Bush's Security on visit to Buckingham Palace

[Radagast]

How outrageous!

President Bush has demanded the highest security for his state visit to London today in the tightest security London has ever seen.

His security staff were not even satisfied with Buckingham! They insisted the windows be replaced with bullet-proof glass, heavier curtains put and, quite rightly were only stopped by HM the Queen putting her foot down- no alterations are to be made.

I wonder if Bush shall observe proper protocol and bow to the Queen, as he should?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
How outrageous!

President Bush has demanded the highest security for his state visit to London today in the tightest security London has ever seen.

His security staff were not even satisfied with Buckingham! They insisted the windows be replaced with bullet-proof glass, heavier curtains put and, quite rightly were only stopped by HM the Queen putting her foot down- no alterations are to be made.

I wonder if Bush shall observe proper protocol and bow to the Queen, as he should?

Well I wouldn't bow to her. She's your queen not ours. Bowing is an indication that the person is above you - unless they ALSO bow to you - as is the Japanese custom. You're not even suppose to leave a room with your back turned to her (you have to walk out backwards). I don't feel she is above the president - so why should he bow? He probably will bow though - out of respect.

As for security - I watched BBC and I watched the French news last night - there were a lot of demands made - but also a lot of concessions. As for having windows replaced in Buckingham Palace - I didn't hear about that.

It's a state visit - the queen had to invite him. If she had problems with any of the demands - I suppose she could have uninvited him.

I was driving south a couple of months ago on 95 through Philadelphia - when Bush was driving north. They had the entire North bound lanes closed off for miles. It's NOT unusual him or the past presidents to have this type of protection. And with the radical muslim groups that London has - such as the ones putting up those flyers in support of the "magnificent 19" I can see the need for such security in London.

By the way - your country isn't showing much respect toward us or our president. So I don't know what your complaint is - we aren't burning your flag or hanging it upside down on the gates of Buckingham Palace.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I wouldn't bow to her. She's your queen not ours. I don't feel she is above the president - so why should he bow?

Just for custom and protocal sake. Its really not that big a deal. Extremely minor point in my opinion.

I have heard a lot of fuss about this visit. What I dont understand is why in the world would security be such a HUGE deal in England of all places (like our one and only friend in the world now) more so then when he was in France or Germany or traveling through the middle east or in Russia. Whats with that? Friend of mine in London said they are talking about shutting down some pretty significant roads though but the mayor (mayor?) said no way. Not even for the president.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Just for custom and protocal sake. Its really not that big a deal. Extremely minor point in my opinion.

It's a subservient custom. I am against the Saudi Arabian government making demands such as "no women aircraft controllers" I am against our leader bowing to another foreign leader (in name only at that).

I have heard a lot of fuss about this visit. What I dont understand is why in the world would security be such a HUGE deal in England of all places (like our one and only friend in the world now) more so then when he was in France or Germany or traveling through the middle east or in Russia. Whats with that? Friend of mine in London said they are talking about shutting down some pretty significant roads though but the mayor (mayor?) said no way. Not even for the president.

While the president is traveling here - they shut down significant roads. Even for Clinton - before 9/11 - streets used to be blocked off. I remember Clinton went to Portland and basically the news said don't even bother trying to get around between these hours.

Personally I don't even think he should be going to England - but the trip was made way in advance.

As for why there is high security now - is because of the latest terrorist threat. Also - London seems to have a large number of radical muslim groups. The London police are actually afraid of them infiltrating the demostrators and attacking from within the protection of the demonstrators. This is the LONDON police saying this on BCC.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It's a subservient custom. I am against the Saudi Arabian government making demands such as "no women aircraft controllers" I am against our leader bowing to another foreign leader (in name only at that).

Jersey dont count on being called into any ambasadorial roll with our government.

While the president is traveling here - they shut down significant roads. Even for Clinton - before 9/11 - streets used to be blocked off. I remember Clinton went to Portland and basically the news said don't even bother trying to get around between these hours.

well I work a couple miles from the white house and I dont even notice motorcades really anymore. they are just part of the scenery. And they really do a good job I mean you have the president AND every member of the house and congress, important international figures always in town, luminaries and VIPs of every stripe and color here 365 days a year and really its quite seamless. I cant remember the last time I was caught in a back up because of some long black limo zooming behind a dozen cops on motorcycles and secret service trucks.

