Bilderberg Conference: Hertfordshire taxpayers to pay remaining £528,000 policing bill

St Albans & Harpenden Review: Bilderberg Conference: Hertfordshire taxpayers to pay remaining security bill Bilderberg Conference: Hertfordshire taxpayers to pay remaining security bill

The remaining cost of policing the Bilderberg Group meeting in Watford will be paid by Hertfordshire tax payers after an application for a grant has been refused by the Home Office.

The controversial conference which took place in June 2013 attracted more than 2,000 people to The Grove Hotel and policing the event cost about £990,000.

Scores of officers from a dozen forces were drafted in for the event, which involved roads being closed with anti-terror legislation and a no-fly zone being imposed over the area.

The Bilderberg Group had made a donation of £462,000 and Hertfordshire Police applied to the Home Office for the remaining £528,000.

However, the cost of policing the event fell short of the one per cent threshold (£1.8 million) and was not assessed as bearing a risk to the force’s financial stability or capacity to deliver policing.

Hertfordshire Police and crime commissioner David Lloyd previously said the money would come from reserve and he was "disappointed" to have the application refused by the Home Office.

Councillor Lloyd said: "Along with all other police forces in the country Hertfordshire Constabulary has a core policing duty to prevent crime, maintain the Queen’s Peace, protect the public and prevent damage to property.

"The Bilderberg conference was an exceptional policing challenge that was very successfully policed by the constabulary with several thousand protestors attending over the period of the event.

"The constabulary fulfilled their legal responsibilities and ensured that the event took place peacefully with the minimum of disruption to Hertfordshire’s public and businesses.

"I am disappointed that the Home Office has turned down our grant application though I understand the Home Office’s criteria. Fortunately, our sound financial management means that this decision does not cause us immediate problems or require us to make further immediate savings on policing.  Ultimately, this money will come from our reserves and I would have wanted to have this money available for other policing purposes in the county."

The Home Office explained that Special Grant funding is only available where necessary additional expenditure incurred would create a serius threat to financial stability of a Force and its capacity to deliver normal policing.

They advised that a Special Grant will usually only be considered once the costs reach one per cent of the Force budget and that Forces are generally expected to meet one-off exceptional spend below this level from their own reserves.

The cost of policing the event fell short of the one per cent threshold (£1.8 million) and was not assessed as bearing a risk to the force’s financial stability or capacity to deliver policing.

Comments (80)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:59pm Thu 17 Apr 14

#luvreadingthesamemuppetscommentingasexperts says...

Hardly news, I doubt there is one single tax payer that thought any different, it was a foregone conclusion we would all get stitched up with this!!
Hardly news, I doubt there is one single tax payer that thought any different, it was a foregone conclusion we would all get stitched up with this!! #luvreadingthesamemuppetscommentingasexperts
  • Score: 25

5:15pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Local taxpayers have been let down over this as we were led to believe at the time the government would pick up the bill.

I suppose things could have been worse. If local Green Su Murray had had her way and set up some sort of festival it would probably have been even more expensive to police.
Local taxpayers have been let down over this as we were led to believe at the time the government would pick up the bill. I suppose things could have been worse. If local Green Su Murray had had her way and set up some sort of festival it would probably have been even more expensive to police. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 5

6:11pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Harry Caine says...

The 1% rip off the rest of us yet again
Monsieur Guillotine where are you now?

Could Rich Harrington afford to pick up this bill from petty cash?

see: http://companycheck.
co.uk/director/90566
3055

Can't help wondering where Harvington Properties and Eden Financial disappeared to, they were on his blurb when the muppets of Watford elected him
The 1% rip off the rest of us yet again Monsieur Guillotine where are you now? Could Rich Harrington afford to pick up this bill from petty cash? see: http://companycheck. co.uk/director/90566 3055 Can't help wondering where Harvington Properties and Eden Financial disappeared to, they were on his blurb when the muppets of Watford elected him Harry Caine
  • Score: 14

6:12pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Hornankey says...

Disgraceful waste of our monies.
Disgraceful waste of our monies. Hornankey
  • Score: 14

6:12pm Thu 17 Apr 14

#UKMum says...

Why hasn't Richard Harrington lobbied to get the cost paid for elsewhere? I thought this was to be shared across the entire tax paying fraternity. Watford didn't benefit from it at all.
Why hasn't Richard Harrington lobbied to get the cost paid for elsewhere? I thought this was to be shared across the entire tax paying fraternity. Watford didn't benefit from it at all. #UKMum
  • Score: 21

6:31pm Thu 17 Apr 14

TRT says...

#UKMum wrote:
Why hasn't Richard Harrington lobbied to get the cost paid for elsewhere? I thought this was to be shared across the entire tax paying fraternity. Watford didn't benefit from it at all.
Well... they DID pay their own hotel bill... and it DOES provide employment for a few local people... scrapings from the plate, mind you.
[quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: Why hasn't Richard Harrington lobbied to get the cost paid for elsewhere? I thought this was to be shared across the entire tax paying fraternity. Watford didn't benefit from it at all.[/p][/quote]Well... they DID pay their own hotel bill... and it DOES provide employment for a few local people... scrapings from the plate, mind you. TRT
  • Score: -9

6:49pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Harry Caine says...

If we had a half decent PCC he's tell the Grove where to stick their policing future requirements. Doubtless they made bundles out of this gig
If we had a half decent PCC he's tell the Grove where to stick their policing future requirements. Doubtless they made bundles out of this gig Harry Caine
  • Score: 15

7:44pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Nascot says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Local taxpayers have been let down over this as we were led to believe at the time the government would pick up the bill.

I suppose things could have been worse. If local Green Su Murray had had her way and set up some sort of festival it would probably have been even more expensive to police.
The irony being that if it cost more the Home Office would have paid. Shame we missed out on a free festival!
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Local taxpayers have been let down over this as we were led to believe at the time the government would pick up the bill. I suppose things could have been worse. If local Green Su Murray had had her way and set up some sort of festival it would probably have been even more expensive to police.[/p][/quote]The irony being that if it cost more the Home Office would have paid. Shame we missed out on a free festival! Nascot
  • Score: 2

7:44pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Nascot says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Local taxpayers have been let down over this as we were led to believe at the time the government would pick up the bill.

I suppose things could have been worse. If local Green Su Murray had had her way and set up some sort of festival it would probably have been even more expensive to police.
The irony being that if it cost more the Home Office would have paid. Shame we missed out on a free festival!
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Local taxpayers have been let down over this as we were led to believe at the time the government would pick up the bill. I suppose things could have been worse. If local Green Su Murray had had her way and set up some sort of festival it would probably have been even more expensive to police.[/p][/quote]The irony being that if it cost more the Home Office would have paid. Shame we missed out on a free festival! Nascot
  • Score: 2

9:13pm Thu 17 Apr 14

LSC says...

"The 1% rip off the rest of us yet again"

I totally agree. If the 1% or less of the population didn't attend these pointless protests and make silly threats, we would't need that level of policing and the bill would have been a lot less.
"The 1% rip off the rest of us yet again" I totally agree. If the 1% or less of the population didn't attend these pointless protests and make silly threats, we would't need that level of policing and the bill would have been a lot less. LSC
  • Score: -7

12:05am Fri 18 Apr 14

Retlas says...

Outrageous - vote UKip and Phil will save us!!
Outrageous - vote UKip and Phil will save us!! Retlas
  • Score: 4

12:37am Fri 18 Apr 14

crazyfrog says...

First of all the policing of the event was way over the top, no fly zones etc etc,
Police officers from multiple forces, I think it is disgusting that us Herts taxpayers have to pay for this political old boys club of masons to gather for a jolly at our expense somebody needs to resign over this! And the grove should be made to pay a considerable sum as well.
Please all remeber that this is coming out of our pockets when you vote at the next election!!!!
First of all the policing of the event was way over the top, no fly zones etc etc, Police officers from multiple forces, I think it is disgusting that us Herts taxpayers have to pay for this political old boys club of masons to gather for a jolly at our expense somebody needs to resign over this! And the grove should be made to pay a considerable sum as well. Please all remeber that this is coming out of our pockets when you vote at the next election!!!! crazyfrog
  • Score: 16

1:56pm Fri 18 Apr 14

LSC says...

"political old boys club of masons" are citizens and human beings too. They therefore are entitled to the same level of protection as everyone else at the taxpayers expense.
At the moment, my level of protection is very low because as far as I am aware, nobody wants to bomb me or line the streets chanting when I go to the shops and with the danger of a riot that might ensue.

I'm not saying I LIKE the Group or the costs involved. But I dislike riots and terrorists more, and when idiots threaten them, that comes with a price tag.
You'd all be very glad to see a copper or two if you attended a peaceful protest which suddenly turned ugly (as they so often do) and it was YOUR car being set on fire and used as a barricade.
"political old boys club of masons" are citizens and human beings too. They therefore are entitled to the same level of protection as everyone else at the taxpayers expense. At the moment, my level of protection is very low because as far as I am aware, nobody wants to bomb me or line the streets chanting when I go to the shops and with the danger of a riot that might ensue. I'm not saying I LIKE the Group or the costs involved. But I dislike riots and terrorists more, and when idiots threaten them, that comes with a price tag. You'd all be very glad to see a copper or two if you attended a peaceful protest which suddenly turned ugly (as they so often do) and it was YOUR car being set on fire and used as a barricade. LSC
  • Score: -3

2:47pm Fri 18 Apr 14

John Dowdle says...

This ludicrous outcome to an idiotic saga just proves how utterly stupid our so-called police and crime commissioner David Lloyd actually is.
He assured us all ahead of this event that it would cost local residents nothing to police. He has been proved wrong.
Did he know about the 1 per cent rule at the time? If not, why not?
Why did he not factor this 1 per cent in when working out how much the event was going to cost to police?
As it is, someone has already made the relevant suggestion.
Football clubs have to meet the financial costs of policing their events.
The Grove should be given the entire bill and told to pay it themselves. They made money out of the event and should meet the full costs of it.
They should also be told to factor such policing costs into any future events costing for events they decide to host and include it in their hosting fee.
If they refuse to pay the bill in full, they should be told they will not be able to expect future private benefit events to be policed at public expense.
This ludicrous outcome to an idiotic saga just proves how utterly stupid our so-called police and crime commissioner David Lloyd actually is. He assured us all ahead of this event that it would cost local residents nothing to police. He has been proved wrong. Did he know about the 1 per cent rule at the time? If not, why not? Why did he not factor this 1 per cent in when working out how much the event was going to cost to police? As it is, someone has already made the relevant suggestion. Football clubs have to meet the financial costs of policing their events. The Grove should be given the entire bill and told to pay it themselves. They made money out of the event and should meet the full costs of it. They should also be told to factor such policing costs into any future events costing for events they decide to host and include it in their hosting fee. If they refuse to pay the bill in full, they should be told they will not be able to expect future private benefit events to be policed at public expense. John Dowdle
  • Score: 9

3:00pm Fri 18 Apr 14

D_Penn says...

The Bilderberg group donated £462,000 towards policing, so they are not short of a bob or two. Surely with a bit more thought they could easily have chosen a different venue where the security was easier to provide and would have come within this budget?

Perhaps the problem is that group members consider themselves far too important to meet anywhere but at The Grove. That's unsurprising as it's about par these days for those at high level, but in that case, instead of luxury wining and dining at taxpayers' expense, shouldn't they then have paid the entire cost?
The Bilderberg group donated £462,000 towards policing, so they are not short of a bob or two. Surely with a bit more thought they could easily have chosen a different venue where the security was easier to provide and would have come within this budget? Perhaps the problem is that group members consider themselves far too important to meet anywhere but at The Grove. That's unsurprising as it's about par these days for those at high level, but in that case, instead of luxury wining and dining at taxpayers' expense, shouldn't they then have paid the entire cost? D_Penn
  • Score: 6

3:49pm Fri 18 Apr 14

LSC says...

"Football clubs have to meet the financial costs of policing their events."

Yes they do and this is factored into the ticket price. Therefore it is the fans who are paying for the policing, not the players on the field which is why the crowd are there..
Therefore if the same logic is applied then the protesters (the ones being policed) should pay and the Group who caused them to gather (the players) should actually pay nothing.

So the analogy makes my point quite neatly.

If policing costs came out of the players wages; (after all, it is them who want to play football and cause a crowd to gather that needs policing), then your argument would be correct.
"Football clubs have to meet the financial costs of policing their events." Yes they do and this is factored into the ticket price. Therefore it is the fans who are paying for the policing, not the players on the field which is why the crowd are there.. Therefore if the same logic is applied then the protesters (the ones being policed) should pay and the Group who caused them to gather (the players) should actually pay nothing. So the analogy makes my point quite neatly. If policing costs came out of the players wages; (after all, it is them who want to play football and cause a crowd to gather that needs policing), then your argument would be correct. LSC
  • Score: -2

6:25pm Fri 18 Apr 14

crazyfrog says...

LSC wrote:
"political old boys club of masons" are citizens and human beings too. They therefore are entitled to the same level of protection as everyone else at the taxpayers expense. At the moment, my level of protection is very low because as far as I am aware, nobody wants to bomb me or line the streets chanting when I go to the shops and with the danger of a riot that might ensue. I'm not saying I LIKE the Group or the costs involved. But I dislike riots and terrorists more, and when idiots threaten them, that comes with a price tag. You'd all be very glad to see a copper or two if you attended a peaceful protest which suddenly turned ugly (as they so often do) and it was YOUR car being set on fire and used as a barricade.
If everybody in watford said we want a jolly for a weekend but the policing costs are going to be over £500,000 the authorities would soon put the brakes on it, but because these masons have powerfull and influential people they get all the stops pulled out for them, somebody somewhere needs to explain to all the taxpayers of Hertfordshire why such a gross sum was paid for this private function, and the fact that labour, and Tory politicians including our so called chancellor Gideon Osborne are part of this secret old boys club adds insult to injury.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "political old boys club of masons" are citizens and human beings too. They therefore are entitled to the same level of protection as everyone else at the taxpayers expense. At the moment, my level of protection is very low because as far as I am aware, nobody wants to bomb me or line the streets chanting when I go to the shops and with the danger of a riot that might ensue. I'm not saying I LIKE the Group or the costs involved. But I dislike riots and terrorists more, and when idiots threaten them, that comes with a price tag. You'd all be very glad to see a copper or two if you attended a peaceful protest which suddenly turned ugly (as they so often do) and it was YOUR car being set on fire and used as a barricade.[/p][/quote]If everybody in watford said we want a jolly for a weekend but the policing costs are going to be over £500,000 the authorities would soon put the brakes on it, but because these masons have powerfull and influential people they get all the stops pulled out for them, somebody somewhere needs to explain to all the taxpayers of Hertfordshire why such a gross sum was paid for this private function, and the fact that labour, and Tory politicians including our so called chancellor Gideon Osborne are part of this secret old boys club adds insult to injury. crazyfrog
  • Score: 5

7:31pm Fri 18 Apr 14

John Dowdle says...

LSC wrote:
"Football clubs have to meet the financial costs of policing their events."

Yes they do and this is factored into the ticket price. Therefore it is the fans who are paying for the policing, not the players on the field which is why the crowd are there..
Therefore if the same logic is applied then the protesters (the ones being policed) should pay and the Group who caused them to gather (the players) should actually pay nothing.

So the analogy makes my point quite neatly.

If policing costs came out of the players wages; (after all, it is them who want to play football and cause a crowd to gather that needs policing), then your argument would be correct.
I disagree with your analogy. No one local - or very few at most - invited this mob long to hold their shindig in Watford. They knew it would attract the media circus it did yet they still went ahead with it. They knew their presence would create policing costs - as indicated by their contribution of less than half of the actual costs. Still, they went ahead with this weekend soiree. David Lloyd and his advisers compounded the situation by adopting an over-the-top high cost policing option (including an utterly bizarre no-fly zone, of all things!!), which further aggravated the problem.
In the event, there were no problems from the onlookers at all.
Lloyd - and the Bilderberg boys - are the ones who should meet the costs out of their own pockets, not the people of Watford or Hertfordshire.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "Football clubs have to meet the financial costs of policing their events." Yes they do and this is factored into the ticket price. Therefore it is the fans who are paying for the policing, not the players on the field which is why the crowd are there.. Therefore if the same logic is applied then the protesters (the ones being policed) should pay and the Group who caused them to gather (the players) should actually pay nothing. So the analogy makes my point quite neatly. If policing costs came out of the players wages; (after all, it is them who want to play football and cause a crowd to gather that needs policing), then your argument would be correct.[/p][/quote]I disagree with your analogy. No one local - or very few at most - invited this mob long to hold their shindig in Watford. They knew it would attract the media circus it did yet they still went ahead with it. They knew their presence would create policing costs - as indicated by their contribution of less than half of the actual costs. Still, they went ahead with this weekend soiree. David Lloyd and his advisers compounded the situation by adopting an over-the-top high cost policing option (including an utterly bizarre no-fly zone, of all things!!), which further aggravated the problem. In the event, there were no problems from the onlookers at all. Lloyd - and the Bilderberg boys - are the ones who should meet the costs out of their own pockets, not the people of Watford or Hertfordshire. John Dowdle
  • Score: 5

9:34pm Fri 18 Apr 14

LSC says...

John, I am no fan of David Lloyd or the price this all cost. But to be fair, I wonder how many protesters were local tax payers?
My experience is that the type of people who protest against this sort of thing are willing to go to great pains and travel many miles to do so.
I doubt 90% of the media who attended, and needed policing for their actions and those off others, were local.

As to the no fly zone, is it possible that there was a threat from the air? I don't know, MI5 rarely share stuff with me. Perhaps they had inside info, that is what they are for.

I agree the whole thing was a circus, but mainly because two sides took part. The rich kids, and the protesters. Charging both equally seems a fair solution; but the protesters always seem so hard to find when it comes to meeting their financial responsibilities, what with having addresses up trees and so on.
John, I am no fan of David Lloyd or the price this all cost. But to be fair, I wonder how many protesters were local tax payers? My experience is that the type of people who protest against this sort of thing are willing to go to great pains and travel many miles to do so. I doubt 90% of the media who attended, and needed policing for their actions and those off others, were local. As to the no fly zone, is it possible that there was a threat from the air? I don't know, MI5 rarely share stuff with me. Perhaps they had inside info, that is what they are for. I agree the whole thing was a circus, but mainly because two sides took part. The rich kids, and the protesters. Charging both equally seems a fair solution; but the protesters always seem so hard to find when it comes to meeting their financial responsibilities, what with having addresses up trees and so on. LSC
  • Score: 1

9:45pm Fri 18 Apr 14

John Dowdle says...

LSC wrote:
John, I am no fan of David Lloyd or the price this all cost. But to be fair, I wonder how many protesters were local tax payers?
My experience is that the type of people who protest against this sort of thing are willing to go to great pains and travel many miles to do so.
I doubt 90% of the media who attended, and needed policing for their actions and those off others, were local.

As to the no fly zone, is it possible that there was a threat from the air? I don't know, MI5 rarely share stuff with me. Perhaps they had inside info, that is what they are for.

I agree the whole thing was a circus, but mainly because two sides took part. The rich kids, and the protesters. Charging both equally seems a fair solution; but the protesters always seem so hard to find when it comes to meeting their financial responsibilities, what with having addresses up trees and so on.
Based on your logic, it is The Grove which should meet the shortfall, as they and their address are known.
They don't even think they are in Watford, so why should we care if they get stuck with an unexpected bill?
They should have thought about the costs before accepting the booking.
I don't recall local people standing outside their premises demanding that they host this particular bean feast. Do you?
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: John, I am no fan of David Lloyd or the price this all cost. But to be fair, I wonder how many protesters were local tax payers? My experience is that the type of people who protest against this sort of thing are willing to go to great pains and travel many miles to do so. I doubt 90% of the media who attended, and needed policing for their actions and those off others, were local. As to the no fly zone, is it possible that there was a threat from the air? I don't know, MI5 rarely share stuff with me. Perhaps they had inside info, that is what they are for. I agree the whole thing was a circus, but mainly because two sides took part. The rich kids, and the protesters. Charging both equally seems a fair solution; but the protesters always seem so hard to find when it comes to meeting their financial responsibilities, what with having addresses up trees and so on.[/p][/quote]Based on your logic, it is The Grove which should meet the shortfall, as they and their address are known. They don't even think they are in Watford, so why should we care if they get stuck with an unexpected bill? They should have thought about the costs before accepting the booking. I don't recall local people standing outside their premises demanding that they host this particular bean feast. Do you? John Dowdle
  • Score: 3

9:56pm Fri 18 Apr 14

watfordman says...

it is strange herts taxpayers have to pay for this motley crew , they should pay all costs for there meetings. austerity measures are important , pay up .rich ppl
it is strange herts taxpayers have to pay for this motley crew , they should pay all costs for there meetings. austerity measures are important , pay up .rich ppl watfordman
  • Score: 3

10:28pm Fri 18 Apr 14

LSC says...

John Dowdle wrote:
LSC wrote:
John, I am no fan of David Lloyd or the price this all cost. But to be fair, I wonder how many protesters were local tax payers?
My experience is that the type of people who protest against this sort of thing are willing to go to great pains and travel many miles to do so.
I doubt 90% of the media who attended, and needed policing for their actions and those off others, were local.

As to the no fly zone, is it possible that there was a threat from the air? I don't know, MI5 rarely share stuff with me. Perhaps they had inside info, that is what they are for.

I agree the whole thing was a circus, but mainly because two sides took part. The rich kids, and the protesters. Charging both equally seems a fair solution; but the protesters always seem so hard to find when it comes to meeting their financial responsibilities, what with having addresses up trees and so on.
Based on your logic, it is The Grove which should meet the shortfall, as they and their address are known.
They don't even think they are in Watford, so why should we care if they get stuck with an unexpected bill?
They should have thought about the costs before accepting the booking.
I don't recall local people standing outside their premises demanding that they host this particular bean feast. Do you?
But the Grove did not invite the protesters, who were the ones that needed policing. Perhaps one of the Group might have got drunk and set off the fire extinguishers, but they didn't need much more policing than that.

The very idea that having a certain position, status or opinion that is WITHIN THE LAW requires you to have to 'hire' the police to protect your very life is against everything I believe in. And I think normally you would agree with that.
If a mosque was firebombed, I would not say 'it is your own fault for being a muslim' and tell that community to pay for our police to protect them. If they just stopped being muslims, there wouldn't be a problem, so the solution is obvious. Pay up or shut up.

I see no difference in principal. And that isn't the Britain I want to live in.

If the EDL or an equally odious group from any side want to march, they can, and I defend their right to do so. The alternatives are that you ban them from doing as they wish as free citiizens, charge them extra money for civil rights and provide policing, or ignore it and watch the possible bloodbath.

The only other option is the taxpayer bites the bullet and meets the policing costs and we remain a free country.

Which do you chose? I know my choice, despite not enjoying it much.
Democracy costs. Freedom is priceless.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: John, I am no fan of David Lloyd or the price this all cost. But to be fair, I wonder how many protesters were local tax payers? My experience is that the type of people who protest against this sort of thing are willing to go to great pains and travel many miles to do so. I doubt 90% of the media who attended, and needed policing for their actions and those off others, were local. As to the no fly zone, is it possible that there was a threat from the air? I don't know, MI5 rarely share stuff with me. Perhaps they had inside info, that is what they are for. I agree the whole thing was a circus, but mainly because two sides took part. The rich kids, and the protesters. Charging both equally seems a fair solution; but the protesters always seem so hard to find when it comes to meeting their financial responsibilities, what with having addresses up trees and so on.[/p][/quote]Based on your logic, it is The Grove which should meet the shortfall, as they and their address are known. They don't even think they are in Watford, so why should we care if they get stuck with an unexpected bill? They should have thought about the costs before accepting the booking. I don't recall local people standing outside their premises demanding that they host this particular bean feast. Do you?[/p][/quote]But the Grove did not invite the protesters, who were the ones that needed policing. Perhaps one of the Group might have got drunk and set off the fire extinguishers, but they didn't need much more policing than that. The very idea that having a certain position, status or opinion that is WITHIN THE LAW requires you to have to 'hire' the police to protect your very life is against everything I believe in. And I think normally you would agree with that. If a mosque was firebombed, I would not say 'it is your own fault for being a muslim' and tell that community to pay for our police to protect them. If they just stopped being muslims, there wouldn't be a problem, so the solution is obvious. Pay up or shut up. I see no difference in principal. And that isn't the Britain I want to live in. If the EDL or an equally odious group from any side want to march, they can, and I defend their right to do so. The alternatives are that you ban them from doing as they wish as free citiizens, charge them extra money for civil rights and provide policing, or ignore it and watch the possible bloodbath. The only other option is the taxpayer bites the bullet and meets the policing costs and we remain a free country. Which do you chose? I know my choice, despite not enjoying it much. Democracy costs. Freedom is priceless. LSC
  • Score: 3

10:49pm Fri 18 Apr 14

#UKMum says...

"I'm not saying I LIKE the Group or the costs involved. But I dislike riots and terrorists more, and when idiots threaten them, that comes with a price tag.
You'd all be very glad to see a copper or two if you attended a peaceful protest which suddenly turned ugly (as they so often do) and it was YOUR car being set on fire and used as a barricade."

If you actually BOTHERED to go into the press area you would have seen that there were lots of folk with cameras, mikes and clpboards. I'm afraid your "terrorists" were no where to be seen.
"I'm not saying I LIKE the Group or the costs involved. But I dislike riots and terrorists more, and when idiots threaten them, that comes with a price tag. You'd all be very glad to see a copper or two if you attended a peaceful protest which suddenly turned ugly (as they so often do) and it was YOUR car being set on fire and used as a barricade." If you actually BOTHERED to go into the press area you would have seen that there were lots of folk with cameras, mikes and clpboards. I'm afraid your "terrorists" were no where to be seen. #UKMum
  • Score: -1

11:09pm Fri 18 Apr 14

Su Murray says...

LSC wrote:
John, I am no fan of David Lloyd or the price this all cost. But to be fair, I wonder how many protesters were local tax payers?
My experience is that the type of people who protest against this sort of thing are willing to go to great pains and travel many miles to do so.
I doubt 90% of the media who attended, and needed policing for their actions and those off others, were local.

As to the no fly zone, is it possible that there was a threat from the air? I don't know, MI5 rarely share stuff with me. Perhaps they had inside info, that is what they are for.

I agree the whole thing was a circus, but mainly because two sides took part. The rich kids, and the protesters. Charging both equally seems a fair solution; but the protesters always seem so hard to find when it comes to meeting their financial responsibilities, what with having addresses up trees and so on.
Plans for the Policing of this event started some 18 months before it occurred. It was a month or two before the event that the authorities took the unprecedented step of confirming the Bilderberg group would be meeting at The Grove. Therefore the policing was going to be at a high level regardless of who may or may not turn up to protest/observe. The level of security was clearly already decided before those who try and find out where the Bilderberg conference is going to be held, had any clue it would be in the UK, let alone that it would be at The Grove. And yet, we are told this is a 'private meeting' of 'private individuals'.

As I understand it, ordinarily it's a much smaller number of people who turn up to 'the fringe'. So why the over the top Policing? Clearing the canal, the no fly zone, residents having to show passports to access their own homes, staff having to surrender passports and get bussed into work and so on.

There were no threats from the people who attended the 'fringe'. And indeed there has never been any violence at previous Bilderberg fringe gatherings. Nor was there on this occasion.

The Grove has hosted other high profile conferences of 'private individuals' without such intense Policing. Bearing in mind the 'elected Mayor of Watford' was only informed of the plans a couple of months beforehand, and even then only after signing the Official Secrets Act, why should the local residents pick up such a huge part of the tab for this 'private conference'?
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: John, I am no fan of David Lloyd or the price this all cost. But to be fair, I wonder how many protesters were local tax payers? My experience is that the type of people who protest against this sort of thing are willing to go to great pains and travel many miles to do so. I doubt 90% of the media who attended, and needed policing for their actions and those off others, were local. As to the no fly zone, is it possible that there was a threat from the air? I don't know, MI5 rarely share stuff with me. Perhaps they had inside info, that is what they are for. I agree the whole thing was a circus, but mainly because two sides took part. The rich kids, and the protesters. Charging both equally seems a fair solution; but the protesters always seem so hard to find when it comes to meeting their financial responsibilities, what with having addresses up trees and so on.[/p][/quote]Plans for the Policing of this event started some 18 months before it occurred. It was a month or two before the event that the authorities took the unprecedented step of confirming the Bilderberg group would be meeting at The Grove. Therefore the policing was going to be at a high level regardless of who may or may not turn up to protest/observe. The level of security was clearly already decided before those who try and find out where the Bilderberg conference is going to be held, had any clue it would be in the UK, let alone that it would be at The Grove. And yet, we are told this is a 'private meeting' of 'private individuals'. As I understand it, ordinarily it's a much smaller number of people who turn up to 'the fringe'. So why the over the top Policing? Clearing the canal, the no fly zone, residents having to show passports to access their own homes, staff having to surrender passports and get bussed into work and so on. There were no threats from the people who attended the 'fringe'. And indeed there has never been any violence at previous Bilderberg fringe gatherings. Nor was there on this occasion. The Grove has hosted other high profile conferences of 'private individuals' without such intense Policing. Bearing in mind the 'elected Mayor of Watford' was only informed of the plans a couple of months beforehand, and even then only after signing the Official Secrets Act, why should the local residents pick up such a huge part of the tab for this 'private conference'? Su Murray
  • Score: 2

11:10pm Fri 18 Apr 14

John Dowdle says...

I too think the alleged threat level was ludicrously over-egged.
I think certain amounts of male machismo and testosterone were at play.
From what I saw, the protestors were all peaceful and largely playful.
There is far too much of this sort of security state approach towards even the simplest occasions. The fact is that Lloyd and his pals hugely over-estimated any potential threat level. From a local perspective, none of the Bilderbergers came from around here or even Hertfordshire for all I know.
So why should we be paying for this crude get-together of theirs?
They are and have nothing to do with us.
Let the Bilderbergers pay the rest, together with The Grove and David Lloyd from his own pockets - not from ours.
We never asked any of them to come here, did we?
I too think the alleged threat level was ludicrously over-egged. I think certain amounts of male machismo and testosterone were at play. From what I saw, the protestors were all peaceful and largely playful. There is far too much of this sort of security state approach towards even the simplest occasions. The fact is that Lloyd and his pals hugely over-estimated any potential threat level. From a local perspective, none of the Bilderbergers came from around here or even Hertfordshire for all I know. So why should we be paying for this crude get-together of theirs? They are and have nothing to do with us. Let the Bilderbergers pay the rest, together with The Grove and David Lloyd from his own pockets - not from ours. We never asked any of them to come here, did we? John Dowdle
  • Score: 1

11:15pm Fri 18 Apr 14

LSC says...

"If you actually BOTHERED to go into the press area you would have seen that there were lots of folk with cameras, mikes and clpboards. I'm afraid your "terrorists" were no where to be seen."

Why would I be BOTHERED? I didn't go anywhere near the whole circus, partly no doubt stoked by the media to justify them being there and claiming bacon butties on expenses.

I'm very pleased no terrorists were seen. We could argue all night why that was. Perhaps because of the high level of policing? We will never know.

The only thing I can say for sure, is the less protesters, the cheaper the police costs.
What are you really objecting to, the costs or the meeting? I have a feeling that it is the meeting, so latching on to a side argument about money shows a lack of faith in your own conviction.

You were obviously there, how much did you pay towards the costs of it all? The Group paid 50%. As a tax payer, I paid a bit. As part of the circus that took the main costs, what was your bill?
"If you actually BOTHERED to go into the press area you would have seen that there were lots of folk with cameras, mikes and clpboards. I'm afraid your "terrorists" were no where to be seen." Why would I be BOTHERED? I didn't go anywhere near the whole circus, partly no doubt stoked by the media to justify them being there and claiming bacon butties on expenses. I'm very pleased no terrorists were seen. We could argue all night why that was. Perhaps because of the high level of policing? We will never know. The only thing I can say for sure, is the less protesters, the cheaper the police costs. What are you really objecting to, the costs or the meeting? I have a feeling that it is the meeting, so latching on to a side argument about money shows a lack of faith in your own conviction. You were obviously there, how much did you pay towards the costs of it all? The Group paid 50%. As a tax payer, I paid a bit. As part of the circus that took the main costs, what was your bill? LSC
  • Score: 0

11:40pm Fri 18 Apr 14

LSC says...

"The Grove has hosted other high profile conferences of 'private individuals' without such intense Policing. Bearing in mind the 'elected Mayor of Watford' was only informed of the plans a couple of months beforehand, and even then only after signing the Official Secrets Act, why should the local residents pick up such a huge part of the tab for this 'private conference'?"

Your clue is in your own words, perhaps. The fact the mayor had to sign the OSA suggests she was made party to information that could affect security. Such as a serious threat. Possibly from your fluffy bunny fringe friends, possibly from anyone. We will never know, hence the OSA.

I ask again, these people are on British soil. Are you really suggesting that personal safety should be their own financial responsibility?
I don't like them individually anymore than the rest of you, but most of you don't like me much; does that mean I should have to hire a policeman to protect me, or am I allowed to post what I think on here and rely on the law to protect me from violence?
Very few of you would deny me police service for being outspoken on this site.
The difference is you all know I'm skint and these people are very rich, and that is what bugs people. I'm telling you that in a democracy that is immaterial.
"The Grove has hosted other high profile conferences of 'private individuals' without such intense Policing. Bearing in mind the 'elected Mayor of Watford' was only informed of the plans a couple of months beforehand, and even then only after signing the Official Secrets Act, why should the local residents pick up such a huge part of the tab for this 'private conference'?" Your clue is in your own words, perhaps. The fact the mayor had to sign the OSA suggests she was made party to information that could affect security. Such as a serious threat. Possibly from your fluffy bunny fringe friends, possibly from anyone. We will never know, hence the OSA. I ask again, these people are on British soil. Are you really suggesting that personal safety should be their own financial responsibility? I don't like them individually anymore than the rest of you, but most of you don't like me much; does that mean I should have to hire a policeman to protect me, or am I allowed to post what I think on here and rely on the law to protect me from violence? Very few of you would deny me police service for being outspoken on this site. The difference is you all know I'm skint and these people are very rich, and that is what bugs people. I'm telling you that in a democracy that is immaterial. LSC
  • Score: 0

12:05am Sat 19 Apr 14

John Dowdle says...

LSC wrote:
"The Grove has hosted other high profile conferences of 'private individuals' without such intense Policing. Bearing in mind the 'elected Mayor of Watford' was only informed of the plans a couple of months beforehand, and even then only after signing the Official Secrets Act, why should the local residents pick up such a huge part of the tab for this 'private conference'?"

Your clue is in your own words, perhaps. The fact the mayor had to sign the OSA suggests she was made party to information that could affect security. Such as a serious threat. Possibly from your fluffy bunny fringe friends, possibly from anyone. We will never know, hence the OSA.

I ask again, these people are on British soil. Are you really suggesting that personal safety should be their own financial responsibility?
I don't like them individually anymore than the rest of you, but most of you don't like me much; does that mean I should have to hire a policeman to protect me, or am I allowed to post what I think on here and rely on the law to protect me from violence?
Very few of you would deny me police service for being outspoken on this site.
The difference is you all know I'm skint and these people are very rich, and that is what bugs people. I'm telling you that in a democracy that is immaterial.
I am not sure why anyone should have had to sign a copy of the Official Secrets Act in connection with a gathering of this rich boys club.
Just what was "official" about this event?
As far as I am aware it was a completely private gathering of these characters, certainly not "official" in any way whatsoever.
As it was a private and unofficial event, why are we expected to pay a single penny towards their security?
There was no threat and the ludicrously elaborate security arrangements were clearly utterly unnecessary.
It is not a matter of liking or disliking any of them, as far as I am concerned. I just do not see why any of us should be expected to make a financial contribution towards their stay here.
£528,000 would pay - instead - for quite a few extra bobbies on the beat, as well as CPOs and other measures which would enhance our local security concerns. Is it right for a huge sum of money to be squandered on these particular individuals who do not live anywhere around here?
I think your comments about your own personal security are beginning to verge on the purely hysterical.
No commenters on this site object to your views, even if they are illogical.
Yes, we all live in some sort of quasi-democracy or benign oligarchy.
We're all allowed to labour under the delusion that we live in a democracy.
Part of the deal is we can all largely say whatever we want, provided we maintain reasonable standards of decency in the process.
Don't start asking for your own private police service - after being made to meet the cost of policing the Bilderbergers, we can't afford it. Blame them!
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "The Grove has hosted other high profile conferences of 'private individuals' without such intense Policing. Bearing in mind the 'elected Mayor of Watford' was only informed of the plans a couple of months beforehand, and even then only after signing the Official Secrets Act, why should the local residents pick up such a huge part of the tab for this 'private conference'?" Your clue is in your own words, perhaps. The fact the mayor had to sign the OSA suggests she was made party to information that could affect security. Such as a serious threat. Possibly from your fluffy bunny fringe friends, possibly from anyone. We will never know, hence the OSA. I ask again, these people are on British soil. Are you really suggesting that personal safety should be their own financial responsibility? I don't like them individually anymore than the rest of you, but most of you don't like me much; does that mean I should have to hire a policeman to protect me, or am I allowed to post what I think on here and rely on the law to protect me from violence? Very few of you would deny me police service for being outspoken on this site. The difference is you all know I'm skint and these people are very rich, and that is what bugs people. I'm telling you that in a democracy that is immaterial.[/p][/quote]I am not sure why anyone should have had to sign a copy of the Official Secrets Act in connection with a gathering of this rich boys club. Just what was "official" about this event? As far as I am aware it was a completely private gathering of these characters, certainly not "official" in any way whatsoever. As it was a private and unofficial event, why are we expected to pay a single penny towards their security? There was no threat and the ludicrously elaborate security arrangements were clearly utterly unnecessary. It is not a matter of liking or disliking any of them, as far as I am concerned. I just do not see why any of us should be expected to make a financial contribution towards their stay here. £528,000 would pay - instead - for quite a few extra bobbies on the beat, as well as CPOs and other measures which would enhance our local security concerns. Is it right for a huge sum of money to be squandered on these particular individuals who do not live anywhere around here? I think your comments about your own personal security are beginning to verge on the purely hysterical. No commenters on this site object to your views, even if they are illogical. Yes, we all live in some sort of quasi-democracy or benign oligarchy. We're all allowed to labour under the delusion that we live in a democracy. Part of the deal is we can all largely say whatever we want, provided we maintain reasonable standards of decency in the process. Don't start asking for your own private police service - after being made to meet the cost of policing the Bilderbergers, we can't afford it. Blame them! John Dowdle
  • Score: 1

12:11am Sat 19 Apr 14

Su Murray says...

LSC wrote:
"The Grove has hosted other high profile conferences of 'private individuals' without such intense Policing. Bearing in mind the 'elected Mayor of Watford' was only informed of the plans a couple of months beforehand, and even then only after signing the Official Secrets Act, why should the local residents pick up such a huge part of the tab for this 'private conference'?"

Your clue is in your own words, perhaps. The fact the mayor had to sign the OSA suggests she was made party to information that could affect security. Such as a serious threat. Possibly from your fluffy bunny fringe friends, possibly from anyone. We will never know, hence the OSA.

I ask again, these people are on British soil. Are you really suggesting that personal safety should be their own financial responsibility?
I don't like them individually anymore than the rest of you, but most of you don't like me much; does that mean I should have to hire a policeman to protect me, or am I allowed to post what I think on here and rely on the law to protect me from violence?
Very few of you would deny me police service for being outspoken on this site.
The difference is you all know I'm skint and these people are very rich, and that is what bugs people. I'm telling you that in a democracy that is immaterial.
Shock, horror! I agree with you that personal safety should be reasonably assured for all people - regardless of their income or position. Yep even if they are mega, mega, rich, they should have that basic right/protection. However, the Policing put in place for this event, was far and beyond that which would normally be supplied for a meeting or conference of 'private individuals'.

Furthermore, it's not unusual for 'additional security' whether by private companies, or by The Police, to be funded by the recipients of such additional security.

Put it in another context, we still have the NHS - just. If I need to have a life saving operation, it would be funded by tax payers (for the time being at least). However, if I want to have additional services say a 'phone, or being able to view the TV, I would have to pay.

The attendees of the Bilderberg Conference could have reasonably expected to be protected. I'm not convinced that reasonable protection extends to 'no fly zones' and all the rest.

Meanwhile LSC, fear not, even if you win the lottery/come up with an amazing invention/get rich some other way, I'll still defend your right to post here.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "The Grove has hosted other high profile conferences of 'private individuals' without such intense Policing. Bearing in mind the 'elected Mayor of Watford' was only informed of the plans a couple of months beforehand, and even then only after signing the Official Secrets Act, why should the local residents pick up such a huge part of the tab for this 'private conference'?" Your clue is in your own words, perhaps. The fact the mayor had to sign the OSA suggests she was made party to information that could affect security. Such as a serious threat. Possibly from your fluffy bunny fringe friends, possibly from anyone. We will never know, hence the OSA. I ask again, these people are on British soil. Are you really suggesting that personal safety should be their own financial responsibility? I don't like them individually anymore than the rest of you, but most of you don't like me much; does that mean I should have to hire a policeman to protect me, or am I allowed to post what I think on here and rely on the law to protect me from violence? Very few of you would deny me police service for being outspoken on this site. The difference is you all know I'm skint and these people are very rich, and that is what bugs people. I'm telling you that in a democracy that is immaterial.[/p][/quote]Shock, horror! I agree with you that personal safety should be reasonably assured for all people - regardless of their income or position. Yep even if they are mega, mega, rich, they should have that basic right/protection. However, the Policing put in place for this event, was far and beyond that which would normally be supplied for a meeting or conference of 'private individuals'. Furthermore, it's not unusual for 'additional security' whether by private companies, or by The Police, to be funded by the recipients of such additional security. Put it in another context, we still have the NHS - just. If I need to have a life saving operation, it would be funded by tax payers (for the time being at least). However, if I want to have additional services say a 'phone, or being able to view the TV, I would have to pay. The attendees of the Bilderberg Conference could have reasonably expected to be protected. I'm not convinced that reasonable protection extends to 'no fly zones' and all the rest. Meanwhile LSC, fear not, even if you win the lottery/come up with an amazing invention/get rich some other way, I'll still defend your right to post here. Su Murray
  • Score: 0

12:59am Sat 19 Apr 14

LSC says...

"Meanwhile LSC, fear not, even if you win the lottery/come up with an amazing invention/get rich some other way, I'll still defend your right to post here."

This is where my life plan has a hole in it.

But as to the debate, are you seriously saying you would PREFER that the Group had some private army surrounding them? Like a James Bond film?

" However, the Policing put in place for this event, was far and beyond that which would normally be supplied for a meeting or conference of 'private individuals'. "

Only because people turned up to moan about it. My last board meeting was very quiet indeed. We had a similar amount of people on the board, but no protesters, so no police costs. Whatsoever. None. Not a sausage.
Them's the facts. The protesters caused the costs, so don't complain about it.

If you want to complain about the group itself, fine, stick to that, you might have a point. But to divert shows lack of courage in conviction.
"Meanwhile LSC, fear not, even if you win the lottery/come up with an amazing invention/get rich some other way, I'll still defend your right to post here." This is where my life plan has a hole in it. But as to the debate, are you seriously saying you would PREFER that the Group had some private army surrounding them? Like a James Bond film? " However, the Policing put in place for this event, was far and beyond that which would normally be supplied for a meeting or conference of 'private individuals'. " Only because people turned up to moan about it. My last board meeting was very quiet indeed. We had a similar amount of people on the board, but no protesters, so no police costs. Whatsoever. None. Not a sausage. Them's the facts. The protesters caused the costs, so don't complain about it. If you want to complain about the group itself, fine, stick to that, you might have a point. But to divert shows lack of courage in conviction. LSC
  • Score: 0

1:24am Sat 19 Apr 14

LSC says...

John, "There was no threat and the ludicrously elaborate security arrangements were clearly utterly unnecessary."

You know this how?

I used to work for a defence firm, based in Stanmore. It wasn't a job I chose, it was what I could get. On occasion, there would be protesters at the gate (Presumably they had a day off from THEIR jobs) who would spit at me, call me a 'Merchant of Death' and make a great show of taking my number plate down as I drove in. It was very intimidating. Sometimes, the police were called to remove people from stopping the cleaners getting in the car park.

That was many years ago. More recently a squaddie was killed in a London street and his head nearly cut off in broad daylight.
Just for being a squaddie, walking down the street.

What do you suggest?
John, "There was no threat and the ludicrously elaborate security arrangements were clearly utterly unnecessary." You know this how? I used to work for a defence firm, based in Stanmore. It wasn't a job I chose, it was what I could get. On occasion, there would be protesters at the gate (Presumably they had a day off from THEIR jobs) who would spit at me, call me a 'Merchant of Death' and make a great show of taking my number plate down as I drove in. It was very intimidating. Sometimes, the police were called to remove people from stopping the cleaners getting in the car park. That was many years ago. More recently a squaddie was killed in a London street and his head nearly cut off in broad daylight. Just for being a squaddie, walking down the street. What do you suggest? LSC
  • Score: 0

1:26am Sat 19 Apr 14

Su Murray says...

LSC wrote:
"Meanwhile LSC, fear not, even if you win the lottery/come up with an amazing invention/get rich some other way, I'll still defend your right to post here."

This is where my life plan has a hole in it.

But as to the debate, are you seriously saying you would PREFER that the Group had some private army surrounding them? Like a James Bond film?

" However, the Policing put in place for this event, was far and beyond that which would normally be supplied for a meeting or conference of 'private individuals'. "

Only because people turned up to moan about it. My last board meeting was very quiet indeed. We had a similar amount of people on the board, but no protesters, so no police costs. Whatsoever. None. Not a sausage.
Them's the facts. The protesters caused the costs, so don't complain about it.

If you want to complain about the group itself, fine, stick to that, you might have a point. But to divert shows lack of courage in conviction.
No. You are missing the point. The Policing for the event was put in place before any dissension could possibly be judged. The security measures were agreed some 18 months before the meeting. The 'objectors' weren't even aware of the meeting/venue at that point. In other words, it wasn't a response to anyone objecting, because at that point, no one was objecting.

As I have said ad nauseum, either this was a normal 'business' conference of private individuals - as they claim, in which case, 'no fly zones' are not the usual security measures, and the local tax payers don't face extortionate bills. Or, this was not a normal 'business conference of private individuals'. In which case, we are justified in asking why as tax payers we are funding this. And why our PM and Chancellor are attending.

That is the crux of the matter. Either it was a private gathering - in which case, why are we funding it? Or it was an 'official' gathering - in which case, why the secrecy?

I'm sick to bloody death of the fudge on such subjects.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "Meanwhile LSC, fear not, even if you win the lottery/come up with an amazing invention/get rich some other way, I'll still defend your right to post here." This is where my life plan has a hole in it. But as to the debate, are you seriously saying you would PREFER that the Group had some private army surrounding them? Like a James Bond film? " However, the Policing put in place for this event, was far and beyond that which would normally be supplied for a meeting or conference of 'private individuals'. " Only because people turned up to moan about it. My last board meeting was very quiet indeed. We had a similar amount of people on the board, but no protesters, so no police costs. Whatsoever. None. Not a sausage. Them's the facts. The protesters caused the costs, so don't complain about it. If you want to complain about the group itself, fine, stick to that, you might have a point. But to divert shows lack of courage in conviction.[/p][/quote]No. You are missing the point. The Policing for the event was put in place before any dissension could possibly be judged. The security measures were agreed some 18 months before the meeting. The 'objectors' weren't even aware of the meeting/venue at that point. In other words, it wasn't a response to anyone objecting, because at that point, no one was objecting. As I have said ad nauseum, either this was a normal 'business' conference of private individuals - as they claim, in which case, 'no fly zones' are not the usual security measures, and the local tax payers don't face extortionate bills. Or, this was not a normal 'business conference of private individuals'. In which case, we are justified in asking why as tax payers we are funding this. And why our PM and Chancellor are attending. That is the crux of the matter. Either it was a private gathering - in which case, why are we funding it? Or it was an 'official' gathering - in which case, why the secrecy? I'm sick to bloody death of the fudge on such subjects. Su Murray
  • Score: 2

10:28am Sat 19 Apr 14

#UKMum says...

Armand Hammer CEO Occidental Petrolium came and went from Aberdeen and was in and out of the Iron Curtain I was told without any of this nonsense. If you are confident that you are there for the right reasons you shouldn't have any fear about where you go.
Armand Hammer CEO Occidental Petrolium came and went from Aberdeen and was in and out of the Iron Curtain I was told without any of this nonsense. If you are confident that you are there for the right reasons you shouldn't have any fear about where you go. #UKMum
  • Score: 0

12:57pm Sat 19 Apr 14

LSC says...

@ Su: Seeing as no minutes were published, we can conclude it was a private meeting.
Like often happens behind the famous black door of 10 Downing Street.
And who stands outside that door?
A policeman.
And who pays for him?
We do.
Why do we pay?
Because 10 Downing Street is a natural target for nutters and terrorists, and it is generally believed in this country that we don't like that kind of thing, so we are willing to pay to PREVENT it.
As far as I know, nobody in recent times has tried to storm the front door of 10 Downing street. That is either because everyone quite likes the Prime Minister, or because there are about 50 armed coppers within 200 yards and they know it isn't worth it.
The IRA did once manage fire mortars at number 10, and the question at the time was: "Where the hell were the police?"
@ Su: Seeing as no minutes were published, we can conclude it was a private meeting. Like often happens behind the famous black door of 10 Downing Street. And who stands outside that door? A policeman. And who pays for him? We do. Why do we pay? Because 10 Downing Street is a natural target for nutters and terrorists, and it is generally believed in this country that we don't like that kind of thing, so we are willing to pay to PREVENT it. As far as I know, nobody in recent times has tried to storm the front door of 10 Downing street. That is either because everyone quite likes the Prime Minister, or because there are about 50 armed coppers within 200 yards and they know it isn't worth it. The IRA did once manage fire mortars at number 10, and the question at the time was: "Where the hell were the police?" LSC
  • Score: 1

1:10pm Sat 19 Apr 14

LSC says...

#UKMum wrote:
Armand Hammer CEO Occidental Petrolium came and went from Aberdeen and was in and out of the Iron Curtain I was told without any of this nonsense. If you are confident that you are there for the right reasons you shouldn't have any fear about where you go.
Like that soldier in a London street who was murdered? He was't in a war zone. I'm sure he was very confident he had every right to be there.
Or that nail bomb in the gay pub down the East End? The drinkers had every right to be there.
The shoppers of Enniskillen had every right to go shopping.
The people on the tube on 7/7...

None of the above were even what you might call 'at risk', but they died nonetheless. The Grove lot were certainly 'at risk', so there was a lot of security, and security for the citizens of the UK is paid for out of the public purse. It isn't rocket science.

I don't like it, I wish they hadn't done it, I have no idea why they did it.
But that is how this country works.

In countries like Iraq, people hire private little armies for protection. In the UK we use our police force. I know which country I prefer to dwell in.
[quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: Armand Hammer CEO Occidental Petrolium came and went from Aberdeen and was in and out of the Iron Curtain I was told without any of this nonsense. If you are confident that you are there for the right reasons you shouldn't have any fear about where you go.[/p][/quote]Like that soldier in a London street who was murdered? He was't in a war zone. I'm sure he was very confident he had every right to be there. Or that nail bomb in the gay pub down the East End? The drinkers had every right to be there. The shoppers of Enniskillen had every right to go shopping. The people on the tube on 7/7... None of the above were even what you might call 'at risk', but they died nonetheless. The Grove lot were certainly 'at risk', so there was a lot of security, and security for the citizens of the UK is paid for out of the public purse. It isn't rocket science. I don't like it, I wish they hadn't done it, I have no idea why they did it. But that is how this country works. In countries like Iraq, people hire private little armies for protection. In the UK we use our police force. I know which country I prefer to dwell in. LSC
  • Score: 1

1:25pm Sat 19 Apr 14

John Dowdle says...

I remember walking up Downing Street in 1970 with two friends of mine to the door of number 10. There was no police officer permanently outside.
We did see red paint on the ground outside number 10, where an irate protestor had thrown red paint at Ted Heath the previous day.
In those days, protests were relatively mild and most politicians shrugged them off - or took notice and considered adjusting their policies.
Perhaps the real problem today is that these power elites are ignoring most ordinary people, which is why they end up becoming so unpopular and having to have incredible levels of security for themselves.
Perhaps the real problem is that these selfish little cliques are not listening enough to ordinary people because they are fixated solely on themselves and each other within these ridiculous little power bubbles.
Instead of security, why don't they try practicing real democracy?
I remember walking up Downing Street in 1970 with two friends of mine to the door of number 10. There was no police officer permanently outside. We did see red paint on the ground outside number 10, where an irate protestor had thrown red paint at Ted Heath the previous day. In those days, protests were relatively mild and most politicians shrugged them off - or took notice and considered adjusting their policies. Perhaps the real problem today is that these power elites are ignoring most ordinary people, which is why they end up becoming so unpopular and having to have incredible levels of security for themselves. Perhaps the real problem is that these selfish little cliques are not listening enough to ordinary people because they are fixated solely on themselves and each other within these ridiculous little power bubbles. Instead of security, why don't they try practicing real democracy? John Dowdle
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Sat 19 Apr 14

LSC says...

Because John, especially since 11th Sept 2001 it has become clear that certain people don't really care if you attempt democracy. That isn't what they want.
In the case of Sept 11, no-one is really sure what they did want, except the death of the Western World, but how they really expected that to happen from what they did is still unclear.

The Grove people might be good or evil, who knows. Abraham Lincoln is generally accepted as good, and he got his in 1865. JFK was popular, he didn't make it. Both were as democratic as their system allowed, and they still got killed.

The simple fact is that if you are high profile, someone will want to kill you, no matter what your views or actions. Who would want to shoot John Lennon? Someone did.

That is the world we live in, and every member of the human race is entitled to protection on equal measures. If they are evil people, let the law deal with that. If you have any evidence about wrong doings by the Bilderberg Group, simply dial 999 and ask for the police. Or try Crimestoppers.

That is how we do it here, and that is how we MUST do it.
Because John, especially since 11th Sept 2001 it has become clear that certain people don't really care if you attempt democracy. That isn't what they want. In the case of Sept 11, no-one is really sure what they did want, except the death of the Western World, but how they really expected that to happen from what they did is still unclear. The Grove people might be good or evil, who knows. Abraham Lincoln is generally accepted as good, and he got his in 1865. JFK was popular, he didn't make it. Both were as democratic as their system allowed, and they still got killed. The simple fact is that if you are high profile, someone will want to kill you, no matter what your views or actions. Who would want to shoot John Lennon? Someone did. That is the world we live in, and every member of the human race is entitled to protection on equal measures. If they are evil people, let the law deal with that. If you have any evidence about wrong doings by the Bilderberg Group, simply dial 999 and ask for the police. Or try Crimestoppers. That is how we do it here, and that is how we MUST do it. LSC
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Sat 19 Apr 14

John Dowdle says...

You are making a number of assumptions, which are almost certainly ill-founded. For starters, you talk as though you actually and definitively know who was behind the 911 event. Do you? Are you aware of the high-fiving Israeli Mossad operatives caught on film celebrating as the planes flew into the World Trade Center. Have you factored them into your thinking?
Check out https://duckduckgo.c
om/?q=911+Israeli+hi
gh-fiving for sources.
You also talk as though you absolutely know we live in a democracy.
See http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/blogs-echocham
bers-27074746 and http://www.commondre
ams.org/headline/201
4/04/18-8 for an alternative perspective.
There are some mentally ill people in our society but the US - where John Lennon was killed - is clearly a much more sick society than ours, yet they allow unrestricted gun ownership there. The problem is not that the is insufficient NRA influence on legislators but that they have too much.
I don't remember seeing people at The Grove with guns - and for a very good reason: the UK gun controls are much more effective than those found in the USA.
I feel your earlier hysteria is being added to a rising level of alarmism.
If anything, there is less and less need for intrusive security in our society today than in the past, as evidenced by the research conducted by Professor Steve Pinker in his publication "The Better Angels of our Nature".
Even in this week's Watford Observer, it is reported that 'Anti-social behaviour has fallen across Watford form the fifth year running, according to official figures.' Crime levels across the Western world have been steadily declining for at least a decade.
Most of us are generally law-abiding and peace-loving people.
Try to remember that in future when you start having one of your panics.
You are making a number of assumptions, which are almost certainly ill-founded. For starters, you talk as though you actually and definitively know who was behind the 911 event. Do you? Are you aware of the high-fiving Israeli Mossad operatives caught on film celebrating as the planes flew into the World Trade Center. Have you factored them into your thinking? Check out https://duckduckgo.c om/?q=911+Israeli+hi gh-fiving for sources. You also talk as though you absolutely know we live in a democracy. See http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/blogs-echocham bers-27074746 and http://www.commondre ams.org/headline/201 4/04/18-8 for an alternative perspective. There are some mentally ill people in our society but the US - where John Lennon was killed - is clearly a much more sick society than ours, yet they allow unrestricted gun ownership there. The problem is not that the is insufficient NRA influence on legislators but that they have too much. I don't remember seeing people at The Grove with guns - and for a very good reason: the UK gun controls are much more effective than those found in the USA. I feel your earlier hysteria is being added to a rising level of alarmism. If anything, there is less and less need for intrusive security in our society today than in the past, as evidenced by the research conducted by Professor Steve Pinker in his publication "The Better Angels of our Nature". Even in this week's Watford Observer, it is reported that 'Anti-social behaviour has fallen across Watford form the fifth year running, according to official figures.' Crime levels across the Western world have been steadily declining for at least a decade. Most of us are generally law-abiding and peace-loving people. Try to remember that in future when you start having one of your panics. John Dowdle
  • Score: 0

7:49pm Sat 19 Apr 14

LSC says...

I'm not having a panic. On 9/11 the attack was on Capitalism (WTC), power (Pentagon) and democracy (Whitehouse plane that never made it).

Now, who was at the Grove? Powerful capitalist democratic 'important' people. To suggest they would be a target on given evidence is not a panic, it is real life.
As for guns; well there are plenty about if you know where to buy. Kids are getting shot every month in London, and the IRA could probably still get you a rocket launcher if the price is right.

Anti social REPORTED crime might well have fallen. Who bothers to report it? I live in Bushey, there are NO police. If I dial 999 for some lad smashing a window, he will be long gone before a copper rolls up in 30 minutes.
I'm not having a panic. On 9/11 the attack was on Capitalism (WTC), power (Pentagon) and democracy (Whitehouse plane that never made it). Now, who was at the Grove? Powerful capitalist democratic 'important' people. To suggest they would be a target on given evidence is not a panic, it is real life. As for guns; well there are plenty about if you know where to buy. Kids are getting shot every month in London, and the IRA could probably still get you a rocket launcher if the price is right. Anti social REPORTED crime might well have fallen. Who bothers to report it? I live in Bushey, there are NO police. If I dial 999 for some lad smashing a window, he will be long gone before a copper rolls up in 30 minutes. LSC
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Su Murray says...

LSC wrote:
@ Su: Seeing as no minutes were published, we can conclude it was a private meeting.
Like often happens behind the famous black door of 10 Downing Street.
And who stands outside that door?
A policeman.
And who pays for him?
We do.
Why do we pay?
Because 10 Downing Street is a natural target for nutters and terrorists, and it is generally believed in this country that we don't like that kind of thing, so we are willing to pay to PREVENT it.
As far as I know, nobody in recent times has tried to storm the front door of 10 Downing street. That is either because everyone quite likes the Prime Minister, or because there are about 50 armed coppers within 200 yards and they know it isn't worth it.
The IRA did once manage fire mortars at number 10, and the question at the time was: "Where the hell were the police?"
OK LSC lets recap;

1) It was a private meeting
2) The attendees were entitled to the same level of protection as any other citizen
3) Because of the attendees positions of wealth and/or power, one might consider they were at risk from terrorists.

Private meetings are not funded by the tax payer. Meetings at 10 Downing street etc are functions of government, therefore not merely private meetings. Hence protection is provided - though not to the extent of 'no fly zones'.

The attendees of the meeting could expect the same level of protection as any other citizen. This doesn't include closing off part of the canal, barricading roads, asking residents to show their passports, and bussing Grove employees into work plus asking them to surrender their passports. Local residents, members of The Grove Spa, and employees of The Grove, were all inconvenienced. Now they are expected to pay for it too.

Having accepted the booking, The Grove should pay for the costs of a reasonable level of additional security. Which is exactly what hotels and clubs do, week in week out, throughout the year.

If there was a credible terrorist threat, the Government should pay for the additional security. Whilst ultimately this would still in part be coming out of the pockets of Watford citizens, the cost would be shared and therefore less of a burden.

Finally, people should stop trying to blame the 'protesters' who didn't even know about the meeting at the time the security measures were agreed, were peaceful, and did not threaten the attendees.

Shall we work on the hole in your life plan now? :)
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: @ Su: Seeing as no minutes were published, we can conclude it was a private meeting. Like often happens behind the famous black door of 10 Downing Street. And who stands outside that door? A policeman. And who pays for him? We do. Why do we pay? Because 10 Downing Street is a natural target for nutters and terrorists, and it is generally believed in this country that we don't like that kind of thing, so we are willing to pay to PREVENT it. As far as I know, nobody in recent times has tried to storm the front door of 10 Downing street. That is either because everyone quite likes the Prime Minister, or because there are about 50 armed coppers within 200 yards and they know it isn't worth it. The IRA did once manage fire mortars at number 10, and the question at the time was: "Where the hell were the police?"[/p][/quote]OK LSC lets recap; 1) It was a private meeting 2) The attendees were entitled to the same level of protection as any other citizen 3) Because of the attendees positions of wealth and/or power, one might consider they were at risk from terrorists. Private meetings are not funded by the tax payer. Meetings at 10 Downing street etc are functions of government, therefore not merely private meetings. Hence protection is provided - though not to the extent of 'no fly zones'. The attendees of the meeting could expect the same level of protection as any other citizen. This doesn't include closing off part of the canal, barricading roads, asking residents to show their passports, and bussing Grove employees into work plus asking them to surrender their passports. Local residents, members of The Grove Spa, and employees of The Grove, were all inconvenienced. Now they are expected to pay for it too. Having accepted the booking, The Grove should pay for the costs of a reasonable level of additional security. Which is exactly what hotels and clubs do, week in week out, throughout the year. If there was a credible terrorist threat, the Government should pay for the additional security. Whilst ultimately this would still in part be coming out of the pockets of Watford citizens, the cost would be shared and therefore less of a burden. Finally, people should stop trying to blame the 'protesters' who didn't even know about the meeting at the time the security measures were agreed, were peaceful, and did not threaten the attendees. Shall we work on the hole in your life plan now? :) Su Murray
  • Score: 0

10:36pm Sat 19 Apr 14

LSC says...

"Shall we work on the hole in your life plan now? :)"

Please, Su, someone needs to, and I'm doing very poorly.

This meeting was attended by government officials, so that is a blurred area. Some members of the government get state funded protection when they meet with Auntie Doris for tea, privately.

Then we enter another grey area. I do not believe the police, army, bomb disposal etc should be available for hire. As John pointed out, it does happen at football matches but I don't agree with the principal. Public order is public order and the cost must be carried by us all.

I 100% agree that cost should not be Watfords alone, but as you say, we all pay a bit anyway.

It is possible the protesters knew nothing of the meeting when it was first proposed, but it is also possible they did. Obviously a few staff members of the Grove knew. Perhaps someone passed this on, and GHQ, who we know monitor potential trouble makers got a whiff of it. I couldn't possibly say, because I don't know. And they aren't going to tell me their methods or sources.

The no-fly zone I can only put down to a credible threat. I know the air industry and they don't divert lightly. But not one complaint from them, and we are talking BIG money to mess them about.
"Shall we work on the hole in your life plan now? :)" Please, Su, someone needs to, and I'm doing very poorly. This meeting was attended by government officials, so that is a blurred area. Some members of the government get state funded protection when they meet with Auntie Doris for tea, privately. Then we enter another grey area. I do not believe the police, army, bomb disposal etc should be available for hire. As John pointed out, it does happen at football matches but I don't agree with the principal. Public order is public order and the cost must be carried by us all. I 100% agree that cost should not be Watfords alone, but as you say, we all pay a bit anyway. It is possible the protesters knew nothing of the meeting when it was first proposed, but it is also possible they did. Obviously a few staff members of the Grove knew. Perhaps someone passed this on, and GHQ, who we know monitor potential trouble makers got a whiff of it. I couldn't possibly say, because I don't know. And they aren't going to tell me their methods or sources. The no-fly zone I can only put down to a credible threat. I know the air industry and they don't divert lightly. But not one complaint from them, and we are talking BIG money to mess them about. LSC
  • Score: 1

11:33pm Sat 19 Apr 14

John Dowdle says...

LSC wrote:
I'm not having a panic. On 9/11 the attack was on Capitalism (WTC), power (Pentagon) and democracy (Whitehouse plane that never made it).

Now, who was at the Grove? Powerful capitalist democratic 'important' people. To suggest they would be a target on given evidence is not a panic, it is real life.
As for guns; well there are plenty about if you know where to buy. Kids are getting shot every month in London, and the IRA could probably still get you a rocket launcher if the price is right.

Anti social REPORTED crime might well have fallen. Who bothers to report it? I live in Bushey, there are NO police. If I dial 999 for some lad smashing a window, he will be long gone before a copper rolls up in 30 minutes.
You really do not know who the attack was by or who on.
Why did Wolfowitz make the remark that America needed another Pearl Harbour moment in a speech to West Point graduates a few years before?
Why were there high-fiving Israeli intelligence operatives filming the planes striking the World Trade Centre and exchanging high-fives?
Are you accusing the Israelis of launching an attack against capitalism?
No one has ever provided a satisfactory explanation as to what happened to the plane allegedly being targeted at the White House.
What happened to the black box on the plane? Do you know?
Don't bring in incidents which remain questionable to this day.
The fact is the Bilderbergers were never under any credible threat.
So why are we all expected to fork out for their coddling protection?
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I'm not having a panic. On 9/11 the attack was on Capitalism (WTC), power (Pentagon) and democracy (Whitehouse plane that never made it). Now, who was at the Grove? Powerful capitalist democratic 'important' people. To suggest they would be a target on given evidence is not a panic, it is real life. As for guns; well there are plenty about if you know where to buy. Kids are getting shot every month in London, and the IRA could probably still get you a rocket launcher if the price is right. Anti social REPORTED crime might well have fallen. Who bothers to report it? I live in Bushey, there are NO police. If I dial 999 for some lad smashing a window, he will be long gone before a copper rolls up in 30 minutes.[/p][/quote]You really do not know who the attack was by or who on. Why did Wolfowitz make the remark that America needed another Pearl Harbour moment in a speech to West Point graduates a few years before? Why were there high-fiving Israeli intelligence operatives filming the planes striking the World Trade Centre and exchanging high-fives? Are you accusing the Israelis of launching an attack against capitalism? No one has ever provided a satisfactory explanation as to what happened to the plane allegedly being targeted at the White House. What happened to the black box on the plane? Do you know? Don't bring in incidents which remain questionable to this day. The fact is the Bilderbergers were never under any credible threat. So why are we all expected to fork out for their coddling protection? John Dowdle
  • Score: -2

12:06am Sun 20 Apr 14

Popeonarope says...

