on Derby Day! ... is a little bit excessive?


I think making any kind of big deal over the queen is a bit excessive. How long has it been since the royalty of Great Britain has even been relevant?
Great food along with great company is truly one of lifes best treasures.
User avatar
User

Steve Magruder

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

439

Joined

Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:57 am

Location

Louisville, KY - Iroquois/Auburndale area

Re: Security for the Queen

by Steve Magruder » Wed May 02, 2007 5:57 pm

Robin Garr wrote:Okay, I guess it's nice that we're having the Queen come calling on Derby Day, even if we did get over that Royalty thing in 1776.

But am I the only one who thinks that shutting down all traffic along her entire route from the airport to Churchill and back ... on Derby Day! ... is a little bit excessive?


I have been one to think that all the security detail needed for her visit is linked to the closing down of Broadway. Just a theory, of course. I feel that the Metro Police could have worked out something with the people and businesses along Broadway to cover public safety issues. After all, they had a full year since the last closing.
Steve Magruder
Metro Foodist
no avatar
User

Holly C

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

79

Joined

Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:53 am

by Holly C » Wed May 02, 2007 7:43 pm

Isn't it the same as a presidential visit (in terms of security, that is)? I haven't actually read what the planned closures are, so this is just off the topic of my head. Is the queen getting more security than the president? If so, I understand the controversy. But if it's the same security, are you just peeved because it's another country's leader (rather than our own), or because it's Derby and that will make it all the more inconvenient?

I was unlucky enough to fly out of Louisville on the day President Bush came back in March. We were scheduled to take off before his plane approached, but we had a minor delay, and before you knew it, we were stuck on the tarmac while they shut down everything because his plane had gotten within a 1,000,000-mile radius of Louisville :( I am lucky enough to be flying out of town again this Friday, but pretty early in the morning, so I hope to be clear of any and all security delays! At least Larry Birkhead has already arrived ;)
no avatar
User

Jeff T

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

278

Joined

Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:45 pm

Location

Louisville

by Jeff T » Wed May 02, 2007 10:46 pm

I wonder if they will be bringing the Royal Toliet. Ive always heard that she has never used a bathroom that anyone else has visited.
no avatar
User

Sonja W

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

133

Joined

Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:00 pm

Queen's visit

by Sonja W » Fri May 04, 2007 12:31 am

The security required for the Queen is not gauged by our historical relationship to (or opinions on the relevance of) the monarchy. It is based on her symbolic status as a head of state. As such, she is a legitimate security concern and due the attention that requires. Other countries provide similar protection when our political representatives travel abroad. We don’t want any less for her while on Louisville’s watch.

I do suspect that the Queen has accepted the loss of our colonies and moved on.
User avatar
User

Ed Vermillion

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

1764

Joined

Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:32 pm

Location

38 degrees 25' 25' N 85 degrees 36' 2' W

by Ed Vermillion » Fri May 04, 2007 2:16 am

Indeed, she has moved on from her rebel colonies. Interesting that there is a remnant of the British Empire left around the globe. I just finished an interesting book: "Outposts: Journeys to the Surviving Relic of the British Empire" written by Simon Winchester. The Brits still have some far flung possessions like St. Helena, Diego Garcia and Ascension Island to worry about, not to mention the Queen's Monkeys on Gibraltor.
User avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

22984

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

by Robin Garr » Fri May 04, 2007 7:37 am

Holly Cummings wrote:are you just peeved because it's another country's leader (rather than our own), or because it's Derby and that will make it all the more inconvenient?


Just for the record, I think doing it in the middle of Derby makes it even more stupid, but I do believe that going to the extent of shutting down the entire expressway goes too far for the queen OR the president. It stops being reasonable security and starts turning into some kind of imperial thing.

If the secret service really feels that it can't protect its client without that kind of massively intrusive (and expensive) operation, then with all respect, they should simply keep him (or her) home.
User avatar
User

RebeccaWebb

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

107

Joined

Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:54 am

Location

Lexington, KY

by RebeccaWebb » Fri May 04, 2007 9:26 am

I remember growing up, we lived in front of one of the airport runways (airport fence was the back of our property). President Carter was going to the airport and they had our road shut down. They literally would not let us walk across the road to our house ... and this was in the 70s.

I agree that it is a typical level of security for a head of state figure.
Rebecca Phillips Webb
User avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

22984

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

by Robin Garr » Fri May 04, 2007 10:41 am

rebeccawebb wrote:They literally would not let us walk across the road to our house ... and this was in the 70s.


In the '90s, when Bill Clinton did that gig at a diner in Queens, they closed every single street that crossed the Long Island Expressway for an hour, creating incredible gridlock so they could do a political media event. It ain't right.

I agree that it is a typical level of security for a head of state figure.


You are absolutely right, but the question remains whether it's actually necessary.
User avatar
User

Leah S

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

2364

Joined

Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:31 pm

Location

Old Louisville

by Leah S » Fri May 04, 2007 11:30 am

These days? If the expressway is within a shoulder mounted rocket launcher distance from the royal motorcade, then yes, its necessary.
User avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

22984

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

by Robin Garr » Fri May 04, 2007 11:47 am

Leah s wrote:These days? If the expressway is within a shoulder mounted rocket launcher distance from the royal motorcade, then yes, its necessary.


Two problems there, Leah. First, as a practical matter, blocking all expressway traffic does not deter that kind of terrorist action, which, sadly, could as easily be done from a car on a side street within range of the expressway.

More to the point, though, I'll repeat what I said before: If in fact the Queen's (or the President's) security forces think they can't protect their client without gridlocking and massively inconveniencing an entire city, then they should be told, "We're really sorry, but we would prefer that you stay home and watch the event on TV."

It's my honest opinion, though, that this kind of alleged security is done primarily not for the client's safety but for his or her convenience.
User avatar
User

Suzi Bernert

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

1002

Joined

Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:08 pm

Location

Louisville, KY

Security

by Suzi Bernert » Fri May 04, 2007 12:41 pm

I have been on a couple of details for the VP, and the amount of clearance is nuts. They require a dedicated ambulance (but we will NEVER be allowed to touch the protectee - they have their own medics and supplies), a designated hospital has to keep blood supplies secured and be able to clear an area COMPLETELY on a moments notice, the air traffic is held coming and going, vehicular traffic as noted above is held and they drive like maniacs. I can put the pedal to the metal as well as anyone in EMS and had a terrible time keeping up with those guys. EMS personnel have to be checked and cleared 48 hours in advance - good thing nothing from my old "hippie days" came back to haunt me!! :roll: That's just what I know about, I am sure there is a LOT more.

What a shame that we have to do these things, but if you are old enough John Kennedy, you remember the feelings and understand the reasons. :cry:
Retired from LMEMS
Co-Founder and House Mother
Berndows Enterprise
"Time to eat?"
User avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

22984

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

Re: Security

by Robin Garr » Fri May 04, 2007 3:05 pm

Suzi Bernert wrote:if you are old enough John Kennedy, you remember the feelings and understand the reasons. :cry:


Not really, Suz. I don't mean to be irreverent, but we had Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and scarily close misses on Roosevelt and Truman, but security didn't really get out of control as a result of those tragedies. Truman took walks around Washington by himself, and I can just remember, as a small child, Ike and Mamie driving right through a huge crowd on the street downtown when they were here in the late '50s.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign