Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Steve B on 11 June 2012, 15:03:16
-
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16245051
-
Really? Why? Because of who he is?
If you've never felt that heart-stopping panic grip you when you realise your child isn't where you thought they were then I'm glad for you.
I have and it's not pleasant.
-
I think we should be more concerned as to what this story is covering up. It was main stream on USA networks aswell.
I suspect a rather nasty piece of news has been quietly released.
-
I suspect a rather nasty piece of news has been quietly released.
<Checks the junk drawer for old Drachmas just in case>
;)
-
Really? Why? Because of who he is?
If you've never felt that heart-stopping panic grip you when you realise your child isn't where you thought they were then I'm glad for you.
I have and it's not pleasant.
not the same thing......he has security staff with him to make sure the family is safe......we dont
-
Really? Why? Because of who he is?
If you've never felt that heart-stopping panic grip you when you realise your child isn't where you thought they were then I'm glad for you.
I have and it's not pleasant.
not the same thing......he has security staff with him to make sure the family is safe......we dont
Please excuse me for being blunt, but that's got to be the most crass and idiotic statement - possibly ever!
What difference does having securiity staff make to how it feels when you realise your child isn't where you thought he/she was??
-
I agree. Much as I have no time for Cameron, this story is just muck-raking. Pity the press doesn't concentrate on real issues. >:( ::) ::)
-
Really? Why? Because of who he is?
If you've never felt that heart-stopping panic grip you when you realise your child isn't where you thought they were then I'm glad for you.
I have and it's not pleasant.
not the same thing......he has security staff with him to make sure the family is safe......we dont
Please excuse me for being blunt, but that's got to be the most crass and idiotic statement - possibly ever!
What difference does having securiity staff make to how it feels when you realise your child isn't where you thought he/she was??
im not talking about the heart stopping moment like we all get when something like this happens,
im saying the kid should never have been left there in the first place as he has security staff with him who suppose to have there eyes everywhere..... :y
-
He and wife left in sperate cars.Each thought the other had daughter with them.Easily done tbh,although as said,you would think one of those hand picked "cream of the crop" security chaps might have noticed. ;D
-
He and wife left in sperate cars.Each thought the other had daughter with them.Easily done tbh,although as said,you would think one of those hand picked "cream of the crop" security chaps might have noticed. ;D
exactly :y
-
I don't have children (to my knowledge) but I would imagine that such an occurance would indeed cause a degree of trauma in most parents.
Given the extenuating circumstances - where each parent is obliged to use more than one vehicle - then such confusion can easily arise - it doesn't make them anything more than a victim of such circumstances.
Should the CPU people accompanying the 'First Family' have caught this? Well, depending on the brief and the number tasked to accompany the family on what I would have assumed to be a 'low-key' luncheon, they every one, as much as the parents, stood every possibility of falling victim to cross communication and assumption.
Performing duties like this was a pain in the arse - especially where families were involved - as there was only a certain point one could go to when advising of potential security vulnerabilities and accommodating them in terms of manpower, equipment and behaviour; should the brief have indicated a creep beyond which the presence of the security people could possibly have been considered to be intrusive, then this was always the point when things got to be difficult between the protectors and those needing protection. People like to be protected but not inconvenienced.
Insofar as the timing of the revelation is concerned this may well be a pre-emptive announcement as a result of an enquiry to the press office following a third party report to the media about this ‘sordid lapse’ in parenting responsibility. ;D
-
Having worked in security/protection & still doing so ,there is no excuse it's all about numbers a simple headcount before & after basics !
-
I agree. Much as I have no time for Cameron, this story is just muck-raking. Pity the press doesn't concentrate on real issues. >:( ::) ::)
Pity the press doesn't concentrate on real issues.
Quite so. :y
-
Having worked in security/protection & still doing so ,there is no excuse it's all about numbers a simple headcount before & after basics !
It would appear to be so Til but it very much depends on who is being protected, their personal views on how much of their privacy should be maintained and - where families are concerned - how much 'normality' is maintained in the relationship while still providing effective protection.
This is not and easy equation to prove – especially in what is, in these circumstances, essentially a quiet occasion in a civilian environment.
Providing security in theatre assumes an entirely different set of rules to be considered to those one must look at when performing CPU duties in the course of these domestic jobs.
-
When working with family groups agree to what they are comfortable & happy with , but to cover your own a**e do what the manual instructs it's worked every time in my career.