Salman Rushdie was the target of terrorists like no other, but still had to fund his own protection. He relied on donations to pay for his bodyguards though it came to late for some of his entourage.
The Bilderberg members are not victims nor without means. They are the financial elite of the world and are meeting to propagate their wealth. They should pay for their own **** security.
Salman Rushdie was the target of terrorists like no other, but still had to fund his own protection. He relied on donations to pay for his bodyguards though it came to late for some of his entourage. The Bilderberg members are not victims nor without means. They are the financial elite of the world and are meeting to propagate their wealth. They should pay for their own **** security. Popeonarope
  • Score: 4

12:08am Sun 20 Apr 14

Popeonarope says...

D@mn is not allowed. How very quaint. :o)
D@mn is not allowed. How very quaint. :o) Popeonarope
  • Score: 2

1:26pm Sun 20 Apr 14

LSC says...

So what you are saying is that personal safety should be means tested?
More and more these arguments come across as being: 'We don't like the rich', which is also what the protests were really about too.

Salman Rushdie cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money in protection when he attended any public event, I remember well the outcry at the time.

John, I'm not even going there on tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories on 911 but your question: "The fact is the Bilderbergers were never under any credible threat.
So why are we all expected to fork out for their coddling protection?"
How do you know? Do you work for MI5?
Do you think MI5 should tell us how and what they might know?
I have already stated I don't know, but logic suggests there was a credible threat. A no fly zone is way, way above the remit of David Lloyd's authority. That is Home Office level. Don't forget, airline owners are rich and powerful too, and if you are going to cost them money you had better have a very good reason.
So what you are saying is that personal safety should be means tested? More and more these arguments come across as being: 'We don't like the rich', which is also what the protests were really about too. Salman Rushdie cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money in protection when he attended any public event, I remember well the outcry at the time. John, I'm not even going there on tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories on 911 but your question: "The fact is the Bilderbergers were never under any credible threat. So why are we all expected to fork out for their coddling protection?" How do you know? Do you work for MI5? Do you think MI5 should tell us how and what they might know? I have already stated I don't know, but logic suggests there was a credible threat. A no fly zone is way, way above the remit of David Lloyd's authority. That is Home Office level. Don't forget, airline owners are rich and powerful too, and if you are going to cost them money you had better have a very good reason. LSC
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Sun 20 Apr 14

crazyfrog says...

Ok LSC where do you draw the line? If the bilderberg masons decided to meet every weekend at the grove, should we the Hertfordshire taxpayer foot the bill week on week at £500,000 ? If you want your council tax bill to rise to pay for a bunch of the worlds richest masons to gather for a jolly in the lap of luxury at your expense then that's your call but why should my family and myself and thousands of other Hertfordshire taxpayers who have nothing to benefit from this jolly be financially worse off, like I said somebody needs to carry the can for this grade A mess up.
Ok LSC where do you draw the line? If the bilderberg masons decided to meet every weekend at the grove, should we the Hertfordshire taxpayer foot the bill week on week at £500,000 ? If you want your council tax bill to rise to pay for a bunch of the worlds richest masons to gather for a jolly in the lap of luxury at your expense then that's your call but why should my family and myself and thousands of other Hertfordshire taxpayers who have nothing to benefit from this jolly be financially worse off, like I said somebody needs to carry the can for this grade A mess up. crazyfrog
  • Score: 2

4:52pm Sun 20 Apr 14

LSC says...

crazyfrog wrote:
Ok LSC where do you draw the line? If the bilderberg masons decided to meet every weekend at the grove, should we the Hertfordshire taxpayer foot the bill week on week at £500,000 ? If you want your council tax bill to rise to pay for a bunch of the worlds richest masons to gather for a jolly in the lap of luxury at your expense then that's your call but why should my family and myself and thousands of other Hertfordshire taxpayers who have nothing to benefit from this jolly be financially worse off, like I said somebody needs to carry the can for this grade A mess up.
I don't see what them being rich has to do with it, except that some people resent it.
I pay for thousands of things I don't personally benefit from.
What is your alternative?
Private armies for the rich or banning certain citizens of the UK from talking to each other? Those appear the only alternatives, and I don't like either much.
[quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: Ok LSC where do you draw the line? If the bilderberg masons decided to meet every weekend at the grove, should we the Hertfordshire taxpayer foot the bill week on week at £500,000 ? If you want your council tax bill to rise to pay for a bunch of the worlds richest masons to gather for a jolly in the lap of luxury at your expense then that's your call but why should my family and myself and thousands of other Hertfordshire taxpayers who have nothing to benefit from this jolly be financially worse off, like I said somebody needs to carry the can for this grade A mess up.[/p][/quote]I don't see what them being rich has to do with it, except that some people resent it. I pay for thousands of things I don't personally benefit from. What is your alternative? Private armies for the rich or banning certain citizens of the UK from talking to each other? Those appear the only alternatives, and I don't like either much. LSC
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Sun 20 Apr 14

crazyfrog says...

LSC wrote:
crazyfrog wrote:
Ok LSC where do you draw the line? If the bilderberg masons decided to meet every weekend at the grove, should we the Hertfordshire taxpayer foot the bill week on week at £500,000 ? If you want your council tax bill to rise to pay for a bunch of the worlds richest masons to gather for a jolly in the lap of luxury at your expense then that's your call but why should my family and myself and thousands of other Hertfordshire taxpayers who have nothing to benefit from this jolly be financially worse off, like I said somebody needs to carry the can for this grade A mess up.
I don't see what them being rich has to do with it, except that some people resent it.
I pay for thousands of things I don't personally benefit from.
What is your alternative?
Private armies for the rich or banning certain citizens of the UK from talking to each other? Those appear the only alternatives, and I don't like either much.
The point is that these people have easily enough money to pay for their own extra special security needs, if as a collective of people who belong to a secretive organisation that by its own merits creates an air of suspicion and fear amongst meat mortals then why didn't they host this shindig at one of the numerous private country estates that a few of the members of this elite old boys club must own? Why chose to hold it in a hotel in watford that has been a total nightmare and costly exercise to police? There's no way you can justify the fact that we the taxpayer have just lost over half a million pounds out of our county budget during times of austerity and the very Man Gideon Osborne who's be banging the drum for austerity and prudence was one of the masons that attended this event and ultimately cost us money
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: Ok LSC where do you draw the line? If the bilderberg masons decided to meet every weekend at the grove, should we the Hertfordshire taxpayer foot the bill week on week at £500,000 ? If you want your council tax bill to rise to pay for a bunch of the worlds richest masons to gather for a jolly in the lap of luxury at your expense then that's your call but why should my family and myself and thousands of other Hertfordshire taxpayers who have nothing to benefit from this jolly be financially worse off, like I said somebody needs to carry the can for this grade A mess up.[/p][/quote]I don't see what them being rich has to do with it, except that some people resent it. I pay for thousands of things I don't personally benefit from. What is your alternative? Private armies for the rich or banning certain citizens of the UK from talking to each other? Those appear the only alternatives, and I don't like either much.[/p][/quote]The point is that these people have easily enough money to pay for their own extra special security needs, if as a collective of people who belong to a secretive organisation that by its own merits creates an air of suspicion and fear amongst meat mortals then why didn't they host this shindig at one of the numerous private country estates that a few of the members of this elite old boys club must own? Why chose to hold it in a hotel in watford that has been a total nightmare and costly exercise to police? There's no way you can justify the fact that we the taxpayer have just lost over half a million pounds out of our county budget during times of austerity and the very Man Gideon Osborne who's be banging the drum for austerity and prudence was one of the masons that attended this event and ultimately cost us money crazyfrog
  • Score: 1

5:55pm Sun 20 Apr 14

LSC says...

I understand were you are coming from, but look at basic principals. I could arrange to meet you at the Grove any time.
Are you saying these people should not be allowed that same right?
Why?
As punishment for being wealthy? Because they could choose somewhere else, but didn't?
Are you seriously suggesting that if a group of UK citizens wish to get together for lunch, some law should look into it and decide if they are allowed to, and where they go?

That's a far more scary attitude than anything the Group has shown.
I understand were you are coming from, but look at basic principals. I could arrange to meet you at the Grove any time. Are you saying these people should not be allowed that same right? Why? As punishment for being wealthy? Because they could choose somewhere else, but didn't? Are you seriously suggesting that if a group of UK citizens wish to get together for lunch, some law should look into it and decide if they are allowed to, and where they go? That's a far more scary attitude than anything the Group has shown. LSC
  • Score: -1

7:42pm Sun 20 Apr 14

crazyfrog says...

LSC wrote:
I understand were you are coming from, but look at basic principals. I could arrange to meet you at the Grove any time.
Are you saying these people should not be allowed that same right?
Why?
As punishment for being wealthy? Because they could choose somewhere else, but didn't?
Are you seriously suggesting that if a group of UK citizens wish to get together for lunch, some law should look into it and decide if they are allowed to, and where they go?

That's a far more scary attitude than anything the Group has shown.
These are not all uk citizens I doubt many of them pay any uk tax rates at all, and it's not a simple lunch it's a group of people coming together under the collective known as the bilderberg group which is a far more provocative collective of people than if a few rich masons went for lunch together, because of the bilderbergs notoriety it's without doubt going to create a lot of media and protest group attention which costs money to police a lot of money infact when in truth they could of gone somewhere more private,secure and low key, at the end of the day Hertfordshire residents are worse off and that's the crooks of the matter.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I understand were you are coming from, but look at basic principals. I could arrange to meet you at the Grove any time. Are you saying these people should not be allowed that same right? Why? As punishment for being wealthy? Because they could choose somewhere else, but didn't? Are you seriously suggesting that if a group of UK citizens wish to get together for lunch, some law should look into it and decide if they are allowed to, and where they go? That's a far more scary attitude than anything the Group has shown.[/p][/quote]These are not all uk citizens I doubt many of them pay any uk tax rates at all, and it's not a simple lunch it's a group of people coming together under the collective known as the bilderberg group which is a far more provocative collective of people than if a few rich masons went for lunch together, because of the bilderbergs notoriety it's without doubt going to create a lot of media and protest group attention which costs money to police a lot of money infact when in truth they could of gone somewhere more private,secure and low key, at the end of the day Hertfordshire residents are worse off and that's the crooks of the matter. crazyfrog
  • Score: 3

8:45pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Su Murray says...

LSC wrote:
I understand were you are coming from, but look at basic principals. I could arrange to meet you at the Grove any time.
Are you saying these people should not be allowed that same right?
Why?
As punishment for being wealthy? Because they could choose somewhere else, but didn't?
Are you seriously suggesting that if a group of UK citizens wish to get together for lunch, some law should look into it and decide if they are allowed to, and where they go?

That's a far more scary attitude than anything the Group has shown.
Basic principles LSC;

1) People have the right to arrange a conference at a hotel of their choosing.
2) People have the right to come and go from their place of residence or work, without having to show/surrender their passport. Or indeed in the case of people living on barges on the canal, to have to move away.
3) People have a right to a general, basic level of protection when going about their lawful business, and a right to help/protection from the Police if they have been threatened.

You have said you think there must have been a credible threat to the Bilderberg group which is why there was such an extreme level of protection. Personally, I don't think there was, simply because the level of security was arranged long before anyone knew the conference was going to be in the UK let alone in Watford. We are both making our judgements on the evidence available to us and as we don't know the full facts, either one of us could be correct.

Or there could be a 3rd option. There wasn't a specific credible threat but the security forces at the time of planning, felt it was feasible the group could become a terrorist target. So back to basic principles, the rights of the conference attendees, against the rights of the local residents. How do you decide who's rights are greater?

There are no doubt persuasive arguments to be made either way. But, to decide to uphold the rights of one group, and then expect the other group of people to pay for it is not in my mind reasonable. Especially as the conference attendees had a choice where they held their conference, whereas the residents didn't have any say in events.

If the Bilderberg group requested that level of protection and the Police complied, then the conference attendees should have paid for the Police to provide it. If the Police decided that level of protection was necessary (which to be honest seems more likely though over the top), then the cost of it should be borne out of general not local taxation.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I understand were you are coming from, but look at basic principals. I could arrange to meet you at the Grove any time. Are you saying these people should not be allowed that same right? Why? As punishment for being wealthy? Because they could choose somewhere else, but didn't? Are you seriously suggesting that if a group of UK citizens wish to get together for lunch, some law should look into it and decide if they are allowed to, and where they go? That's a far more scary attitude than anything the Group has shown.[/p][/quote]Basic principles LSC; 1) People have the right to arrange a conference at a hotel of their choosing. 2) People have the right to come and go from their place of residence or work, without having to show/surrender their passport. Or indeed in the case of people living on barges on the canal, to have to move away. 3) People have a right to a general, basic level of protection when going about their lawful business, and a right to help/protection from the Police if they have been threatened. You have said you think there must have been a credible threat to the Bilderberg group which is why there was such an extreme level of protection. Personally, I don't think there was, simply because the level of security was arranged long before anyone knew the conference was going to be in the UK let alone in Watford. We are both making our judgements on the evidence available to us and as we don't know the full facts, either one of us could be correct. Or there could be a 3rd option. There wasn't a specific credible threat but the security forces at the time of planning, felt it was feasible the group could become a terrorist target. So back to basic principles, the rights of the conference attendees, against the rights of the local residents. How do you decide who's rights are greater? There are no doubt persuasive arguments to be made either way. But, to decide to uphold the rights of one group, and then expect the other group of people to pay for it is not in my mind reasonable. Especially as the conference attendees had a choice where they held their conference, whereas the residents didn't have any say in events. If the Bilderberg group requested that level of protection and the Police complied, then the conference attendees should have paid for the Police to provide it. If the Police decided that level of protection was necessary (which to be honest seems more likely though over the top), then the cost of it should be borne out of general not local taxation. Su Murray
  • Score: 1

8:53pm Sun 20 Apr 14

LSC says...

In my humble opinion, guests of the UK should also be shown the same security and courtesy as it's citizens. It is not unusual to see embassy cars with police outriders in London, at taxpayers expense.

