November 12, 2003
London Calling
Far be it from me to suggest that we British are an unfriendly crowd. I don’t think that’s the case at all. But there are some rather strong mumblings going around this windswept little island that suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, President Bush might not want to come here next week.
Story update, 18:40EST: President Bush will apparently not be hidden from protesters - the Metropolitan Police has said “there’s no intention to spare anyone’s embarrassment”. If that’s true, it’s going to be an interesting trip for President Bush…
It started with a half-jokey project by activist Tim Ireland called Bare Your Bum At Bush, which suggested a mass mooning of the President to spoil any photo ops. That then graduated to plans for full scale demonstrations during the President's state visit.
This left the London Metropolitan Police rather nervous, as – let's face it – having Tony Blair, George Bush, HM The Queen, and a few tens of thousands of protesters in the same area might literally be the greatest security risk in the world.
The US Secret Service were even less happy than the police. The London Times quoted a British source as saying:
They [the Secret Service] wanted to turn London into little Washington by closing roads for miles around, hours before the President’s motorcade passes, and that is just not acceptable here.
The situation has evolved into a battle between the Metropolitan Police - who want to keep London secure but keep business running, the Secret Service - who want the President safe even if they have to shut down the whole capital, and the protesters - who'd quite like to show the President what they think.
Some of the protesters are even planning a purpose-built mobile phone weblog, which will essentially allow anyone on the streets with a camera phone (and that's a lot of people over here) to update everyone else on where the President is and what he's doing.
So what's my point? Simply this: considering the £4million ($6.7million) that it's going to cost us to protect the President, the inevitable conflicts that will happen with over-nervous police and over-zealous protesters, and, yes, the security threat that the visit poses... could the President possibly stay home?
Side note: during the visit, I'll do my best to update WatchBlog with what's happening over here, and who 'won the battle' between protester and police. Place your bets now...
Posted by Thomas Scott at November 12, 2003 10:15 AMI suppose there couldn’t possibly be a worry about suicide bombers and other assassination attempts?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at November 12, 2003 12:23 PMSeb,
If there is a threat, GWB should not go.
Your reasoning is a smokescreen. Come on. Ban the protesters and you’ll also keep out the bad guys?
Right. The bad guys would never think to hide in a crowd supporting Bush.
Then again, finding a crowd supporting Bush in England may be a hard thing to do.
It is insanity how people’s rights get trampled everytime GWB needs a publicity stunt.
I wonder if he will wear an RAF flight suit with a “Quagmire Accomplished” banner behind him? ;-)
J
Posted by: jonsey at November 12, 2003 12:30 PMSebastian: damn right there’s a worry. That’s why it’s costing £4million to police. Don’t forget that a suicide bomber, striking at the correct time, would probably also kill our Prime Minister and head of state (the Queen). My post was not to say ‘don’t have security’.
The main problem is the battle between those who wish to protest lawfully, and those who wish to close down London. And right now, it’s not certain who’ll win.
The point of my post was threefold: first, to raise awareness of the visit and the trouble it’s causing over here. Secondly, to raise awareness of
- the amount it’ll cost the taxpayer over here
- the problems it’ll cause for businesses
- the security risk to President, Prime Minister and Queen
And thirdly, to raise the question of whether the visit would be better off cancelled?
Posted by: Thomas Scott at November 12, 2003 02:06 PMWell, that is what they get.
The majority of Britain did not want their country involved in Iraq and yet Blair went in anyways.
I think Bush should go so that he may be humiliated. The ramifications of such oculd possibly be enough to sway neutral voters here in America over to the Dems or Greens.
Posted by: Adam at November 12, 2003 02:28 PMI’ve updated the story with a further link on the main page - President Bush will apparently not be hidden from protesters - the Metropolitan Police has said “there’s no intention to spare anyone’s embarrassment”. If that’s true, it’s going to be an interesting trip for President Bush…
Source: the London Financial Times, http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1066565841232
Posted by: Thomas Scott at November 12, 2003 06:44 PMThe Economist suggests that maybe a flu virus is on its way to the White House…
Posted by: alessio at November 13, 2003 01:08 PMBush was the one who, after all, said he loved free speech when he was visiting the Australian Parliament.
He’s already in a bubble here. No town hall meetings. No funerals. No newspapers. Nothing but meetings with the wingers and fundraisers. It’ll be good for him to see what people who don’t pay $50,000 to get their picture with him think of his policies.
This thing about suicide bombings and threats is nonsense. They’ll have security. Or are we thinking about repealing the right to free assembly?
Posted by: murph at November 13, 2003 11:57 PMRight to free assembly has already been repealed in the US.
Try to show up at a public Bush speech (the few he gives) with an anti-Bush banner. You will be escorted out and then handled by Mr. Ashcroft’s foot-troopers.
Posted by: Jonesy at November 14, 2003 12:41 PM
