Heightened Security Measures

[SCIAG]

Why are the club suddenly treating us with such suspicion?

In all the time I've been following Reading, I don't remember being patted down by home stewards before. Now it's happened twice in a week, including at a good-tempered League Cup match against bloody Gillingham ffs.

On a practical level, all these extra security measures are causing huge delays in entering parts of the ground, particularly northern end of the LW. It's made worse by agency stewards with no understanding of the club's requirements, unable to adjust their approach from the way they'd behave at Leeds or Millwall.

We're a well-behaved set of fans who pose no safety risk to anyone. I can't help but feel that treating us as wannabe hooligans poisons the family-friendly atmosphere somewhat and distances us from the club. The idea that the Mad Stad might not be safe (even though everyone knows it is) actually causes me to feel less safe.

Does anyone share some of these concerns or do you just accept it?

[Hampshire Royal]

The stupidest thing about the searches was that those without bags weren't searched, but all bags were. If I was entering the LW to cause trouble with, say, a knife or club, I'm pretty sure I would carry it in a pocket, rather than a handbag.
Another thing - at HT I sneak out for a smoke. I did the same all last season. It wasn't raining on Saturday, but when it does we were allowed to shelter. I sort of tend to stand by the ashtray nearest the entrance and was told that I couldn't stand there by some officious little pr1ck. When I asked where I could stand, I was told that it was OK to stand by the exit door of the Megastore.
I am 100% in favour of good security, but this half-arsed charade is ridiculous.

[Gunny Fishcake]

I dont think it's we're suspected hooligans, I'm afraid it's a reflection of the sad world we live in today where terrorism is achieving what it sets out to do and that is ruin the lives of normal decent people . Where ever there are big crowds these searches happen unfortunately.

[The Royal Forester]

Quite frankly, I would rather be patted down and have my bag searched than be blown to bits by a nutter. It's probably a case of Government advice to carry out these searches and not something that the club has introduced. If the club ignored that advice and an attack happened, you would moan about the club not doing anything to prevent it, wouldn't you?

[SCIAG]

If a terrorist was going to strike a football match, they'd choose one with 60,000 people rather than 6,000. It would be in a big city. They'd probably attack outside the ground, before any searches have taken place. Probably use a combination of vehicle and personal weapons rather than an IED in a bag.

The remote threat of an attack on the inside of the stadium is not worth harassing thousands of people. I mean it's probably about a 1 in 10 million chance of an attack which kills someone happening in the next ten seasons, over which time they'll have harassed millions of innocent fans. As a liberal, I'm against that sort of thing.

Unless there's been a specific threat made against the club, then they're in the wrong.

[Hampshire Royal]

Fair enough. I wasn't patted down though.

80,000 were at Wembley for the PO final. Security was very thorough, but it was managed with the minimum of disruption.

[PieEater]

I thought the queues to get in was mostly because only half of the turnstiles were open. What was all that about?

[The Royal Forester]

If a terrorist was going to strike a football match, they'd choose one with 60,000 people rather than 6,000. It would be in a big city. They'd probably attack outside the ground, before any searches have taken place. Probably use a combination of vehicle and personal weapons rather than an IED in a bag.

The remote threat of an attack on the inside of the stadium is not worth harassing thousands of people. I mean it's probably about a 1 in 10 million chance of an attack which kills someone happening in the next ten seasons, over which time they'll have harassed millions of innocent fans. As a liberal, I'm against that sort of thing.

Unless there's been a specific threat made against the club, then they're in the wrong.

The Manchester and London attackers did not make a threat to the venues, so what makes you think the club (or anywhere else) would be told "Watch out, we are going to put a bomb in your stadium" that would rather defeat the object of an attack. As you say there is a remote chance, but surely it is better to be safe than sorry? Or maybe it could be the relatives/friends that would be sorry.

[Snowflake Royal]

If a terrorist was going to strike a football match, they'd choose one with 60,000 people rather than 6,000. It would be in a big city. They'd probably attack outside the ground, before any searches have taken place. Probably use a combination of vehicle and personal weapons rather than an IED in a bag.

The remote threat of an attack on the inside of the stadium is not worth harassing thousands of people. I mean it's probably about a 1 in 10 million chance of an attack which kills someone happening in the next ten seasons, over which time they'll have harassed millions of innocent fans. As a liberal, I'm against that sort of thing.

Unless there's been a specific threat made against the club, then they're in the wrong.

I was surprised to see the much more organised bag checks yesterday... but really, what's the big deal? I didn't see any real disruption and safety is kinda important. It's not going to stop all hooliganism or terrorism efforts, should there be any, but it is going to discourage it and make it less easy. I mean you're going to a football match, how precious is your time that you can't cope with 30 seconds to 5 minutes delay?

All the stewards I saw were friendly and decent. Maybe the reaction of some LWers pissed the ones you saw off and they took it out on others.

LOLLY at 'harrassing' millions of fans having freedoms eroded.

[bobby1413]

If a terrorist was going to strike a football match, they'd choose one with 60,000 people rather than 6,000. It would be in a big city.

That really is a terrible attitude to take with terrorism. There are no rules or boundaries. Having a domestic terrorism policy based on "they'd probably..." won't work. It's called target hardening and the net has to be cast as wide as possible.

Brighton vs Burnley will have about 30'000 people there. Is that in your scope?

Is it solely based on numbers and location?

You can't just say only worry about Manchester, Birmingham and London where there's 50'000 attending one event.

This kind of search at the MadStad also focuses people's mind. It's got to be in our nature to suspect I'm afraid. That's why there's no tv adverts about it, advice to run, hide and tell. Searches like this remind people that it's a real threat.

[Silver Fox]

Pretty flabbergasted by this, can the OP really not think of a reason for the security?

[West Stand Man]

If a terrorist was going to strike a football match, they'd choose one with 60,000 people rather than 6,000. It would be in a big city. They'd probably attack outside the ground, before any searches have taken place. Probably use a combination of vehicle and personal weapons rather than an IED in a bag.

The remote threat of an attack on the inside of the stadium is not worth harassing thousands of people. I mean it's probably about a 1 in 10 million chance of an attack which kills someone happening in the next ten seasons, over which time they'll have harassed millions of innocent fans. As a liberal, I'm against that sort of thing.

Unless there's been a specific threat made against the club, then they're in the wrong.

I assume that you are an expert in counter terrorism? You certainly sound as if that is what you are claiming to be.

What makes you so certain that a 60000 crowd is essential rather than just a big crowd. Could the shape or style of the stadium be important? Might the vulnerability and / or efficacy of the security checks also be a factor in target selection?

As you are the expert I look forward to your responses. Clearly you don't think that the EFL or RFC security advisors know what they are talking about so I guess you have better intel.

[Nameless]

If the OP is upset at the fairly limited security at the last couple of games I dread to think how he would have reacted to the armed police patrolling the ground in full body armour at the last London Irish game....

[bobby1413]

Pretty flabbergasted by this, can the OP really not think of a reason for the security?

Same, I'm flabbergasted anyone who saw this did not immediately think "terrorism" and not "football violence prevention".

The measures imposed took two of us around 8 seconds to get through - literally. I walked through - same as every game actually.

[Jagermesiter1871]

I dont think it's we're suspected hooligans, I'm afraid it's a reflection of the sad world we live in today where terrorism is achieving what it sets out to do and that is ruin the lives of normal decent people . Where ever there are big crowds these searches happen unfortunately.

Hardly ruining your life is it? Getting patted down on your way into a football ground and having to remove your bottle tops is really ruining your life? Jeez I'd take your problems.

[Reading4eva]

I've heard it all now.

These idiots are trying to cause disruption and effect people's lives when they least expect it.

It only takes one nutter to think London is too hard, Birmingham is too hard, Manchester is too hard to make it a real threat. And with our attitudes shown on this thread, Reading could be seen as a softer unexpecting target. Our station is definitely a vulnerable area due to its connections to the big cities and what about the Oracle.

Nowhere is 100% safe at the club are well justified to have these measures in place. It might make a nutter think Reading is too hard as well.

[Reading4eva]

Pretty flabbergasted by this, can the OP really not think of a reason for the security?

Same, I'm flabbergasted anyone who saw this did not immediately think "terrorism" and not "football violence prevention".

The measures imposed took two of us around 8 seconds to get through - literally. I walked through - same as every game actually.

I'm sure if you've been going for the last 10 years and a steward recognises you that your not going to suddenly get questioned to gauge if you want to blow your clubs football stadium up.

But I agree, they are swift necessary checks. Better to be safe than sorry.

[CountryRoyal]

If a terrorist was going to strike a football match, they'd choose one with 60,000 people rather than 6,000. It would be in a big city.

That really is a terrible attitude to take with terrorism. There are no rules or boundaries. Having a domestic terrorism policy based on "they'd probably..." won't work. It's called target hardening and the net has to be cast as wide as possible.

Is it solely based on numbers and location?

It might be a terrible attitude but based on previous events it's true. Their focus and thought processes is clearly to pick events and occasions which maximise exposure through loss of life and or locations.

What I find quite ironic is that quite frankly they'd be more effective targeting small events all over the place where security is reduced and would really create the "if they can get us here" sort of fear they wish to instil.

Regardless it's a tragic time and state of affairs.

[RoyalBlue]

I dont think it's we're suspected hooligans, I'm afraid it's a reflection of the sad world we live in today where terrorism is achieving what it sets out to do and that is ruin the lives of normal decent people . Where ever there are big crowds these searches happen unfortunately.

Prior to the game the club publicised that it is for that reason (i.e. terrorism) . However, Manchester showed that terrorists have got wise. They don't need to risk getting caught entering a stadium/arena at the start of an event. Just turn up as the exit gates open and people start to leave. Sadly, it's pretty difficult/almost impossible to implement security measures to prevent that happening.

Equally, think of the safety/security risk of hundreds of supporters walking along the pavement of the busy A33 relief road before and after games.

I believe many visible security checks like this are as much (more?) about giving the populace reassurance/a perception of safety than being a really effective measure of stopping something terrible happening.

[LWJ]

Stewards were searching bags when entering the Jazz cafe pre game, I saw them put a blue tag on the bag to say it had been searched, and they informed the lady that it wouldn't need to be searched again with this on.

Well what happens when she walks from the Jazz cafe, to the turnstile through the unregulated food areas? Not very well though through at all..