As for why there is high security now - is because of the latest terrorist threat. Also - London seems to have a large number of radical muslim groups. The London police are actually afraid of them infiltrating the demostrators and attacking from within the protection of the demonstrators. This is the LONDON police saying this on BCC.

Ironic isnt it that the places we have the MOST concern over security is the most democratic countries. I find that amusing. You can bet Bush didnt have any real worries about free speach protest troubles when he went to Saudi Arabia or Egypt. They bash heads in first and ask questions later in those places.

[Valandil]

T'would be a shame if someone 'got to' our President while on foreign soil. I think that would be a first. Then we would have our best allies to thank for giving us Dick Cheney as President (and then REALLY watch out, Middle East!).

Actually, we used to talk about a "curse"... every US President elected at 20 year intervals - going all the way back to 1840 - died in office, until Ronald Reagan broke the curse after being elected in 1980. (so those elected in 1840, 1860, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940 and 1960 - ALL died in office!) Returning to the "curse" is not a pleasant thought. Keep him safe over there, eh mates?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Valandil
T'would be a shame if someone 'got to' our President while on foreign soil. I think that would be a first. Then we would have our best allies to thank for giving us Dick Cheney as President (and then REALLY watch out, Middle East!).

*shiver* Oh my gosh dont even joke about that! *laugh*

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Jersey dont count on being called into any ambasadorial roll with our government.

I don't plan on it. Bush or any of our presidents bowing to the queen is like America bowing to England - and I bow to no one. I don't care what protocal dictates. America fought a war so we would not have to bow to a foreign King (namely England's). I don't see bowing as being a neccesity. Do we force protocal on other countries? Do they have to kiss the ground when they step off their plane? How would England or any other country feel if we required their leaders to kneel before our president or to bow? I think England would be outraged if they saw their PM doing this to any of our presidents.

When american women go to the middle east (even leaders like Condoleeza Rice) they have to wear head covering. When the roles are reversed and they come over here - we don't dictate what they wear.

well I work a couple miles from the white house and I dont even notice motorcades really anymore. they are just part of the scenery. And they really do a good job I mean you have the president AND every member of the house and congress, important international figures always in town, luminaries and VIPs of every stripe and color here 365 days a year and really its quite seamless. I cant remember the last time I was caught in a back up because of some long black limo zooming behind a dozen cops on motorcycles and secret service trucks.

The thing is - the secret service pretty much knows the area like the back of their hand. You know they have constant seciurity over Washington that no one even knows about. London isn't set up the same way - the secret service doesn't know the city like the back of their hand.

You also might have forgotten - NY has world dignataries here 365 days a year too. The last big meeting of the Security Council had very high security. Subways were stopped, major roads blocked, etc. On 9/11 this year - one of the reasons Bush didn't go to NY was because of the required security. It's not unusual for cities outside Washington to have to put up high security. One of the reasons Londond is complaining right now and England in general is because he's hated by 70% of the population.

Ironic isnt it that the places we have the MOST concern over security is the most democratic countries. I find that amusing. You can bet Bush didnt have any real worries about free speach protest troubles when he went to Saudi Arabia or Egypt. They bash heads in first and ask questions later in those places.

Well it's not ironic - as much as it makes sense. Democratic governments have freedom for people - this gives people who want to cause problems an easier time at doing it. I would prefer having the security and having people enable to march - than live in a society that is restrictive like Saudia Arabia.

[Earniel]

I thought the demand for bullit-proof windows in Buckingham palace was rather funny, a little paranoid perhaps but amusing.

But I don't even want to know how much all these security measures are going to cost, though.

You know JD, I don't think bowing necesarily mean showing inferiority as you seem to think. It's just a gesture of respect IMO.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
I thought the demand for bullit-proof windows in Buckingham palace was rather funny, a little paranoid perhaps but amusing.

It won't be funny if someone decides to shoot through one of the windows.

But I don't even want to know how much all these security measures are going to cost, though.

Long/England is spending $8 million.

You know JD, I don't think bowing necesarily mean showing inferiority as you seem to think. It's just a gesture of respect IMO.

Well - is the queen going to show the same respect and bow? I also didn't know having to back out of a room so you don't turn your back on the queen is a sign of respect. Sorry - seems very subservient to me. But then Europe is more used to the class system.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Long/England is spending $8 million.

8 million dollars? Jikes! Kindly inform your president to stay away from Belgium.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well - is the queen going to show the same respect and bow?

Maybe not because she's the host on this occasion? Frankly your guess is as good as mine. I have absolutely no idea of how such protocol works.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel

8 million dollars? Jikes! Kindly inform your president to stay away from Belgium.

That's what our news and the BBC reported yesterday. I'm trying to think if it's a shared expense though. They called Bush secret service "Bush's army" on BBC though. He has 700 secret service personnel going over with him. There will be snipers on the roof, as their always is, etc.

Maybe not because she's the host on this occasion? Frankly your guess is as good as mine. I have absolutely no idea of how such protocol works.

The queen bows to no one - even when she comes here. If she had to bow to our president - it would be an outrage.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Eärniel
You know JD, I don't think bowing necesarily mean showing inferiority as you seem to think. It's just a gesture of respect IMO.

Well there is more of an issue at the bowing thing imo, because it would be acknowledging the monarchy we rebelled against a couple centuries ago. I know it's many many years removed from that, but to "respectfully bow" would be to acknowledge the monarchy we only fought to gain freedom from, which as you all know we did, hehe. Then again, that's just my humble opinion

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Radagast
...I wonder if Bush shall observe proper protocol and bow to the Queen, as he should?

Is it protocol for the leader of a nation to bow to the Queen? Excuse me, but why the f&%k should the president of the USA bow to someone who isn't even in charge of a country. She's just some gimick you people keep around for the tourist trade. Get a grip, dude.

I swear, if he does, I'm writing him a NASTY letter about embarrassing the citizens of the USA when out of country. SHEESH!!!

Furthermore, I don't see why you're getting your panties in a bunch over security. There are a lot of freaks out there that want a pop shot at Bush, and I don't trust UK's normal security (sorry, no insult intended). Although I didn't vote for him, I'd hate to see the current VP (Dick Cheney) take over.

Originally posted by JD
I am against the Saudi Arabian government making demands such as "no women aircraft controllers" I am against our leader bowing to another foreign leader (in name only at that).

If I had been in charge, I would have told him to land his plane in an empty field for all I cared. Then I would have told him to shut his damn mouth.

As for the security cost: the USA pays for security when foreign dignitaries visit here (the Pope, the Queen, etc.). Personally, I don't see any reason for the Queen of England to visit the USA, but someone invited her. *shrugs*

[The Gaffer]

Well, it looks like they should've spent less time worrying about bulletproof curtains and more time checking out the staff Story from BBC web site

Yeah, there are probably more radical Islamiacs here in the UK than there were in Iraq (still, no-one suggested we should be invaded). Having said that, I have seen none of these fliers.

Anyway, I agree that no-one should have to bow to the goddam Queen. But then, I'm a republican. How a dyed-in-the-wool royalist would feel about it would be something else, and since these are the kinds of people here who support Bush, he probably wouldn't want to alienate them.

I think it would be worth clearing up some facts about this visit.

Firstly, the main objection was to how much of London the visiting security wanted to close off. Ken Livingstone, mayor of London, quite rightly refused and made the point of what the economic costs of that would be.

Secondly, anti-war protesters are not being allowed to protest anywhere that there might be risk of Bush actually seeing them. The whole thing has been stage-managed to such an extent that people feel their democratic rights have been sold down the river.

Thirdly, the country is split roughly 60-40 in favour of this visit. That is, 60% of Brits actually welcome Bush's visit.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Well, it looks like they should've spent less time worrying about bulletproof curtains and more time checking out the staff

I am possitive the secret service went over ahead of time to talk about the staff. Although - I assume that anyone working for the queen or Tony Blair - must have security checks.

Yeah, there are probably more radical Islamiacs here in the UK than there were in Iraq (still, no-one suggested we should be invaded). Having said that, I have seen none of these fliers.

More radicals than in America it seems like. Concerning the fliers - I have seen them on American, French news and teh BBC. On the French news they even showed how the group was at a London mall recruiting.

As for the invasion of Iraq - there were other reasons for that - and I still support those reasons.

Anyway, I agree that no-one should have to bow to the goddam Queen. But then, I'm a republican. How a dyed-in-the-wool royalist would feel about it would be something else, and since these are the kinds of people here who support Bush, he probably wouldn't want to alienate them.

I don't think we should really care about your internal politics unless they affect us. Your labor party doesn't support Bush either - although Tony Blair does.

I think it would be worth clearing up some facts about this visit.

Firstly, the main objection was to how much of London the visiting security wanted to close off. Ken Livingstone, mayor of London, quite rightly refused and made the point of what the economic costs of that would be.

I'm not sure - NY has done it repeatedly for certain international visitors. When the Un recently had their huge meeting with Chirac, Bush, Schroeder and everyone else - a huge section of the east river side was closed off around the UN. The protesters were kept several blocks away. it must be that we know how to handle it - and you aren't used to it.

I actually don't care how much security you guys have - just as long as NOTHING happens to our president while there. We know the majority of Europe hates him and our government and silently and sometimes publicly mocks americans. I wouldn't be surprised if there were many in the crowds who want to kill Bush.

Secondly, anti-war protesters are not being allowed to protest anywhere that there might be risk of Bush actually seeing them. The whole thing has been stage-managed to such an extent that people feel their democratic rights have been sold down the river.

So - you think we should just allow the marchers to march past Bush and maybe hopefully there isn't some madman in the crowd with a bomb or gun?

There is TV - there is press conference - there is your reporters. From the attitude of the BBC - I'm sure they'll make sure they let him know how much he is hated in Britain as well as all of Europe.

Thirdly, the country is split roughly 60-40 in favour of this visit. That is, 60% of Brits actually welcome Bush's visit.

I didn't say the percentage who were in favor of the visit - I was stating the percentage of Britons who don't like Bush. There is a difference. Also a woman on the BBC tonight said she was actually questioning that figure.

As for the state visit - this was set up soon after 9/11. One of the things I find interesting is that Tony Blair wants to talk to Bush about the European military organization France and Germany want to establish. Blair was initially against this - but now seems to support it. I see us going down the cold war road all over again - this time with Western Europe.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Well, it looks like they should've spent less time worrying about bulletproof curtains and more time checking out the staff Story from BBC web site

You posted this link after I responded - all I can say - is see - it is important the security measures WE are taking.

Mr Parry wrote: "Had I been a terrorist intent on assassinating the Queen or American president George Bush, I could have done so with absolute ease.

"Indeed, this morning I would have been serving breakfast to key members of his government, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

"Such is the shocking incompetence at the heart of the biggest security operation ever in Britain."

In August, Mr Parry responded to a job advertisement on a recruitment page of the Buckingham Palace official website.

This is from the BBC article you quoted.

[jerseydevil]

Well the 41 gun salute is going on right now and they are waiting for the arrival of the president at Buckingham Palace. I guess I will see if our president and first lady bow to them on the steps of Buckingham Palace. The presidential limosine is pulling up now.

We are safe - our president did NOT bow to the queen. He and Laura Bush shook the hands of the queen and Prince Phillip.

It is also very kind of Britain to play America's national anthem. Ironic considering it was written while Britain was bombing our shores.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You posted this link after I responded - all I can say - is see - it is important the security measures WE are taking.

Sorry, another ambiguous use of the impersonal pronoun.

I meant the Royals' security operation in particular, not the measures YOU are taking (tho I'm sure THEY consulted YOU at all times )

It just shows, again, what an unprofessional organisation the royals are. And, again, what a bunch of hypocrites the tabloids are. If they'd really cared about security, they'd have told the police about their man infiltrating the royal staff BEFORE Bush arrived, not after.

As for the British not being used to it, I think you're right. That is, we're not used to having no access at all to the people we're protesting against, and it leaves a bad taste in our mouths. There has always been a tradition of active protest in the UK that is being systematically suffocated in recent years in the name of security. Thatcher started it, Bliar has continued it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Sorry, another ambiguous use of the impersonal pronoun.

I meant the Royals' security operation in particular, not the measures YOU are taking (tho I'm sure THEY consulted YOU at all times )

Sorry - but in the US - when referring to OUR government - it's usually referred to by using the subject pronoun and possessive pronouns "we" and "ours". It is OUR government. Unlike in Britain where you say "Blair's government". Therefore it is OUR security forces and OUR secret service protecting the president. So yes - it is security measures WE are taking.

Oh - and I was just referring to how OUR security forces were obviously necessary as demonstrated in that article you posted.

It just shows, again, what an unprofessional organisation the royals are. And, again, what a bunch of hypocrites the tabloids are. If they'd really cared about security, they'd have told the police about their man infiltrating the royal staff BEFORE Bush arrived, not after.

Yes - they should have. All they did was take out the guy so he himself wouldn't compromise the security - so they claim. It is more likely that they didn't want him to be hanged if something did happen to the president while he was there and a heavy duty investigation resulted.