A few people, myself included, have suggested we might be better off having OB patrolling inside instead of private security firms.

People might like to think again after reading the Global Chavering thread.

i think people are still wanting answers to wtf happened, can't see it happening again, if it did, there would be riots, and then the police WILL be there! lol

i feel sorry for all these commercial events. they are victim of the authorities. it makes me ask, why if no police on site at glade, must there be loads on site at other events? a camping festival addresses problems of traffic by staggering volume of numbers arrival times. the only police i want to see are traffic police, mostly towards the end of an event - for safety reasons. what other problems would a festival give the public (outside of the site)? sound levels? that's not a police matter. a mainstream event is like the north sea, they love to trawl it, lot's of chav types. but really, i don't know why the plod should be there, if something happens, someone would call them in, just like anywhere, really...

in a sick kind of way it's good that the bad crap happened 'cos it's very unlikely to happen again. my two main suggestions are 1) to concentrate security on the fence patrol & 2) keep a site (like wasing?) capacity down to 10,000. people like global are just mega-fcuking greedy, they make their event hard to control by having way too many people, putting on opposing music styles that they wouldn't normally play in their club, attracting opposing types of people... a recipe for conflict of interests, i reckon. if glade becomes commercial, attracts too many twats that like to fight, & has too many of these 'young chav asbo types' that middle britain apparently doesn't like, & possibly if they increase numbers too much, then i would expect mr plod to be resident door man in the future.

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

Shit, you really do look like OB in that pic.

Some incidents at Glade seen by me:

1. Black 4x4 driving at speed down the hill and accelerating fast across grass area outside breaks tent (on origin side), forcing people sitting on the grass outside the tent to made a rapid exit. The men in the vehicle seemed to be laughing. Similar incidents on Sat and Sun, early/mid afternoon.

2. Man encountered in arm lock on the ground, near and above the stage tents, with perhaps 6 silver canisters of nitrous nearby on the grass. The man holding him in a lock was from one of the security firms, and he had a colleague *assisting* him in holding the man on the ground. A small crowd had gathered. They were pleading with the security people to release the man, and were shouting stuff about contravention of human rights. The man seemed very red in the face and seemed to be choking/having difficulties breathing and was sort of gasping/screeching. They eventually released him.

3. Around 10 in the morning. Several people lying around asleep next to the path and among the tents near the end of the walled garden (left hand side of path if you're going into site). Black 4x4s patrolling path from entrance towards stages area, in group of two vehicles (pattern repeated each morning). When level with the walled garden, they ((three men and one woman as far as I can recall) stopped the vehicles and jumped out onto the tent area to the left of the path. They said they had seen a mirror in the grass, and that this was the reason why they were stopping and searching. They then proceeded to search the entire grass area next to (left of) the path. One of the hands-and-knees searches turned up a pipe. They then decided to body search people lying asleep nearby in the open, and to search two tents nearby. Having found no coke (which is what they then said they were looking for), they then left. Their behaviour while searching was completely well-behaved, but the underlying reasons they gave for all the searching (the presence of a mirror on its own in an open grass area next to a high traffic path) seemed questionable. As the grass area was right next to the busiest path on the site, just about anything could have been dropped, thrown or dumped there by just about anyone on site at any time during the night.

4. A group of pickpockets in operation inside stage areas on more than one day (evening). Usual methods indicating fairly professional approach (sandwiching and so on). Have no idea if any security was operating in these areas, but didn't see any evidence of. If you've had your pocket picked professionally, you won't know it - probably end the evening thinking you have 'lost' something or have put it down somewhere.

5. Several people in a group in Origin area who seemed to have jumped over: no wristbands, brown glass bottles around on the ground (safety! people dancing in bare feet) in the stage area and held in their hands...
There didn't seem to be any way of letting site security/Glade know.

In general, security didn't seem to be overly concerned about the safety and security of Glade ticket-holders. They seemed more concerned with hassling people. Their posturing was often (not always) aggressive, and they weren't approachable, or there when you might need them. There may well have been a difference between the two firms, but I didn't take a note of names. I would not want to be alone at Glade (esp as a woman) with these people around. And I'd wished I'd had my wits about me to take photos of the things I saw (though I believe that anyone taking pictures of them would also have become a target).

The fence? Well that was a joke. As someone who cannot climb onto a chair, I could have climbed those fences with ease. Many times over.
Search? we didn't get one on entry.
Proving ID on entry? That didn't happen either.
Smoke and mirrors.

Im actually CID, but im really rather dodgy, im checking out all these posts and then im gonna stitch up shadow security.

oh boy how I hope that's true, bigboy!

Bigby wrote:Im actually CID, but im really rather dodgy, im checking out all these posts and then im gonna stitch up shadow security.

Sorry DBM mate that was a joke, if its concelation it really cracked me up you thinking it might be true.

Bigby wrote:Sorry DBM mate that was a joke, if its concelation it really cracked me up you thinking it might be true.

"Might" and "if" aren't the same as saying it is true, my very tall friend.

I still say your avatar makes you look like OB in plain clothes though.

I guess the thing to bear in mind with all of the security related stuff is that the security guys are people too (well most of them are), and like everyone else, if you get a large group of people (as large as the group of security from Glade was) you're going to have some who are more heavy handed than others.

Some of them were really nice guys, some were arrogant twats, but it's very difficult to have it any other way.

So how did people think the security compared to previous years? Better / worse? More / less heavy handed?

Cheers,

Ben

DBM wrote:purple naked dude (who was orange or red naked dude this year) being roughly turfed out of the main stage tent (and some say removed from the festival?).

I have it on good authority that naked dudes both orange & red (I believe there were two this year, different guys, different colours) weren't turfed out of the festival. I guess it's difficult for security to take, they don't understand it so they come in all heavy handed.

It was amuzing to see though, security scared to touch him, scared they may have got his tackle in their face if they tried to grab him....



Cheers,

Ben

I'd like to know what security's brief was. What instructions where they given.

bafj wrote:I guess the thing to bear in mind with all of the security related stuff is that the security guys are people too (well most of them are), and like everyone else, if you get a large group of people (as large as the group of security from Glade was) you're going to have some who are more heavy handed than others.

Heavy-handed perhaps, but it should be remembered that the Security personnel were not employed by Glade directly - if they were sorting out the problem would be much easier, because punters could make demands directly to the emloyers of the security personnel, and Glade would be able to find out which specific individuals to avoid employing next year. Obviously that is not an option.

As it is, they were employed by a contractor who relies on their conduct to get new business, and so the conduct of even a small minority of trouble-makers has the potential to cause problems for the entire company, including any security employees who didn't cause problems. If there had been security personnel who weren't a problem working for the same company as ones who were causing trouble, they should have stopped it even if only for the reason that if they didn't their employer - and therefore their future pay-packet - would suffer. The fact that this fairly obviously did not happen tells me that at least one of the security companies employed had few or not employees who did not cause trouble.

I do think that next year, regardless of which security companies are employed, there should be a rule that while on the "public" section of the festival site all security personnel should be accompanied by an Oxfam steward (unless they've chased a fencejumper/thief from elsewhere) and that if they are dealing with anyone who is on a bad trip, drunk, etc., they should be there to back the oxfam stewards up and provide them with protection, and to only take control of the situation themselves if the steward either requests it or is attacked. For one thing, I think the vast amjority of people will respect the stewards willingly because they're fellow festival-goers who want to see others enjoying themselves; for the security personnel that is not a priority, and given the experiences many people have had and the number of people who are aware of them, I seriously doubt many people would have much respect for the security personnel anyway. They may fear them perhaps, but that's different and far more damaging to the festival and actually likely to keep people away in the future.

Also, ID numbers for security personnel would be good, as that way if someone does have a problem with someone from security they have something to use to identify that individual. That way if a complaint is made the company can deal with it internally, or (if the company refuses to do so) the Glade organisers can deal with it, or (if a serious accusation is involved) the police can be involved.

tavdy79 wrote:

bafj wrote:I guess the thing to bear in mind with all of the security related stuff is that the security guys are people too (well most of them are), and like everyone else, if you get a large group of people (as large as the group of security from Glade was) you're going to have some who are more heavy handed than others.

I do think that next year, regardless of which security companies are employed, there should be a rule that while on the "public" section of the festival site all security personnel should be accompanied by an Oxfam steward (unless they've chased a fencejumper/thief from elsewhere) and that if they are dealing with anyone who is on a bad trip, drunk, etc., they should be there to back the oxfam stewards up and provide them with protection, and to only take control of the situation themselves if the steward either requests it or is attacked. For one thing, I think the vast amjority of people will respect the stewards willingly because they're fellow festival-goers who want to see others enjoying themselves; for the security personnel that is not a priority, and given the experiences many people have had and the number of people who are aware of them, I seriously doubt many people would have much respect for the security personnel anyway. They may fear them perhaps, but that's different and far more damaging to the festival and actually likely to keep people away in the future.

The problem is that most Oxfam stewards haven't any real training in those areas, they're stewards, not security or medical staff. I also noted a fair few of the Oxfam stewards on drugs. They go to see the music and do minimal work, they're not going to be up to the job.

tavdy79 wrote:I do think that next year, regardless of which security companies are employed, there should be a rule that while on the "public" section of the festival site all security personnel should be accompanied by an Oxfam steward (unless they've chased a fencejumper/thief from elsewhere) and that if they are dealing with anyone who is on a bad trip, drunk, etc., they should be there to back the oxfam stewards up and provide them with protection, and to only take control of the situation themselves if the steward either requests it or is attacked.

A very good suggestion - whether it would work from a logistical point of view I am not sure. But it does make sense from a 'public protection' stance.

tavdy79 wrote:Also, ID numbers for security personnel would be good, as that way if someone does have a problem with someone from security they have something to use to identify that individual. That way if a complaint is made the company can deal with it internally, or (if the company refuses to do so) the Glade organisers can deal with it, or (if a serious accusation is involved) the police can be involved.

Each security guy at Glade should have been wearing their SIA badge (most of lanyards, a few on belts), all of which have an ID number. How happy they would be to hand the number out again, I don't know.

Personally I believe that having two security companies was a bad idea - they both wanted to get one up on the 'other team' and in the small amount of time I spent riding around with them (and not face down in the back of a 4x4 with my arms behind my back before anyone asks) this became very obvious. Seeing one person get thrown out for having three pills did not particularly enamour me to either security firm - as that seemed somewhat heavy handed and over the top. Glade is afterall an electronic dance music festival - not an Operatic performance and if people are being subtle with drugs then I don't see the requirement for security to become so involved. Maybe confiscation (or not!) but surely not being ejected from the festival?

Cheers,

Ben

bafj wrote:Each security guy at Glade should have been wearing their SIA badge (most of lanyards, a few on belts), all of which have an ID number. How happy they would be to hand the number out again, I don't know.

How clear are the SIA badges, and how easy would it be to see the ID number?

In any case, from what I heard the security people were carrying them in their pockets rather than wearing them. That may not have been the case for all of them, of course.

tavdy79 wrote: How clear are the SIA badges, and how easy would it be to see the ID number?

In any case, from what I heard the security people were carrying them in their pockets rather than wearing them. That may not have been the case for all of them, of course.

Well, they're only normal credit card sized, and on that they fit a photo, chip, ID number and the holders name.

i.e.


So unless the holder wants to show you it - there's no chance of seeing it and certainly none of noting it down.

In my mind whoever suggested it has hit the nail on the head - the best incentive to have them operate properly and appropriately is a decent method for people to complain to Glade. But to do that they have to be easy to identify.

It's certainly food for thought. If anyone has any ideas I'll certainly pass them on to the organisers.

Cheers,

Ben

I do! The security personnel were wearing uniforms - Glade could easily demand that each security person have a 3-digit ID displayed on both shoulders and/or elsewhere on the uniforms, as the police do. I suggest a 3-digit code specifically because the human mind works best when it's dealing in groups of three, especially when it's dealing with language or numbers, so a 3-digit ID would be remembered far more easily than a 2- or 4-digit one - especially if seen only briefly.

tavdy79 wrote:I do! The security personnel were wearing uniforms - Glade could easily demand that each security person have a 3-digit ID displayed on both shoulders and/or elsewhere on the uniforms, as the police do. I suggest a 3-digit code specifically because the human mind works best when it's dealing in groups of three, especially when it's dealing with language or numbers, so a 3-digit ID would be remembered far more easily than a 2- or 4-digit one - especially if seen only briefly.

or maybe the numbers could be on the vests like the litter pickers. A large number on the back and a smaller number on the front. How hard can this be, as the security all where the high vis vests anyway??

From memory only the security for one of the companies wore high-viz vests; the others were in military-ops style all-black. Didn't exactly do them any favours...