Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 6878207" data-attributes="member: 13107">But, there *were* security staff already?&nbsp; My point wasn't about increasing security, it was that events of a certain magnitude *are* having security, often built-in to the arrangement.Again, I didn't posit *increased* security.&nbsp; As an additional note, hiring extra security for a wedding is a thing that is done.&nbsp; And apparently, some localities require a certain level of security if alcohol is being served (Pennsylvania is the locate I saw reference to.)That sounds like security already in place and following a security plan.I didn't recommend this.&nbsp; Although, for example, at weddings, security is advised to blend in so as to not interrupt the festivity.&nbsp; Security will have a visible presence based on the value of that presence, say, to dissuade wrong-doing or to provide a feeling of security.&nbsp; I think that police show up at bars on occasion very specifically to be noticed, whereas at weddings a guard is supposed to blend in and will wear a tux (if appropriate) and keep their badge inside their jacket.Partly, that is a point to be addressed, in that conventions should make more of an effort to hire quality staff.&nbsp; (I saw this as a point re: wedding security, in which a ham-fisted guard can cause a lot of problems.)&nbsp; But corrupt security seems to be a bigger scope than we can address. That sounds ideal.&nbsp; One of my takes from the current thread is that making this type of process the norm should be a goal of the community, and one which is addressable by the community.That seems almost adequate.&nbsp; I can appreciate resource limits for small gatherings.&nbsp; But, those who are running the gathering do have a responsibility here, and (I think) more of an effort seems called for.Thx!TomB</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tomBitonti, post: 6878207, member: 13107"] But, there *were* security staff already? My point wasn't about increasing security, it was that events of a certain magnitude *are* having security, often built-in to the arrangement. Again, I didn't posit *increased* security. As an additional note, hiring extra security for a wedding is a thing that is done. And apparently, some localities require a certain level of security if alcohol is being served (Pennsylvania is the locate I saw reference to.) That sounds like security already in place and following a security plan. I didn't recommend this. Although, for example, at weddings, security is advised to blend in so as to not interrupt the festivity. Security will have a visible presence based on the value of that presence, say, to dissuade wrong-doing or to provide a feeling of security. I think that police show up at bars on occasion very specifically to be noticed, whereas at weddings a guard is supposed to blend in and will wear a tux (if appropriate) and keep their badge inside their jacket. Partly, that is a point to be addressed, in that conventions should make more of an effort to hire quality staff. (I saw this as a point re: wedding security, in which a ham-fisted guard can cause a lot of problems.) But corrupt security seems to be a bigger scope than we can address. That sounds ideal. One of my takes from the current thread is that making this type of process the norm should be a goal of the community, and one which is addressable by the community. That seems almost adequate. I can appreciate resource limits for small gatherings. But, those who are running the gathering do have a responsibility here, and (I think) more of an effort seems called for. Thx! TomB [/QUOTE]

Verification