I went to Homelands 2 or 3 years ago, I think it was 3 years.Sitting down on their own near one of the tent, in plain view was a couple (25-30yo) blattantly sniffing coke (or other white powder) of a mirror. 2 uniformed police officer walked next to them, clearly saw what was happening and turned a blind eye to it (not even a "please try to be a bit more discreet").

So it's quite hard to beleive that any security will ever loose is badge for "not having seen" someone taking drugs at a festival.

I think that like in every situation a balanced approach should be used.
Try to be a bit discreet when drug (doing it openly is looking for trouble) and on the other hand eveyone knows that festival are "safe harbour" for moderate drug taking.

As far as I'm aware there never has been any police clamp down on festival for users. (Probably because it would be quite difficult to arrest, put in cell and process probably about 25% or more of a festival attendance).

i got busted by police for rolling a spliff at reading festival once, they took our entire stash (well, all of it they could find anyway) and made us sign a little form to the effect that we weren't gonna give us a caution or suchlike, but they were nickein our stuff. but they were very friendly about it, and they only got a small portion of the stuff we had with us, so it was all okay

stephane wrote:I went to Homelands 2 or 3 years ago, I think it was 3 years.Sitting down on their own near one of the tent, in plain view was a couple (25-30yo) blattantly sniffing coke (or other white powder) of a mirror. 2 uniformed police officer walked next to them, clearly saw what was happening and turned a blind eye to it (not even a "please try to be a bit more discreet").

So it's quite hard to beleive that any security will ever loose is badge for "not having seen" someone taking drugs at a festival.

But that's dependent upon a specific officer surely? It's certainly not normal policy for the police to see Class A drugs being used without intervening. You can't expect security to not step in because once upon a time you saw a policeman not care and you've illogically extrapolated that to the point where you now believe no policeman will care.

Ridiculous.

tavdy79 wrote:

Taloen Loch wrote:

scranner wrote:

security wrote:




We dont make the rules up and have to work to strict guidelines with the new SIA badge which all of work under. Just lets say that you walk by me and you decide to take a big line of coke in front of me and i ignore it and theres a undercover police officer that sees me ignore it and not deal with it.

I would lose my door badge and would not be able to work again for anything upto 10 years and all because you or whoever wants to take drugs openly.

you really think undercover OB would have the time to do that? they would be more likely more concerned with the drugs than who is the security?

and how can they prove you didnt see rarther than turned a blind eye.

But why should security take that risk on another's behalf?

That being precisely the reason why any security personnel with even an ounce of common sense are going to avoid situations where they're likely to have to deal with drug use - if they see and ignore it, they risk losing their license; if they see it and come down heavy (as Shadow did) they risk causing violent confrontations - in contravention of their contract!

How are they supposed to avoid such situations at a festival? Stay in their tents? Walk around with their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears? Wear flashing lights and bells so that everyone will know when they're coming?

By all means say they shouldn't act in a way that will make the situation worse but you can't seriously suggest that it would be so easy to avoid dealing with drug use at a festival. Especially one like Glade.

Taloen Loch wrote:

tavdy79 wrote:That being precisely the reason why any security personnel with even an ounce of common sense are going to avoid situations where they're likely to have to deal with drug use - if they see and ignore it, they risk losing their license; if they see it and come down heavy (as Shadow did) they risk causing violent confrontations - in contravention of their contract!

How are they supposed to avoid such situations at a festival? Stay in their tents? Walk around with their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears? Wear flashing lights and bells so that everyone will know when they're coming?

By all means say they shouldn't act in a way that will make the situation worse but you can't seriously suggest that it would be so easy to avoid dealing with drug use at a festival. Especially one like Glade.

From memory, the extra security was brought in to deal with fencejumping and theft. I certainly didn't expect to see them around the site as much as I did, since the logical assumption would be that fewer fencejumpers = lower theft. I.E. the security should be concentrating on keeping fencejumpers out, not chasing around after them once they're already inside. Plus, I think we all agree that Security shouldn't be explicitly going looking for drug use - which they clearly were. If they see drugs being used or sold while doing something else, that's fine - any person they catch should have been more careful - but actively searching out drug use is asking for trouble. I was under the impression their job was to prevent trouble, not cause it.

tavdy79 wrote:From memory, the extra security was brought in to deal with fencejumping and theft. I certainly didn't expect to see them around the site as much as I did, since the logical assumption would be that fewer fencejumpers = lower theft. I.E. the security should be concentrating on keeping fencejumpers out, not chasing around after them once they're already inside. Plus, I think we all agree that Security shouldn't be explicitly going looking for drug use - which they clearly were. If they see drugs being used or sold while doing something else, that's fine - any person they catch should have been more careful - but actively searching out drug use is asking for trouble. I was under the impression their job was to prevent trouble, not cause it.

I agree. And the problem is, as stated elsewhere, that having a security company with no way of making any comeback against the staff as individuals, if they step out of line, means that any of them that have a tendency towards enjoying giving the occasional kicking, or the occasional toke etc. have nothing to stop them from taking advantage of their "authority" to stir up trouble or confiscate things and possibly use them themselves. I am not suggesting all security are like this, but it would be naieve to assume that none of them are.
All the more reason to keep them on the fence where they can protect paying festival goers by keeping out fence jumpers, who aren't all theives but will certainly make everywhere more crowded and queues longer than they otherwise would be. unless there was direct reports of trouble there really was no need for them to patrol the site. The stewards were surely there to help people out who were lost or whatever.

tavdy79 wrote:

Taloen Loch wrote:

tavdy79 wrote:That being precisely the reason why any security personnel with even an ounce of common sense are going to avoid situations where they're likely to have to deal with drug use - if they see and ignore it, they risk losing their license; if they see it and come down heavy (as Shadow did) they risk causing violent confrontations - in contravention of their contract!

How are they supposed to avoid such situations at a festival? Stay in their tents? Walk around with their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears? Wear flashing lights and bells so that everyone will know when they're coming?

By all means say they shouldn't act in a way that will make the situation worse but you can't seriously suggest that it would be so easy to avoid dealing with drug use at a festival. Especially one like Glade.

From memory, the extra security was brought in to deal with fencejumping and theft. I certainly didn't expect to see them around the site as much as I did, since the logical assumption would be that fewer fencejumpers = lower theft. I.E. the security should be concentrating on keeping fencejumpers out, not chasing around after them once they're already inside. Plus, I think we all agree that Security shouldn't be explicitly going looking for drug use - which they clearly were. If they see drugs being used or sold while doing something else, that's fine - any person they catch should have been more careful - but actively searching out drug use is asking for trouble. I was under the impression their job was to prevent trouble, not cause it.

I quite agree but that wasn't the question.

security wrote:We dont make the rules up and have to work to strict guidelines with the new SIA badge which all of work under. Just lets say that you walk by me and you decide to take a big line of coke in front of me and i ignore it and theres a undercover police officer that sees me ignore it and not deal with it.

I would lose my door badge and would not be able to work again for anything upto 10 years and all because you or whoever wants to take drugs openly.

scranner wrote:you really think undercover OB would have the time to do that? they would be more likely more concerned with the drugs than who is the security?

and how can they prove you didnt see rarther than turned a blind eye.

Taloen Loch wrote:But why should security take that risk on another's behalf?

tavdy79 wrote:That being precisely the reason why any security personnel with even an ounce of common sense are going to avoid situations where they're likely to have to deal with drug use - if they see and ignore it, they risk losing their license; if they see it and come down heavy (as Shadow did) they risk causing violent confrontations - in contravention of their contract! Pacifism is a fairly strong zeitgeist element at Glade - I wonder what would have happened if they'd acted like that at other festivals, where that's not the case? I greatly doubt the security companies would have been able to cope if they'd started a major incident - beyond a certain point, sheer force of numbers will outweigh virtually enything.

The point is that we can't expect security to ignore drug use if there is a chance of him losing his licence after being spotted doing so by a police officer. Suggesting he can just avoid such situations is disingenuous. Suggesting that they stick to monitoring fence jumping I agree with but I think that was more the fault of the organisers than that of the security companies for it seems unlikely that there could be such a huge security presence within the festival walls had it not been done with the consent of those in charge of the event.

Taloen Loch wrote:The point is that we can't expect security to ignore drug use if there is a chance of him losing his licence after being spotted doing so by a police officer. Suggesting he can just avoid such situations is disingenuous. Suggesting that they stick to monitoring fence jumping I agree with but I think that was more the fault of the organisers than that of the security companies for it seems unlikely that there could be such a huge security presence within the festival walls had it not been done with the consent of those in charge of the event.

How could they lose their licence by being seen to let drug taking occur by police when there were no police on site? They could have changed their tactics if police came on site, something they should be aware of as they were monitoring the gate.

IMHO the only time the security should be interacting with the punters is when they're dealing with a thief or fencejumper onsite, and the chances are in both cases they're not going to notice any drug use since they're likely to be chasing thieves & fencejumpers. I'm not saying they totally 100% avoid any areas where drugs might possibly be used; I'm suggesting they avoid those areas wherever possible without compromising the rest of their role. It's already well-established that they were making people jittery simply from the way they were acting generally, so even if you disregard the drugs issue it makes sense for them to avoid festival-goers wherever possible. IMHO the security were specifically looking for drugs. From what I know, the SIA doesn't actually require them to actively search for drugs, so why would they do so other than to cause trouble?

