President Bush's State Visit To The Uk

President Bush arrives here next week for a State Visit. This is the very top level of 'Visits' and was requested by Mr Bush. It has been quite a number of years since any US President requested such a visit - normally, a less 'pomp and circumstance' level is requested.

The British newspapers and other media have speculated that this level has been sought to make good 'soundbites' for the US elections.... Far be it from me to speculate...

However, the anti-war group intend to demonstrate. However, Pres Bush has demanded (or rather, his advisors) that the demonstrators be kept out of Whitehall, the Mall (Buck House where he will be staying is at the far end of the Mall) and other streets. Now, these are the very areas where all our demonstrations have held their marches - so there is starting to be a groundswell of opinion that he should be exposed to the same flak as everyone else who visits... When Pinochet was here, he was heckled and barracked - ditto Mitterand etc.... Also people like Mugabe etc.

Our sycophantic Prime Minister seems to be agreeing to all the terms laid down by the US party. This morning, it is reported that the Metropolitan Police (London's police force) have agreed to US requests that their secret service men can shoot any suspicious person (obviously if there is enough cause to worry) and that they will not be punished for doing so.... EXCUSE ME? Foreigners, with guns, on our streets, being given permission to shoot guns?

The demonstrations are heating up already.....

No surprise there Bush does that here as well. He just wants to push the protestors out of view so he can sleep soundly and have his fantasy dreams that there are no protestors.

Personally any president that does this to me at least is in violation of his oath of office because he is in effect trying to silence the voice of the people!

And Bush has to start campaigning now because if he doesn't the people will do what congress refuses to do and that's impeach the SOB.

Sorry that's just how I feel about shrub our very own King George.

Catriona,

What's the use of carrying guns if you can't shoot them?

Seriously though, the Secret Service has an institutional mindset that they are the only ones who can protect the President. Therefore, it won't matter how many SAS, Special Branch and Metropolitan Police they have pulling guard duty, the Secret Service will still require that they be allowed to do the close protection detail. Incidentally, this courtesy is usually extended to visiting heads of state, eg, their own security detail is allowed to perform the close armed protective details for their principal. The Secret Service will work with them to make whatever arrangements are necessary.

As for armed foreigners being on your streets, unless something very untoward occurs, the weapons will never be seen. Should something very bad happen, the Secret Service will react. Their first reaction is to shield the President from harm, to "catch the bullet," then to evacuate him. The Secret Service seldom returns fire, their first priority being to get the President to a safe location, post haste.

As far as shielding Bush from the protesters, I say let him hear what they have to say. It probably won't make any difference, but at least they will have had their say.

Just my tuppence.

Andy

I take on board what you are saying about the SS protection squad, Andylucy....


But, Mr Bush's entourage is 700 strong..... 700 people for a visiting head of state? The world has gone MAD.

I know that we will not see the guns - but they are STILL foreigners carrying guns and given permission to shoot on our streets. I don't feel comfortable with that at all

I guess ol' Bush is realizing he might "take one for the team" outside his own protection unit.
It's not like he is trying to make friends with the world.. It seems just the opposite. Walks in his own world with blinders on.....

aaahhh.. I think being shot for throwing a foul egg would give me alot of satisfaction *laughs madly*
I guess I would be all over the newspaper and maybe there would be a discussion started about how protesters are treated. *teeheehee*

But anyways...
The Topic of that (insert a word that you would like, I prefer twat or pr..k) always gets me heated. Doesn't the public in the USA understand that with taking away all the rights they used to have he just helps himself to more power (or the ppl behind him?)

Knowing schurb he'd probabl;y have the story buried so deep it wouldn't even be found. See he doesn't like the truth to be known.

Personally, I think G.W. should be treated as would any other head of state. After all, he is the visitor.

That being said, do you really think that Tony Blair isn't accompanied by his own security team when he travels abroad? Do the "Royals" travel without their own security specialists? I honestly don't know the answer, but there are a lot of similarly tailored suits surrounding nearly all foreign VIPs in this country, and if you'll look really closely you'll see they don't fit as tightly under the arms as is customary. Maybe they are trying to conceal something?

Swanny

Catriona,

700 people in an entourage for a visit is entirely in keeping with the dignity due to a visiting dignitary- provided it is for the Emperor of the solar system No wonder my taxes are so high!

As far as the foreigners on your soil with permission to shoot, well, your Foreign Office DPG has the same permission when Blair or the Royals visit the US. It is simple reciprocity. We allow your guys to protect your guy, and you allow our guys to protect our guy. (I think I need a )

I understand the concern about what you view as an abrogation of your national sovereignty. I just see it as security teams doing business as they do all over the world, including British security teams. I guess just two ways to view the same event

Just my tuppence.

Andy

You don't seem to get my point.........

GUNS are not allowed in the UK - only certain grades of policemen are allowed to carry them - it is not a given that if you are a policeman/woman you are armed.... The idea of our police (the armed ones), plus the SAS, plus our security teams, plus his own (VAST) security teams - all with guns..... And the foreigners being allowed to shoot at what THEY perceive to be threatening behaviour.... THAT's my point!

The papers this morning say that the 'rules of engagement' have been spelled out the US security people. IF they draw weapons, and it is later proved that there was insufficient evidence for them to so do... they will be prosecuted... Sooooo, sanity seems to be prevailing (A little, anyway!).

However, there appears to be 'areas of conflict' still between the Met Police and the visitors' security section. The VSS want the Met to close all the roads for a couple of miles around the route to Buck House. Police say no.... Londoners EMPHATICALLY say no.... If you can imagine a city with some roads no wider than they were when the buildings either side were erected in the 1500s and 1600s, with peak hour traffic being stopped for hours for the cavalcade to go through...? Mayhem and fraught tempers all round...