If the issue is tax, I assume you never shop at Tesco or use Amazon or Google, and frown upon those who do. As I have said before, if you are aware of wrongdoing, dial 999.

You say yourself they will attract media and protest. So how would a 'low key' location help? Ask Kate Middleton or the late Princess Diana what 'low key' means when they want to wear a bikini on a private holiday, like any woman should have the right to do. Ask the parents of Millie Dowler about privacy. Courted or uncourted, privacy means nothing, so therefore the venue means nothing. A concrete bunker in the Shetlands or open air in Trafalgar square. The media and protesters will follow, and they are the ones that actually cost public money in policing.

I think you prove yet again that your anger isn't the cost, but the existence of the Group itself. But because you can't even tell me what they discussed, or did as a result, you resort to side issues like cost.

Every post on here moves further towards the socialist mantrim "They are rich, I'm not and it isn't FAIR!"
In my humble opinion, guests of the UK should also be shown the same security and courtesy as it's citizens. It is not unusual to see embassy cars with police outriders in London, at taxpayers expense. If the issue is tax, I assume you never shop at Tesco or use Amazon or Google, and frown upon those who do. As I have said before, if you are aware of wrongdoing, dial 999. You say yourself they will attract media and protest. So how would a 'low key' location help? Ask Kate Middleton or the late Princess Diana what 'low key' means when they want to wear a bikini on a private holiday, like any woman should have the right to do. Ask the parents of Millie Dowler about privacy. Courted or uncourted, privacy means nothing, so therefore the venue means nothing. A concrete bunker in the Shetlands or open air in Trafalgar square. The media and protesters will follow, and they are the ones that actually cost public money in policing. I think you prove yet again that your anger isn't the cost, but the existence of the Group itself. But because you can't even tell me what they discussed, or did as a result, you resort to side issues like cost. Every post on here moves further towards the socialist mantrim "They are rich, I'm not and it isn't FAIR!" LSC
  • Score: -4

9:02pm Sun 20 Apr 14

John Dowdle says...

LSC wrote:
In my humble opinion, guests of the UK should also be shown the same security and courtesy as it's citizens. It is not unusual to see embassy cars with police outriders in London, at taxpayers expense.

If the issue is tax, I assume you never shop at Tesco or use Amazon or Google, and frown upon those who do. As I have said before, if you are aware of wrongdoing, dial 999.

You say yourself they will attract media and protest. So how would a 'low key' location help? Ask Kate Middleton or the late Princess Diana what 'low key' means when they want to wear a bikini on a private holiday, like any woman should have the right to do. Ask the parents of Millie Dowler about privacy. Courted or uncourted, privacy means nothing, so therefore the venue means nothing. A concrete bunker in the Shetlands or open air in Trafalgar square. The media and protesters will follow, and they are the ones that actually cost public money in policing.

I think you prove yet again that your anger isn't the cost, but the existence of the Group itself. But because you can't even tell me what they discussed, or did as a result, you resort to side issues like cost.

Every post on here moves further towards the socialist mantrim "They are rich, I'm not and it isn't FAIR!"
These people were NOT 'guests of the UK', as you describe them.
They were a private grouping, with no official status in regard to the UK.
Get your facts right before adopting a contrarian stance on this matter - OK?
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: In my humble opinion, guests of the UK should also be shown the same security and courtesy as it's citizens. It is not unusual to see embassy cars with police outriders in London, at taxpayers expense. If the issue is tax, I assume you never shop at Tesco or use Amazon or Google, and frown upon those who do. As I have said before, if you are aware of wrongdoing, dial 999. You say yourself they will attract media and protest. So how would a 'low key' location help? Ask Kate Middleton or the late Princess Diana what 'low key' means when they want to wear a bikini on a private holiday, like any woman should have the right to do. Ask the parents of Millie Dowler about privacy. Courted or uncourted, privacy means nothing, so therefore the venue means nothing. A concrete bunker in the Shetlands or open air in Trafalgar square. The media and protesters will follow, and they are the ones that actually cost public money in policing. I think you prove yet again that your anger isn't the cost, but the existence of the Group itself. But because you can't even tell me what they discussed, or did as a result, you resort to side issues like cost. Every post on here moves further towards the socialist mantrim "They are rich, I'm not and it isn't FAIR!"[/p][/quote]These people were NOT 'guests of the UK', as you describe them. They were a private grouping, with no official status in regard to the UK. Get your facts right before adopting a contrarian stance on this matter - OK? John Dowdle
  • Score: 0

10:23pm Sun 20 Apr 14

LSC says...

Perhaps it is just my manners, but I consider everyone a guest unless they prove their motives to be nefarious.
You, or anyone, have failed to prove that to my satisfaction. Half of you call them secretive but the other half claim to know exactly what they are up to.
Perhaps the people who dislike them should get their heads together and provide a united front and present the case.

It still looks like class/money jealousy from LSC Towers.
Perhaps it is just my manners, but I consider everyone a guest unless they prove their motives to be nefarious. You, or anyone, have failed to prove that to my satisfaction. Half of you call them secretive but the other half claim to know exactly what they are up to. Perhaps the people who dislike them should get their heads together and provide a united front and present the case. It still looks like class/money jealousy from LSC Towers. LSC
  • Score: -6

10:29pm Sun 20 Apr 14

LSC says...

And John, you didn't answer any of my points. We often agree on things and you make such a good case so often.
And John, you didn't answer any of my points. We often agree on things and you make such a good case so often. LSC
  • Score: -5

11:17pm Sun 20 Apr 14

John Dowdle says...

They were no more official guests of the UK than I am a guest of any country I may visit. They were all private individuals and they and the hotel should have covered the costs of their security. If you feel this strongly about the matter, next time this lot want to come to the UK, invite them round to your house and then we will not need to meet the costs of providing public security services for a group of private individuals. Sorted.
They were no more official guests of the UK than I am a guest of any country I may visit. They were all private individuals and they and the hotel should have covered the costs of their security. If you feel this strongly about the matter, next time this lot want to come to the UK, invite them round to your house and then we will not need to meet the costs of providing public security services for a group of private individuals. Sorted. John Dowdle
  • Score: 2

1:25am Mon 21 Apr 14

LSC says...

John Dowdle wrote:
They were no more official guests of the UK than I am a guest of any country I may visit. They were all private individuals and they and the hotel should have covered the costs of their security. If you feel this strongly about the matter, next time this lot want to come to the UK, invite them round to your house and then we will not need to meet the costs of providing public security services for a group of private individuals. Sorted.
Ok, i'll invite them round mine. We will have tea. But if some loon turns up outside with a rocket propelled grenade, I will dial 999 and expect an armed response unit pronto.
I will not expect to give my credit card details to do so.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: They were no more official guests of the UK than I am a guest of any country I may visit. They were all private individuals and they and the hotel should have covered the costs of their security. If you feel this strongly about the matter, next time this lot want to come to the UK, invite them round to your house and then we will not need to meet the costs of providing public security services for a group of private individuals. Sorted.[/p][/quote]Ok, i'll invite them round mine. We will have tea. But if some loon turns up outside with a rocket propelled grenade, I will dial 999 and expect an armed response unit pronto. I will not expect to give my credit card details to do so. LSC
  • Score: -8

2:26am Mon 21 Apr 14

John Dowdle says...

That will certainly work out a lot cheaper than £1 million to stage.
I will leave it to you to contact David Lloyd and make the arrangements.
That will certainly work out a lot cheaper than £1 million to stage. I will leave it to you to contact David Lloyd and make the arrangements. John Dowdle
  • Score: 5

10:47am Mon 21 Apr 14

allgood says...

How did it cost so much when Mrs Thatchers state funeral supposedly only cost £1 million?
How did it cost so much when Mrs Thatchers state funeral supposedly only cost £1 million? allgood
  • Score: 1

12:36pm Mon 21 Apr 14

LSC says...

John Dowdle wrote:
That will certainly work out a lot cheaper than £1 million to stage.
I will leave it to you to contact David Lloyd and make the arrangements.
He never returns my calls... :(
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: That will certainly work out a lot cheaper than £1 million to stage. I will leave it to you to contact David Lloyd and make the arrangements.[/p][/quote]He never returns my calls... :( LSC
  • Score: -9

12:52pm Mon 21 Apr 14

LSC says...

allgood wrote:
How did it cost so much when Mrs Thatchers state funeral supposedly only cost £1 million?
I have no idea how these things are costed. If you are paying a copper to enforce the law anyway, it makes little difference where they are doing it. unless they are on overtime, which again, they often do anyway. (It is well known that the arrest rate often goes up just before a shift change, so an hour or two extra is required to complete the task).
It is like when people try to put a 'cost' on a war like Iraq. We are paying the soldiers anyway. They might fire a few more bullets and shells but they fire a fair amount of those in training.

So a copper or ten stood outside the Grove. Chances are we would have paid them anyway and they would simply be standing somewhere else; or worse, doing nothing at all.
[quote][p][bold]allgood[/bold] wrote: How did it cost so much when Mrs Thatchers state funeral supposedly only cost £1 million?[/p][/quote]I have no idea how these things are costed. If you are paying a copper to enforce the law anyway, it makes little difference where they are doing it. unless they are on overtime, which again, they often do anyway. (It is well known that the arrest rate often goes up just before a shift change, so an hour or two extra is required to complete the task). It is like when people try to put a 'cost' on a war like Iraq. We are paying the soldiers anyway. They might fire a few more bullets and shells but they fire a fair amount of those in training. So a copper or ten stood outside the Grove. Chances are we would have paid them anyway and they would simply be standing somewhere else; or worse, doing nothing at all. LSC
  • Score: -8

9:18pm Mon 21 Apr 14

#UKMum says...

Apparently "The Innholders Livery Company acted as host of the 2013 Bilderberg conference" so now Watfordians know where to send that bill.
Apparently "The Innholders Livery Company acted as host of the 2013 Bilderberg conference" so now Watfordians know where to send that bill. #UKMum
  • Score: 10

9:03am Tue 22 Apr 14

garston tony says...

The argument seems to be that this group are rich so should pay for the policing of a group of people that they didnt invite, that arent linked to them and i'm pretty confident would have been quite happy not to have within 100 miles of them!

So basically according to you lot rich people arent entitled to police protection, how nice.

There would have been no need for policing if there hadnt been protestors, its the protestors that should foot the bill as without them there would have been no need for the police.
The argument seems to be that this group are rich so should pay for the policing of a group of people that they didnt invite, that arent linked to them and i'm pretty confident would have been quite happy not to have within 100 miles of them! So basically according to you lot rich people arent entitled to police protection, how nice. There would have been no need for policing if there hadnt been protestors, its the protestors that should foot the bill as without them there would have been no need for the police. garston tony
  • Score: -4

9:13am Tue 22 Apr 14

garston tony says...

What's really tragic is that the protestors that led to this immence waste of money didnt have a clue about what they were protesting about in the first place!

I'm all for freedom of speech and right to protest, but to protest and be so vocal based on presumption and conspiracy theories and quite bonkers claims (everyone must remember the number of claims being made about Bilderberg either being alien masters or controlled by lizzards from outer space) is tragic, as is the waste of police time and money it led to.

There must have been dozens of competing, contradictory claims being made about this group and the reason therefore why there was a need to protest. It was so incoherent and disorganised i'm suprised the protesters had the where with all about them to find their way to the Grove. Possibly many more people would have attended the protest but they couldnt figure our how to get off the m25, they're probably still circling London on it with dazed/vacant expressions on their faces.

And what was telling was that the most vocal agitators were clearly banging their own particular drum, to get media exposure for themselves and in at least one case in order to promote the merchandise available on their web site.
What's really tragic is that the protestors that led to this immence waste of money didnt have a clue about what they were protesting about in the first place! I'm all for freedom of speech and right to protest, but to protest and be so vocal based on presumption and conspiracy theories and quite bonkers claims (everyone must remember the number of claims being made about Bilderberg either being alien masters or controlled by lizzards from outer space) is tragic, as is the waste of police time and money it led to. There must have been dozens of competing, contradictory claims being made about this group and the reason therefore why there was a need to protest. It was so incoherent and disorganised i'm suprised the protesters had the where with all about them to find their way to the Grove. Possibly many more people would have attended the protest but they couldnt figure our how to get off the m25, they're probably still circling London on it with dazed/vacant expressions on their faces. And what was telling was that the most vocal agitators were clearly banging their own particular drum, to get media exposure for themselves and in at least one case in order to promote the merchandise available on their web site. garston tony
  • Score: -3

9:14am Tue 22 Apr 14

garston tony says...

And laugh of the day is JD outing himself as one of these conspiracy theorists. Love it :-)
And laugh of the day is JD outing himself as one of these conspiracy theorists. Love it :-) garston tony
  • Score: -6

9:35am Tue 22 Apr 14

#UKMum says...

garston tony

The amount of people who turned up was relatively small in number. Those who were there included families with young children. The majority of those I saw and talked with were videographers. The Grove itself is a good mile off the road in the middle of a grassy knoll. As for a no-fly zone. That's something I didn't know about but I think these folk are taking themselves way too seriously and taking Watford to the cleaners to boot.
garston tony The amount of people who turned up was relatively small in number. Those who were there included families with young children. The majority of those I saw and talked with were videographers. The Grove itself is a good mile off the road in the middle of a grassy knoll. As for a no-fly zone. That's something I didn't know about but I think these folk are taking themselves way too seriously and taking Watford to the cleaners to boot. #UKMum
  • Score: 4

10:03am Tue 22 Apr 14

Neil_St_Albans says...

In future the Bilderberg Conference can pick up the entire bill. They are the only ones to benefit from the added security. No one else benefits from having to host the conference. This is not in the immediate interests of the tax payer and is an outdated conference started as a result of the second world war in Europe. I believe we have the United Nations for the very same purpose.

