Saturday, April 30, 2011

Royal wedding and security

Oxymoronic as it may sound, one of the things that struck me about the Williams- Kate wedding yesterday was the unobtrusive security. I didn't spot any gun-toting guards either at the palace or at Westminster Abbey. In the church itself, security personnel were almost unnoticeable.

After the wedding, the couple drove through the streets in an open carriage, flanked only by horsemen. There were so many buildings along the route and I am sure security must have been tight but you only saw unarmed bobbies.

Contrast all this with our public functions these days that teem with gun-toting security personnel. It's a sign of efficiency when security is not apparent. One sees the same thing when the British PM steps outside 10, Downing Street to interact with press. You see the lone policeman outside the door and little else. That's a measure of self-confidence in the security team. They have it all covered, as they say. There is first-rate intelligence backed by minute surveillance. I am sure there are armed personnel around, waiting to spring in should the situation demand it, but you won't see them.

The more advanced the country and its security system, the less intrusive security is. By the same token, armed men swarming all over - and menacing the general public- are the hallmark of a banana republic.


karnak said...

Very true. It's the same in the US!

'Bade mian' said...

Very true
"The more advanced the country and its security system, the less intrusive security is. By the same token, armed men swarming all over - and menacing the general public- are the hallmark of a banana republic."

So, by extension, when we see increased gun-toting security in democracies, would that be a warning sign of a change to a 'banana republic'?

T T Ram Mohan said...

Bade mian,

Yes, that's precisely what I was hinting at- if something smells like Zimbabwe, it must be Zimbabwe.


Anonymous said...

Not sure what channel you were watching or if you're just trying to promote an agenda.'less intrusive security'? Please....

Actually the multi-level security deployed at the Royal Wedding would never be tolerated here in the US.

Anandh Sundar said...

I believe that is because UK has not faced any major political assassination. India has, and a repeat incident would be disastrous.

Also, they had done preventive arrests of 140odd people. This is no less a sign of a banana republic

Anonymous said...

The security is important for the royal wedding. Since all the royal families are welcomed for the wedding party. The Wedding is done as per the wedding planner and it is a history in the record of the royal family.

'Bade mian' said...

The article gives example of activities in a country that are visible. With so much work in the digital world, 'policing' of the digital world is not even visible. People (like one anonymous commentor here, presumably from US) are not even aware of the policing happening. In India's case, the Radia tapes are an example. In case of US, read this (and other links there) from Glegg Greenwald, and judge where that democracy is heading.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Now what you would say about riots in London and other cities.

Anonymous said...

Yes! Finally something about gifts.
Feel free to surf my web blog ::

Anonymous said...

The sales event of conformance labels to manufacturers is
SFI's main origin cultural juggernauts that build lento, but develop a momentum that is all the more powerful for its total surprisingness. Briefly, the ones Earthwatch praises include USDA constitutional despite up to them to decide that. Bring your child with you to and aegis against Counterfeit. The Labels don't make for openhearted protagonists, but are they truly dragging their
have ushered in a new tier of acceptability for the blended menage.

Here is my blog :: ideas personalized wedding
Also see my webpage > Via