And that is nothing to the chaos that the anti-war lobby intend to try to cause!

I have to agree that's like giving an open liscense to kill. And whose to say the person shot was a threat or not after the incident?

Not saying he shouldn't be protected but such an open ended liscense isn't good.

Yes, I do get your point. And it is valid as far as it goes.

My point is that you are implying that the Secret Service are being given a privilege that is withheld from other Diplomatic Protection Details. Whenever a visiting head of state is away from his primary residence, he/she is accompanied by a protective detail. Given the state of the world today, they would be insane not to be armed. This detail accompanies their principal everywhere, and I mean everywhere. And just because firearms are illegal in Britain does not mean that there are no firearms in Britain. In fact, of late, British gun-related violence has gone up, even though overall crime has dropped. http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763...,871861,00.html

Protective details work under very stringent rules of engagement. Should a detail member "jump the gun" so to speak, and draw his weapon without cause, he is immediately removed from the detail, and faces disciplinary action. Should an unjustified round be fired, that member would face criminal and civil liability. In other words, they are not trigger happy bozo's who will drop the hammer on some poor yutz who lobs a rotten egg.

In short, you will not have a horde of armed barbarians marauding through the streets of London shooting passersby who look suspicious. There will be highly trained professionals performing the duty they have sworn to perform to the best of their ability. The US does not begrudge the British Prime Minister the protection of his own armed detail, why should Britain not extend the same courtesy to the US President, whoever it may be?

I understand that some people do not like and are uncomfortable with firearms. That is fine. But one cannot assume that everyone feels that way. The firearm is here to stay, simply because it is an expedient means for causing another person to snuff it without much difficulty. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. They simply are. And it is the job of security personnel to protect their principal from those who would do them harm. This means that they must be armed, because the bad guys are most likely armed. To do otherwise is to abrogate their responsibility to their principal.

In short, we may just have to agree to disagree on the need for firearms in this instance. I disagree, but I do respect where you are coming from.

As for closing down the streets and keeping the protesters away from him, I say let them protest. Over here, we tend to try to keep the protesters from getting too close to the Pres, keeping the noise interference to a minimum so that his sound bites are clear for the news.

Just my tuppence.

Andy

Andylucy
I have no problem with a bunch of personal protection officers from another country being armed around their principal.... I have never SAID that I did!

What I am saying is that the rules, as being reported as 'laid down' by the US SS are too much...... in the case of an unlawful shooting.... they demanded (I think they are now having to soften this stance in light of the British Govt's stance of NO WAY!) that there would be no prosecution IN THE UK BY THE BRITISH.... Who gives a tuppenny damn if they get their knuckles rapped back in the USA?

If you read earlier posts I've made on the subject of firearms - you will understand that I hate them. They are illegal in the UK, except under very special circumstances, and long may that continue. The Gun is a very emotive topic in the UK - most UK citizens on here have expressed views supporting my posts.... Most Americans of course take completely the opposite stance. As is their right IN THEIR COUNTRY.... just like it's mine to express mine about the idea of a proportion (don't know how large) of the 700 people in his entourage being armed - for God's sake the Queen only travels with about 50 on state visits... and that includes hairdressers and maids......

Mr Bush is extremely unpopular in Europe. People are flying in from all over the continent to protest against his Iraq adventures. Tony Blair is barracked by anti war protesters every time he leaves Downing Street (the protesters are almost a permanent fixture on Whitehall - I saw them myself a couple of weeks ago). Why should Mr Bush not see exactly what the locals think of his adventure in Iraq....?

And yes, you are right, gun crime is definitely on the increase in the UK... mostly, I have to say in the areas of the town where Jamaican Yardies are operating... they (Yardies) are often illegal. The youngsters in that community are also learning from TV and films that having a gun gets you 'respect'.... Not from where I'm standing.... It's still ILLEGAL here.

Hmmmmm I feel SOOOO much better now!

Ah Hah!!! I knew there had to be a misunderstanding. I just didn't follow what you were excercised about. Whew.

I think, and I may be wrong about this, that the US State Department was trying to include the Secret Service under the blanket of diplomatic immunity offered to diplomats and other consular officers. Of course they don't fit that bill. Yes, if there was an unrighteous shoot over there, they would stand trial over there for violation of British law. Not to mention the civil liability they would face for negligence. Of course, this is the same approach taken to avoid the possibility of trial under the new International Court. But that's a topic for another day.

I am just a humble law enforcement telecommunicator, but from my experience with a recent trip to our area by the President, the security contingent of the reported 700 people would probably be somewhere between 40-70. They use that many because they send advance teams to locations where Bush is likely to go, to set up security and liaise with the local constabulary. That and the fact that Bush's "fan club" will be coming out in force to let him hear about the job he is doing. The Secret Service (I hate using the SS abbreviation ) is probably playing it extra safe and bringing extra security due to the large anticipated crowds.

I know that the attitudes toward guns are totally different. And that's cool. It's what makes the world an interesting place. I have often wondered what has historically led Britain to their attitudes toward firearms. That might be an interesting topic in and of itself.

Wow. I am glad that got cleared up.

Just my tuppence.

Andy

So am I!

And yes, it has been noticed that the diplomatic immunity type card was being pulled because the UK are a member of the International Court - we aint stupid over here!!!

BTW, one newspaper today (don't remember which, I read 3 a day - and leave 2 in Common Room when I've finished with them!) said that 673 was the number of people who were TRAVELLING in the President's party!!! 673..... I can't believe it!