Maybe the police should consider proportionally policing this event to the sum 'donated' by the Bilderberg Conference. After all if the conference wants to benefit from the increased security measures, they should pay for all of it.
In future the Bilderberg Conference can pick up the entire bill. They are the only ones to benefit from the added security. No one else benefits from having to host the conference. This is not in the immediate interests of the tax payer and is an outdated conference started as a result of the second world war in Europe. I believe we have the United Nations for the very same purpose. Maybe the police should consider proportionally policing this event to the sum 'donated' by the Bilderberg Conference. After all if the conference wants to benefit from the increased security measures, they should pay for all of it. Neil_St_Albans
  • Score: 6

10:12am Tue 22 Apr 14

garston tony says...

UK mum, by 'these people' I take it you mean the Bilderberg group? As I said i'm pretty sure that they would have preffered to have had none of the protesters there and it was the police themselves who chose to do what they did in response to the protester scenario they faced.

But you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too, if they are not worthy of being taken seriously as you claim what on earth was the protest you apparently agree with about?

The fact remains the police were only there because of the protesters, no protesters no police, no police no massive bill. The bill is therefore fairly and squarely laid at the feet of the protesters.
UK mum, by 'these people' I take it you mean the Bilderberg group? As I said i'm pretty sure that they would have preffered to have had none of the protesters there and it was the police themselves who chose to do what they did in response to the protester scenario they faced. But you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too, if they are not worthy of being taken seriously as you claim what on earth was the protest you apparently agree with about? The fact remains the police were only there because of the protesters, no protesters no police, no police no massive bill. The bill is therefore fairly and squarely laid at the feet of the protesters. garston tony
  • Score: -4

10:14am Tue 22 Apr 14

garston tony says...

Neil_St_Albans wrote:
In future the Bilderberg Conference can pick up the entire bill. They are the only ones to benefit from the added security. No one else benefits from having to host the conference. This is not in the immediate interests of the tax payer and is an outdated conference started as a result of the second world war in Europe. I believe we have the United Nations for the very same purpose. Maybe the police should consider proportionally policing this event to the sum 'donated' by the Bilderberg Conference. After all if the conference wants to benefit from the increased security measures, they should pay for all of it.
You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of how policing works in this country!
[quote][p][bold]Neil_St_Albans[/bold] wrote: In future the Bilderberg Conference can pick up the entire bill. They are the only ones to benefit from the added security. No one else benefits from having to host the conference. This is not in the immediate interests of the tax payer and is an outdated conference started as a result of the second world war in Europe. I believe we have the United Nations for the very same purpose. Maybe the police should consider proportionally policing this event to the sum 'donated' by the Bilderberg Conference. After all if the conference wants to benefit from the increased security measures, they should pay for all of it.[/p][/quote]You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of how policing works in this country! garston tony
  • Score: -5

10:43am Tue 22 Apr 14

garston tony says...

Someone mentioned Rushdie paying for his own protection, that didnt seem right and I had to look it up. Its cost around £11 million to protect Salman Rushdie and he has only paid a 'modest' sum, or a 'small percentage' according to the sources I could find towards that.

The vast majority of the costs has been paid for by us the tax payer.

The principle is that if you are going about your private business but are at risk of harm then the state will offer you protection based on the perceived risk against you. The state provides for situation where people who have done nothing wrong or illegal are being targetted by nutters and that is regardless of status
Someone mentioned Rushdie paying for his own protection, that didnt seem right and I had to look it up. Its cost around £11 million to protect Salman Rushdie and he has only paid a 'modest' sum, or a 'small percentage' according to the sources I could find towards that. The vast majority of the costs has been paid for by us the tax payer. The principle is that if you are going about your private business but are at risk of harm then the state will offer you protection based on the perceived risk against you. The state provides for situation where people who have done nothing wrong or illegal are being targetted by nutters and that is regardless of status garston tony
  • Score: -6

1:43pm Tue 22 Apr 14

#UKMum says...

Gartson Tony - they the same type as those who call the police when -

"David Cameron's constituency office called in the police last week when the Bishop of Oxford and Reverend Keith Hebden visited to deliver a letter about food poverty."
Gartson Tony - they the same type as those who call the police when - "David Cameron's constituency office called in the police last week when the Bishop of Oxford and Reverend Keith Hebden visited to deliver a letter about food poverty." #UKMum
  • Score: 8

1:58pm Tue 22 Apr 14

LSC says...

#UKMum wrote:
garston tony

The amount of people who turned up was relatively small in number. Those who were there included families with young children. The majority of those I saw and talked with were videographers. The Grove itself is a good mile off the road in the middle of a grassy knoll. As for a no-fly zone. That's something I didn't know about but I think these folk are taking themselves way too seriously and taking Watford to the cleaners to boot.
Would you mind taking the time to tell me EXACTLY what you were protesting about? I'd be interested.
[quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: garston tony The amount of people who turned up was relatively small in number. Those who were there included families with young children. The majority of those I saw and talked with were videographers. The Grove itself is a good mile off the road in the middle of a grassy knoll. As for a no-fly zone. That's something I didn't know about but I think these folk are taking themselves way too seriously and taking Watford to the cleaners to boot.[/p][/quote]Would you mind taking the time to tell me EXACTLY what you were protesting about? I'd be interested. LSC
  • Score: -10

6:49pm Tue 22 Apr 14

LSC says...

LSC wrote:
#UKMum wrote:
garston tony

The amount of people who turned up was relatively small in number. Those who were there included families with young children. The majority of those I saw and talked with were videographers. The Grove itself is a good mile off the road in the middle of a grassy knoll. As for a no-fly zone. That's something I didn't know about but I think these folk are taking themselves way too seriously and taking Watford to the cleaners to boot.
Would you mind taking the time to tell me EXACTLY what you were protesting about? I'd be interested.
Minus 10 votes but no answer. Perhaps you 10 simply don't like the question.
Or don't know the answer?
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: garston tony The amount of people who turned up was relatively small in number. Those who were there included families with young children. The majority of those I saw and talked with were videographers. The Grove itself is a good mile off the road in the middle of a grassy knoll. As for a no-fly zone. That's something I didn't know about but I think these folk are taking themselves way too seriously and taking Watford to the cleaners to boot.[/p][/quote]Would you mind taking the time to tell me EXACTLY what you were protesting about? I'd be interested.[/p][/quote]Minus 10 votes but no answer. Perhaps you 10 simply don't like the question. Or don't know the answer? LSC
  • Score: 2

10:33pm Tue 22 Apr 14

#UKMum says...

LSC

By All Means - I wasn't down there to protest - I was down there with a videographer recording the events and talking with the participants..
LSC By All Means - I wasn't down there to protest - I was down there with a videographer recording the events and talking with the participants.. #UKMum
  • Score: -1

11:37pm Tue 22 Apr 14

LSC says...

#UKMum wrote:
LSC

By All Means - I wasn't down there to protest - I was down there with a videographer recording the events and talking with the participants..
Fine, you both had the day off work. Why choose that to do? What did the participants tell you?
[quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: LSC By All Means - I wasn't down there to protest - I was down there with a videographer recording the events and talking with the participants..[/p][/quote]Fine, you both had the day off work. Why choose that to do? What did the participants tell you? LSC
  • Score: 1

11:46pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Su Murray says...

LSC wrote:
#UKMum wrote:
LSC

By All Means - I wasn't down there to protest - I was down there with a videographer recording the events and talking with the participants..
Fine, you both had the day off work. Why choose that to do? What did the participants tell you?
I don't know if it's the case or not, but possibly reporting news IS UKMum's job? If it is, and you're reading UKMum, I'm really quite good at research. Just saying like............. ;-)
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: LSC By All Means - I wasn't down there to protest - I was down there with a videographer recording the events and talking with the participants..[/p][/quote]Fine, you both had the day off work. Why choose that to do? What did the participants tell you?[/p][/quote]I don't know if it's the case or not, but possibly reporting news IS UKMum's job? If it is, and you're reading UKMum, I'm really quite good at research. Just saying like............. ;-) Su Murray
  • Score: 0

11:47pm Tue 22 Apr 14

#UKMum says...

Some of what I was told I regard as confidential but one I spoke with was a member of the Grove Health Spa, very well connected and said he had been told he was not allowed to use the facilities for which he had paid for 'security reasons' while BBerg was on. You could say he was inconvenienced. Some of the residents in a street nearby were told to carry their passports for ID. Folk living on narrow boats were told to 'buzz off' and so forth.
Some of what I was told I regard as confidential but one I spoke with was a member of the Grove Health Spa, very well connected and said he had been told he was not allowed to use the facilities for which he had paid for 'security reasons' while BBerg was on. You could say he was inconvenienced. Some of the residents in a street nearby were told to carry their passports for ID. Folk living on narrow boats were told to 'buzz off' and so forth. #UKMum
  • Score: 0

12:50am Wed 23 Apr 14

LSC says...

I'm getting confused with the word 'confidential'. Some of you are complaining because the meeting was confidential. Then you won't tell me why you were complaining because the reason you are complaining is confidential.

What?

So some bloke couldn't use a sauna. That is worth a protest? The canal was shut. It often is, for dredging, does the local economy collapse?
People might have been asked to carry ID for convenience of the police but it isn't law, and I see no arrests. i bet half the locals don't even have a passport, but somehow muddled through.

I ask again, what was the protest about? It wasn't that a guy couldn't use the showers in the Grove.
I'm getting confused with the word 'confidential'. Some of you are complaining because the meeting was confidential. Then you won't tell me why you were complaining because the reason you are complaining is confidential. What? So some bloke couldn't use a sauna. That is worth a protest? The canal was shut. It often is, for dredging, does the local economy collapse? People might have been asked to carry ID for convenience of the police but it isn't law, and I see no arrests. i bet half the locals don't even have a passport, but somehow muddled through. I ask again, what was the protest about? It wasn't that a guy couldn't use the showers in the Grove. LSC
  • Score: 1

1:10am Wed 23 Apr 14

LSC says...

Su Murray wrote:
LSC wrote:
#UKMum wrote:
LSC

By All Means - I wasn't down there to protest - I was down there with a videographer recording the events and talking with the participants..
Fine, you both had the day off work. Why choose that to do? What did the participants tell you?
I don't know if it's the case or not, but possibly reporting news IS UKMum's job? If it is, and you're reading UKMum, I'm really quite good at research. Just saying like............. ;-)
Well, let's hope not. Because I like my news factual and unbiased. So far, not so good. I've met real journalists who take the job seriously.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: LSC By All Means - I wasn't down there to protest - I was down there with a videographer recording the events and talking with the participants..[/p][/quote]Fine, you both had the day off work. Why choose that to do? What did the participants tell you?[/p][/quote]I don't know if it's the case or not, but possibly reporting news IS UKMum's job? If it is, and you're reading UKMum, I'm really quite good at research. Just saying like............. ;-)[/p][/quote]Well, let's hope not. Because I like my news factual and unbiased. So far, not so good. I've met real journalists who take the job seriously. LSC
  • Score: 0

9:19am Wed 23 Apr 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
I'm getting confused with the word 'confidential'. Some of you are complaining because the meeting was confidential. Then you won't tell me why you were complaining because the reason you are complaining is confidential. What? So some bloke couldn't use a sauna. That is worth a protest? The canal was shut. It often is, for dredging, does the local economy collapse? People might have been asked to carry ID for convenience of the police but it isn't law, and I see no arrests. i bet half the locals don't even have a passport, but somehow muddled through. I ask again, what was the protest about? It wasn't that a guy couldn't use the showers in the Grove.
The anti bilderberg lot are just as confused now as they were when the event was taking place, there must have been dozens of different reasons given for the protests at the time most of which contradicted each other!

And yes whilst I appreciate that everyone has different reasons to get up in arms it just showed how tenuos the whole protest was when you have one persons 'reason' being 'Bilderberg do X' and another persons reason being that 'Bilderberg dont do X' and then you have people claiming they are behind every single event in history (going back to centuries before the group even formed) or are aliens but unable to provide any proof beyond some wacky chap who runs a website (where by the way you can buy over priced tatty merchandise and the owner needs publicity to make money) telling you its so.

And on this post as you point out we have 'we're anti Bilderberg because they are secretive' then 'but i'm going to be secretive about my reasons for protesting'. Thats in addition to the put down of 'they take themselves too seriously' but if they are not to be taken seriously why are you protesting?
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I'm getting confused with the word 'confidential'. Some of you are complaining because the meeting was confidential. Then you won't tell me why you were complaining because the reason you are complaining is confidential. What? So some bloke couldn't use a sauna. That is worth a protest? The canal was shut. It often is, for dredging, does the local economy collapse? People might have been asked to carry ID for convenience of the police but it isn't law, and I see no arrests. i bet half the locals don't even have a passport, but somehow muddled through. I ask again, what was the protest about? It wasn't that a guy couldn't use the showers in the Grove.[/p][/quote]The anti bilderberg lot are just as confused now as they were when the event was taking place, there must have been dozens of different reasons given for the protests at the time most of which contradicted each other! And yes whilst I appreciate that everyone has different reasons to get up in arms it just showed how tenuos the whole protest was when you have one persons 'reason' being 'Bilderberg do X' and another persons reason being that 'Bilderberg dont do X' and then you have people claiming they are behind every single event in history (going back to centuries before the group even formed) or are aliens but unable to provide any proof beyond some wacky chap who runs a website (where by the way you can buy over priced tatty merchandise and the owner needs publicity to make money) telling you its so. And on this post as you point out we have 'we're anti Bilderberg because they are secretive' then 'but i'm going to be secretive about my reasons for protesting'. Thats in addition to the put down of 'they take themselves too seriously' but if they are not to be taken seriously why are you protesting? garston tony
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree