Another ridiculous ruling I discovered today.

[paulchapo]

We had it last year when one of my sons needed the toilet and they wouldn't allow us back in

My lad was only 9

Management eventually turned up and escorted us to a toilet and had to wait until lad had finished.

It's crackers, we all understand security concerns but some common sense has to be applied too.

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

Probably like at airports where they and laptops have to be scanned outside of the bag and separately from your other luggage. I imagine they dont have the capabilities to search them as they are at airports so easier to ban them.
Either that or they think you may record the game live!

The point is that on a plane even a small explosion can be serious. You're not going to be able to do any damage with something the size of a laptop, surely?

 

[Blue Maverick]

Any bomber doesn't have to walk back into a fast emptying stadium to cause carnage. He can detonate it amongst the crowds outside, waiting for the bus or tram or worse on an overcrowded tram leaving the stadium where they will inflict worse carnage in a confined space. Any fan who had left something inside the ground could quickly show their ticket or season card to prove they had been at the game. If they were wearing a large rucksack on their back it might present a different problem. In my case I had just walked past the steward and had one foot outside, it was obvious I wasn't going back inside to cause mischief.

We like to think all these searches and measures keep us safe but they don't. They only work when every single passenger goes through a stringent check as when boarding an aircraft. Intelligence is the only thing stopping suicide bombers. At the stadium those scanners won't detect a vest strapped to the body. If anything suspicious was discovered they would just detonate it immediately as they did at the Paris stadium.

The Manchester bomber wasn't inside the stadium I think, he was waiting on the concourse outside amongst families waiting to pick up their kids. If that facility was denied he would have just waited further back amongst the same crowd of people still.waiting for their kids and detonated it there as soon as he thought the moment was right to kill and maim as many as possible.

No they don’t but by setting it off inside the stadium is even better than outside PR wise, I realise you’d just stepped out but how many had just stepped out with you? The steward did a reflex of stopping someone going back in, she wouldn’t have been aware you had just left just saw a body trying to go against the flow, so her arm came up. The bomber at Manchester Arena was just at the doors of the concourse and the Arena, his body ended up inside, like you said they could just as easy do it outside, however a closed fist blowing up does more damage than an open one, inside underneath in the concourse would cause more carnage than outside.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Maybe they didn't let Walker back in, after he had the shits.

 

[CC1]

I doubt anyone on this forum has any issues with the increased security checks so I'm not sure what you're going on about there. I also hardly think someone going back to their seat when the stadium is emptying to retrieve something they've left constitutes a serious security risk because 1) If it was, why would the head steward overrule the steward and allow @paulchapo to go back to his seat?, and 2) Why would any potential terrorist wait until a ground is virtually empty to carry out an attack when they've had all match to do it?

This also brings me onto the Arena attack - although these new security checks when entering the stadium are welcome and a sign that the club is doing something, let's not lose sight of the fact that the Arena bomber didn't even have to gain access to the Arena to do what he did. You can have all the security checks in the world upon entering the stadium but what's stopping someone carrying out an Arena-style attack on Ashton Old Road when everyone's piling out of the ground at the end? And the answer to that is nothing whatsoever.

Ok. Let’s do nothing then.

 

[CC1]

As stated in the post the head steward went back with @paulchapo to his seat. It is a fair point why would a terrorist wait until the ground is empty. That though isn't the point. The issue is that security and safety has to have a guideline. You can not and should not make exceptions because the more exceptions you make the more chance there is of an incident happening. Unfortunately that is the world we live in but I would rather the stewards stand and act by the guidelines they have been given than start making exceptions. Common sense is relevant when it comes to security there should be 1 guideline.

Exactly but some will never be convinced because they believe the stewards should realise & know that they are just fans who left something in the ground. How they’re supposed to distinguish good from bad I’m not sure!

 

[M18CTID]

Ok. Let’s do nothing then.

Now where on earth did I suggest that?

 

[CC1]

Now where on earth did I suggest that?

I doubt anyone on this forum has any issues with the increased security checks so I'm not sure what you're going on about there. I also hardly think someone going back to their seat when the stadium is emptying to retrieve something they've left constitutes a serious security risk because 1) If it was, why would the head steward overrule the steward and allow @paulchapo to go back to his seat?, and 2) Why would any potential terrorist wait until a ground is virtually empty to carry out an attack when they've had all match to do it?

This also brings me onto the Arena attack - although these new security checks when entering the stadium are welcome and a sign that the club is doing something, let's not lose sight of the fact that the Arena bomber didn't even have to gain access to the Arena to do what he did. You can have all the security checks in the world upon entering the stadium but what's stopping someone carrying out an Arena-style attack on Ashton Old Road when everyone's piling out of the ground at the end? And the answer to that is nothing whatsoever.

 

[M18CTID]

Nope - still can’t see where I’ve said the club should scrap the security checks. In fact, I even pointed out that no poster on this thread appears to have an issue with them.

 

[CC1]

Nope - still can’t see where I’ve said the club should scrap the security checks. In fact, I even pointed out that no poster on this thread appears to have an issue with them.

Ah. Ok. Think we’re on the same wavelength then - although I do think some people on here do have an issue with security checks in that they expect the stewards to make exceptions - when, of course, they have to be consistent