Taloen Loch wrote:But that's dependent upon a specific officer surely? It's certainly not normal policy for the police to see Class A drugs being used without intervening. You can't expect security to not step in because once upon a time you saw a policeman not care and you've illogically extrapolated that to the point where you now believe no policeman will care.

Ridiculous.

She wasnt saying it was normal policy mate, just that its possible.

DeepBreathes.

Bigby wrote:

Taloen Loch wrote:But that's dependent upon a specific officer surely? It's certainly not normal policy for the police to see Class A drugs being used without intervening. You can't expect security to not step in because once upon a time you saw a policeman not care and you've illogically extrapolated that to the point where you now believe no policeman will care.

Ridiculous.

She wasnt saying it was normal policy mate, just that its possible.

DeepBreathes.

stephane wrote:...it's quite hard to beleive that any security will ever loose is badge for "not having seen" someone taking drugs at a festival

That's not saying it's possible, that's saying it's a likely scenario.

Slypsy wrote:

Taloen Loch wrote:The point is that we can't expect security to ignore drug use if there is a chance of him losing his licence after being spotted doing so by a police officer. Suggesting he can just avoid such situations is disingenuous. Suggesting that they stick to monitoring fence jumping I agree with but I think that was more the fault of the organisers than that of the security companies for it seems unlikely that there could be such a huge security presence within the festival walls had it not been done with the consent of those in charge of the event.

How could they lose their licence by being seen to let drug taking occur by police when there were no police on site? They could have changed their tactics if police came on site, something they should be aware of as they were monitoring the gate.

The point is that there could have been undercover police on site - my friends and I actually thought there were some - and that it isn't in security's best interest to take the risk.

I cant believe that this issue is still troubleling people. Probably time to get over it, just like the paranoi that made you think udercover plod were there. Right im off now to share a couple of sly lines with the seargent before i go and bust the local king pin skunk dealer so i can get some smoke for the weekend.
Peace out.
Pc1045 Greater metropolitan police.

Well, first of all, i will say i only saw one incident of security being heavy handed and luckily it was fairly minor and seemed to involve people without wristbands so I didn't feel the need to complain.

The only reason I really have posted a reply is to congratulate Lady Jane on one of the most succint, lucid, and eloquent messages on this board i have ever read (it was the one from the 24th of July). I have no idea who she is so no-one can accuse me of giving credit to a mate! I am not saying that everyone else talks crap - i honestly believe that the vast majority of people on this board put their point of view across very well and it is a joy to find a forum where it does not descend into petty personal insults! So, basically, kudos to Lady Jane!

Right, after the love-in, I must say that as a first timer to Glade I found the festival to be very well run, save for certain issues, namely security and other issues that are discussed on other threads. The fact i don't remember most of the stuff i saw, save for the fantastic Vitalic, bodes well for my enjoyment!

Right, i should finish with a comment about security as this is what the thread is about. I will second everyone who has complained about the speed at which they drove around the site. I can understand the need to drive quickly when there is an emergency, hence the flashing lights the emergency services have, but when you get a load of, well, let's be honest, ex-bouncers and ex-military, bombing around the site for no apparent reason, you tend to get worried. Mix this with the fact that i knew i was in no fit state to get out of their way for a lot of the time, something i think a lot of people would have felt, i feel something needs to be done about this for next year.

Finally, Security, thanks for coming on and being so candid about your opinions and i will say that it only appeared to be a few of the security who were twats - the vast majority i came across were friendly and helpful.

See you next year! (if i have managed to stop talking shite by then)

oh come on, tavdy's post was way more eloquent, lucid and succinct.

and bigby, i thought u might have been old bill when u said u were 6'6"

Bigby wrote:...just like the paranoi that made you think udercover plod were there...

Did I read somewhere on the boards that there were undercover security guys? I definitely know we saw undercover folk, we were sober at the time.

sarahtonin wrote:
and bigby, i thought u might have been old bill when u said u were 6'6"

Samwise you should've seen the initial draft - it was all over the shop But thank you - and welcome to the board

sarahtonin wrote:oh come on, tavdy's post was way more eloquent, lucid and succinct.

that's what I said!

sarahtonin wrote:and bigby, i thought u might have been old bill when u said u were 6'6"

how did I miss that fact? I like a man you can climb Can we start calling him Bigboy instead?

Lady_Jane wrote:

sarahtonin wrote:and bigby, i thought u might have been old bill when u said u were 6'6"

how did I miss that fact? I like a man you can climb Can we start calling him Bigboy instead?

I believe his avatar says that on NSB.

Lady_Jane wrote:

sarahtonin wrote:and bigby, i thought u might have been old bill when u said u were 6'6"

how did I miss that fact? I like a man you can climb Can we start calling him Bigboy instead?

Wouldnt mind beeing climbed now actually. Oh and bigboy is fine with me.