Samuel's Blog

The Sensational Security Fiasco

December 30th, 2008 at 01:36pm

There’s a bit of a hullabaloo going on in the media today about a supposed lack of security guards at a New Year’s Eve dance event in Melbourne.

The event in question is called “Sensation” and until now, I’d never heard of it. Well, actually, I had seen the name, but didn’t really bother finding out what it was…which was probably a good thing as it’s not really my cup of tea (and it could be argued that it wouldn’t suit people who measure events in terms of cups of tea anyway). It does occur to me now that the myriad of people I know who have left Canberra for Melbourne this week are probably going to that event…I’m glad that I wasn’t present when the idea of going was floated as it would have made for a very boring conversation.

Anyway, back on topic, there are supposedly going to be 50 security guards, although organisers have claimed on 3AW that the number will be closer to 200, for the 40,000 people expected to attend, which works out at 800 people per guard (or 200 people per guard if the organisers are to be believed), a number which falls short of some supposed benchmark of 2 guards for the first hundred people and one guard for each hundred thereafter.

Surely though, the number of guards plus the uniformed and plain-clothed police who will be there is plenty for what will almost certainly be a festive and fairly pleasant event. The people who are whinging about a lack of guards really need to remember that security guards are not riot police, and are really just a form of crowd control and a deterrent to those who may want to cause mischief. There is almost nothing that they can do to prevent or stop a riot should the conditions be right for them…that’s when you call in the police and let them deal with it.

Sometimes I think the people who are whinging about this (as the latest thing in a long series of “whinging because we can”) won’t be happy until there are two security guards for every attendee. They don’t seem to realise that nobody would actually attend such an event, and they would avoid “organised” events if such rules were put in place, effectively leading to impromptu events in suburban locations, which are prone to gatecrashes, and the exact trouble that these organised events tend to discourage.

Virtually mandating that people attending these organised events end up dancing with the security guards is not helpful to anyone, and it’s about time that the people who in reality want to ban organised (and impromptu) events, and are using this security hoopla as a thin veil to do so, should just follow my lead, and go to bed before midnight on New Year’s Eve.

Samuel

Entry Filed under: Samuel's Editorials

 Print This Post