G7 summit at Carbis Bay

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by KeithW »

exiled wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 21:11 In terms of location, it is a good one for security reasons, being at the far end of Cornwall and so can be sealed off. Notable that they have been avoiding big cities for years after Genoa. It has also been used for tourism situation.

Doesn't stop the protests though.
Peaceful protest is a fundamental human right so I should hope not.
User avatar
exiled
President
Posts: 24644
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 17:36
Location: South Lanarkshire

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by exiled »

KeithW wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 21:17
exiled wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 21:11 In terms of location, it is a good one for security reasons, being at the far end of Cornwall and so can be sealed off. Notable that they have been avoiding big cities for years after Genoa. It has also been used for tourism situation.

Doesn't stop the protests though.
Peaceful protest is a fundamental human right so I should hope not.
Of course, peaceful protest. Unfortunately given who the G7 leaders are they are going to be a magnet, so for the sake of the people who work at the place there needs to be the cordon. I can remember the bricks hitting the ceiling of Waverley Station.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by FosseWay »

exiled wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 21:11 In terms of location, it is a good one for security reasons, being at the far end of Cornwall and so can be sealed off. Notable that they have been avoiding big cities for years after Genoa. It has also been used for tourism situation.

Doesn't stop the protests though.
Surely an airport would make more sense. They're not in city centres, they have a lot of security infrastructure and personnel already, and the attendees don't need to travel beyond the airport when they arrive, both improving their security and removing the need to inconvenience a load of unconnected people. Given enough notice, you could even completely close (part of) an airport for the duration of the conference and still inconvenience a heck of a lot fewer people than you would at Carbis Bay or Gleneagles. In any case, I think the security benefits of the end of Cornwall are overplayed: you can only "seal it off" by imposing huge dislocation on the local population, and even if you do that, or you choose somewhere genuinely uninhabited, it's a lot harder to secure a perimeter that consists of wilderness, sea, cliffs than it does an airport. Some jerk with an RPG is not going to get put off by Cornwall being miles from London, and if they need to get a boat in order to fire their weapons they'll do that.

No, the reason for the choice of venues in these cases is because the attendees believe that they are entitled to a jolly. They want attractive surroundings, "local culture" (though how much of that they really get when they lock everything down I'm not sure), and the opportunity to grandstand - nothing says "look at me, I'm important" like a huge motorcade with armed police and GKW else riding roughshod over citizens' rights to use the highway. At least the Soviets were upfront about this with their Zil lanes.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
exiled
President
Posts: 24644
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 17:36
Location: South Lanarkshire

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by exiled »

FosseWay wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:46
exiled wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 21:11 In terms of location, it is a good one for security reasons, being at the far end of Cornwall and so can be sealed off. Notable that they have been avoiding big cities for years after Genoa. It has also been used for tourism situation.

Doesn't stop the protests though.
Surely an airport would make more sense. They're not in city centres, they have a lot of security infrastructure and personnel already, and the attendees don't need to travel beyond the airport when they arrive, both improving their security and removing the need to inconvenience a load of unconnected people. Given enough notice, you could even completely close (part of) an airport for the duration of the conference and still inconvenience a heck of a lot fewer people than you would at Carbis Bay or Gleneagles. In any case, I think the security benefits of the end of Cornwall are overplayed: you can only "seal it off" by imposing huge dislocation on the local population, and even if you do that, or you choose somewhere genuinely uninhabited, it's a lot harder to secure a perimeter that consists of wilderness, sea, cliffs than it does an airport. Some jerk with an RPG is not going to get put off by Cornwall being miles from London, and if they need to get a boat in order to fire their weapons they'll do that.

No, the reason for the choice of venues in these cases is because the attendees believe that they are entitled to a jolly. They want attractive surroundings, "local culture" (though how much of that they really get when they lock everything down I'm not sure), and the opportunity to grandstand - nothing says "look at me, I'm important" like a huge motorcade with armed police and GKW else riding roughshod over citizens' rights to use the highway. At least the Soviets were upfront about this with their Zil lanes.
Yes, security and a jolly. Regarding the security the sealing off an entire area is what is done, then either the motorcades or helicopter. Canada tried to use the last two it hosted for tourism, one in rural Ontario the other in rural Québec but it meant you got a lot of gorgeous forests and not much else.

The bit of 'entitled to the jolly' is the gilded bit that comes with the gilded cage. For security reasons most of these are not going to be allowed to drive themselves or without a motorcade of some description during their terms. The US motorcade is highly unusual, in large part because there is a history of presidents leaving office due to a non natural terminal life experiences, where as the motorcades here, Canada, France tend to only be a few motorbikes and cars with little road closing.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
JohnA14J50
Banned
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 13:10
Location: Stowmarket

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by JohnA14J50 »

KeithW wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 21:17 Peaceful protest is a fundamental human right so I should hope not.
So an anti-lockdown protest is also ok?
The sun will shine on you again and the clouds will go away.
- Sir Captain Tom Moore. Hero of England.
User avatar
Ruperts Trooper
Member
Posts: 12031
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 13:43
Location: Huntingdonshire originally, but now Staffordshire

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by Ruperts Trooper »

JohnA14J50 wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 17:12
KeithW wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 21:17 Peaceful protest is a fundamental human right so I should hope not.
So an anti-lockdown protest is also ok?
Yes - when the lockdown restriction are lifted!
Lifelong motorhead
User avatar
M4 Cardiff
Member
Posts: 2401
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 15:12
Location: Leamington Spa

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by M4 Cardiff »

KeithW wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 21:17 Peaceful protest is a fundamental human right so I should hope not.
Therein lies the impossible problem. Violent protesters will infiltrate a peaceful protest and then cause their chaos, so the only way to curtail their criminal activity to curtail peaceful protest too.
Driving thrombosis caused this accident......a clot behind the wheel.
User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 5674
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by Vierwielen »

FosseWay wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:46 ... snip

No, the reason for the choice of venues in these cases is because the attendees believe that they are entitled to a jolly. They want attractive surroundings, "local culture" (though how much of that they really get when they lock everything down I'm not sure), and the opportunity to grandstand - nothing says "look at me, I'm important" like a huge motorcade with armed police and GKW else riding roughshod over citizens' rights to use the highway. At least the Soviets were upfront about this with their Zil lanes.
Not necessarily. The G7 conference gets lots of publicity, especially on TV. The TV camera do not show all the road blocks, but West Cornwall would get a good deal of publicity and the after-effects could well benefit the economy. How many Brits visit Sweden (COVID permitting) after having seen the Wallender series? I am sure that quite a few do and that brings in money.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by KeithW »

JohnA14J50 wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 17:12
KeithW wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 21:17 Peaceful protest is a fundamental human right so I should hope not.
So an anti-lockdown protest is also ok?
Providing they obey the law in the process yes..
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by KeithW »

M4 Cardiff wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 21:10
KeithW wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 21:17 Peaceful protest is a fundamental human right so I should hope not.
Therein lies the impossible problem. Violent protesters will infiltrate a peaceful protest and then cause their chaos, so the only way to curtail their criminal activity to curtail peaceful protest too.
There goes freedom then, might as well get rid of those other inconvenient things like freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right to vote.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by KeithW »

FosseWay wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:46
Surely an airport would make more sense. They're not in city centres, they have a lot of security infrastructure and personnel already, and the attendees don't need to travel beyond the airport when they arrive, both improving their security and removing the need to inconvenience a load of unconnected people. Given enough notice, you could even completely close (part of) an airport for the duration of the conference and still inconvenience a heck of a lot fewer people than you would at Carbis Bay or Gleneagles. In any case, I think the security benefits of the end of Cornwall are overplayed: you can only "seal it off" by imposing huge dislocation on the local population, and even if you do that, or you choose somewhere genuinely uninhabited, it's a lot harder to secure a perimeter that consists of wilderness, sea, cliffs than it does an airport. Some jerk with an RPG is not going to get put off by Cornwall being miles from London, and if they need to get a boat in order to fire their weapons they'll do that.

No, the reason for the choice of venues in these cases is because the attendees believe that they are entitled to a jolly. They want attractive surroundings, "local culture" (though how much of that they really get when they lock everything down I'm not sure), and the opportunity to grandstand - nothing says "look at me, I'm important" like a huge motorcade with armed police and GKW else riding roughshod over citizens' rights to use the highway. At least the Soviets were upfront about this with their Zil lanes.
The point of such meetings has always been as much about building relationships as the formal meetings. The words on an agreement can be hashed out ahead of time but its often the informal talks away from the meeting are more important. A classic example was the summit between Khruschev and Kennedy. While little was decided Khruschev said afterwards.
"I was generally pleased with our meeting in Vienna. Even though we came to no concrete agreement, I could tell that Kennedy was interested in finding a peaceful solution to world problems and avoiding conflict with the Soviet Union"
That was rather important during the Cuban missile crisis. While Kennedy was now in charge he came to believe that neither side wanted war. The last meeting that Trump attended had rather the opposite effect, all he was after was a photo op.

At a rather lower level I attended a number of meetings on software development, in some ways more was achieved having dinner or in the bar than in the formal meetings. What is needed to facilitate this is the absence of the press, tv cameras etc. They tell me much the same is true of Westminster, the really important things that happen have their origins in the bars.
User avatar
M4 Cardiff
Member
Posts: 2401
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 15:12
Location: Leamington Spa

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by M4 Cardiff »

KeithW wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 22:32
M4 Cardiff wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 21:10
KeithW wrote: Mon Jan 25, 2021 21:17 Peaceful protest is a fundamental human right so I should hope not.
Therein lies the impossible problem. Violent protesters will infiltrate a peaceful protest and then cause their chaos, so the only way to curtail their criminal activity to curtail peaceful protest too.
There goes freedom then, might as well get rid of those other inconvenient things like freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right to vote.
That is why I said it was an impossible problem as there seems to be no method currently used to exclude hooligans from mixing in with lawful protesters and hijacking the protest, other than obstruction of the right of protest in the first place.

The only thing I can think of would be to use laws like those used for football hooligans. Football hooligans can be banned from stadiums or foreign travel, and this is backed by by monitoring their movements at the time of matches where trouble is forecast. So maybe it could be that if a person is convicted of illegal violent protest, rioting etc, part of their sentence is that they lose the right to attend protest events and have to stay at home or check in at their local police station during protests where trouble is likely. This should disrupt the brick throwers, but permit non violent peaceful protest to continue.
Driving thrombosis caused this accident......a clot behind the wheel.
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by FosseWay »

KeithW wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 23:17
FosseWay wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:46
Surely an airport would make more sense. They're not in city centres, they have a lot of security infrastructure and personnel already, and the attendees don't need to travel beyond the airport when they arrive, both improving their security and removing the need to inconvenience a load of unconnected people. Given enough notice, you could even completely close (part of) an airport for the duration of the conference and still inconvenience a heck of a lot fewer people than you would at Carbis Bay or Gleneagles. In any case, I think the security benefits of the end of Cornwall are overplayed: you can only "seal it off" by imposing huge dislocation on the local population, and even if you do that, or you choose somewhere genuinely uninhabited, it's a lot harder to secure a perimeter that consists of wilderness, sea, cliffs than it does an airport. Some jerk with an RPG is not going to get put off by Cornwall being miles from London, and if they need to get a boat in order to fire their weapons they'll do that.

No, the reason for the choice of venues in these cases is because the attendees believe that they are entitled to a jolly. They want attractive surroundings, "local culture" (though how much of that they really get when they lock everything down I'm not sure), and the opportunity to grandstand - nothing says "look at me, I'm important" like a huge motorcade with armed police and GKW else riding roughshod over citizens' rights to use the highway. At least the Soviets were upfront about this with their Zil lanes.
The point of such meetings has always been as much about building relationships as the formal meetings. The words on an agreement can be hashed out ahead of time but its often the informal talks away from the meeting are more important. A classic example was the summit between Khruschev and Kennedy. While little was decided Khruschev said afterwards.
"I was generally pleased with our meeting in Vienna. Even though we came to no concrete agreement, I could tell that Kennedy was interested in finding a peaceful solution to world problems and avoiding conflict with the Soviet Union"
That was rather important during the Cuban missile crisis. While Kennedy was now in charge he came to believe that neither side wanted war. The last meeting that Trump attended had rather the opposite effect, all he was after was a photo op.

At a rather lower level I attended a number of meetings on software development, in some ways more was achieved having dinner or in the bar than in the formal meetings. What is needed to facilitate this is the absence of the press, tv cameras etc. They tell me much the same is true of Westminster, the really important things that happen have their origins in the bars.
None of that precludes using a hotel and conference complex near an airport and not closing down areas where people live, work and need to get about.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by FosseWay »

Vierwielen wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 21:39
Not necessarily. The G7 conference gets lots of publicity, especially on TV. The TV camera do not show all the road blocks, but West Cornwall would get a good deal of publicity and the after-effects could well benefit the economy. How many Brits visit Sweden (COVID permitting) after having seen the Wallender series? I am sure that quite a few do and that brings in money.
Drama series, yes. Even documentaries about the place in question, sure. But news coverage of the G7? I can't say I've ever felt that I really want to go to Davos or wherever purely on the strength of news coverage of the conference.

In any case, all this talk of pepping tourism is a tad premature, isn't it? I can't put my finger on it, but I'm sure there's some kind of global problem right now that stops people travelling. It won't have gone away by May, and whatever effect TV footage may have on people's travel habits in normal years, I strongly doubt it carries over to holiday destination choices several years later.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by KeithW »

FosseWay wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 06:09 None of that precludes using a hotel and conference complex near an airport and not closing down areas where people live, work and need to get about.
What they are using at Carbis Bay IS a hotel and conference complex, near enough to a major airport to get delegates in and out while having only a single entrance to secure. I wouldnt be surprised if one or more warships were deployed offshore with marines/SBS on board to be able to rapidly respond to any emergency. I believe HMS Albion is currently stationed in Devonport so could easily deploy to Carbis Bay with 200 marines, ready to go via helicopter or LCVP. They would be in more spartan quarters than the delegates of course
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organi ... hms-albion

Trying to secure one of the big complexes on the A4 near Heathrow would be a nightmare. You need to be able to spot people who shouldn't be there , at Heathrow almost everyone is in transit and there are a huge number of traffic movements. How are you going to stop a would be suicide bomber drive into the entrance of say the Raddisson stop in front of the hotel and press the button without closing down half of the Bath road ?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.48412 ... authuser=0

This is why when the Irish Peace Process was in its infancy the talks were held at Northcote House in Sunningdale Berkshire. The PIRA did in fact attacked Heathrow with improvised mortar bombs but with only a single road in and little traffic securing Northcote House was much easier.
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by FosseWay »

Airports and their surrounding facilities already have measures to combat terrorists trying to drive truck bombs into them and so forth. I'm not sure I would describe Newquay as a major airport - I didn't specify Heathrow either as it may not be the best choice for various reasons, but at a significant international airport you have the means to get there, somewhere to stay, somewhere to hold the meetings and somewhere to hold dinners and networking events all in the same place. Yes, Carbis Bay is near Newquay airport but it isn't *at* the airport.

It simply isn't acceptable to close down major roads where there is no obvious reasonable alternative route, or to place restrictions on how residents may move around in their own homes and neighbourhoods, for "security reasons" when it is perfectly practicable to get rid of or minimise the risk in better ways. I'm sure you're familiar with the risk reduction hierarchy, where removing the hazard is at the top and mandating PPE is for dealing with residual risk that you can't get rid of by any other means. Closing major roads and parts of cities is the equivalent of PPE.

It's incredibly noticeable that you don't get this hoo-ha when the Queen goes places. A couple of years ago I was in Sheffield visiting my parents and was surprised to see some kind of hullabaloo going on on Fargate outside the town hall. When I got closer I discovered that the crowds were waiting for the Queen to leave the reception at the town hall and go to the cathedral to distribute the Royal Maundy. There was minimal impact even on the shops on Fargate, never mind anywhere else. More than 50 metres from where she was you'd have had no idea anything was going on. And that kind of event, like carnivals, marathons, vintage car rallies and such, attracts public interest in a way that political summits do not, which in itself goes some way to justifying road closures.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by KeithW »

FosseWay wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 11:07 Airports and their surrounding facilities already have measures to combat terrorists trying to drive truck bombs into them and so forth. I'm not sure I would describe Newquay as a major airport - I didn't specify Heathrow either as it may not be the best choice for various reasons, but at a significant international airport you have the means to get there, somewhere to stay, somewhere to hold the meetings and somewhere to hold dinners and networking events all in the same place. Yes, Carbis Bay is near Newquay airport but it isn't *at* the airport.

It simply isn't acceptable to close down major roads where there is no obvious reasonable alternative route, or to place restrictions on how residents may move around in their own homes and neighbourhoods, for "security reasons" when it is perfectly practicable to get rid of or minimise the risk in better ways. I'm sure you're familiar with the risk reduction hierarchy, where removing the hazard is at the top and mandating PPE is for dealing with residual risk that you can't get rid of by any other means. Closing major roads and parts of cities is the equivalent of PPE.

It's incredibly noticeable that you don't get this hoo-ha when the Queen goes places. A couple of years ago I was in Sheffield visiting my parents and was surprised to see some kind of hullabaloo going on on Fargate outside the town hall. When I got closer I discovered that the crowds were waiting for the Queen to leave the reception at the town hall and go to the cathedral to distribute the Royal Maundy. There was minimal impact even on the shops on Fargate, never mind anywhere else. More than 50 metres from where she was you'd have had no idea anything was going on. And that kind of event, like carnivals, marathons, vintage car rallies and such, attracts public interest in a way that political summits do not, which in itself goes some way to justifying road closures.
So tell me what major roads would have to be closed if the summit was held at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted or Manchester or and what restrictions would have to be placed on traffic movements ?

Well the main roads in those cases are the M4/A4 , M23/A23, M11/A11 and M56, then there is the issue that of those only Heathrow has anything like adequate conference facilities for a major international summit and that is arguable.

Now lets look at Carbis Bay there is the A3074 but that probably wouldn't need closure, all that needs to be controlled is Beach Road which is not exactly a major highway. Having only one way in and out is rather an asset in this case.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.19803 ... authuser=0

The fact that Newquay is not a major airport in terms of flight numbers is alaso an advantage. As an ex RAF base it has a runway and landing aids adequate for the largest aircraft, helicopter facilities and oddles of spare space to handle waiting aircraft, security forces etc.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Cor ... authuser=0

Better yet with only a limited number of scheduled services using it will actually produce far less disruption than a major airport. Can you imagine the disruption at Heathrow or Gatwick if a couple of thousand protestors get off the train ? I dont see many taking a 6 hour train ride to Carbis Bay somehow.

Now as to the Monarch, lets face it admirable lady as the Queen is she is at the end of the day a ceremonial head of state who has no real power. On the other hand those present at the G8 summit will be.

Canada: Justin Trudeau Prime Minister
France: Emmanuel Macron President
Germany: Angela Merkel Chancellor
Italy: Giuseppe Conte Prime Minister
Japan: Yoshihide Suga Prime Minister
United Kingdom: Boris Johnson Prime Minister
United States: Joe Biden President
European Union: Ursula von der Leyen Commission President and Charles Michel Council President

Remember also they will have their closest aides and advisors on hand - a truly tempting target for terrorists or Donald Trump come to that but I don't see The Proud Boys or Michigan Militia heading for Cornwall

Your solicitude for the good people of Carbis Bay is touching but the locals don't seem overly put out, it is a resort after all and after a dead year the business and publicity will be rather welcome.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ost-summit
https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by FosseWay »

Newquay airport isn't the problem. As you say, disruption there will be less of a problem than disruption at a larger airport. The problem is that Carbis Bay is, basically, nowhere near the airport. There will be traffic disruption directly and deliberately caused by the the dignitaries themselves on the public highway (which in this case is one of the main roads through Cornwall).

If you hold the event at an airport with the necessary facilities, you don't need to close nearby major roads at all. You close some of the airport and you book out the hotel/conference centre and cordon it off. No-one outside the airport needs to even be aware it's going on. There will be some disruption to flights, yes. Some disruption somewhere is inevitable. But if it is planned in advance then the result for the airlines and their passengers is simply that you can't book flights on that day because there are none to book. That is rather different from blocking off the only sensible access to/from an area.

The principal problem with these things is their size. If the PM goes to open a school or tour a fish plant or something, sure there's a security presence but it doesn't grind the entire area to a halt. A sense of perspective is necessary. I mentioned the EU CoM conference that was held in Gothenburg a few years ago. I had to take leave for those two days because I couldn't be certain I'd be able to get to work *at all*. Both bridges were closed at rush hour and boat traffic was suspended. All because some stuffed shirts wanted to hold their jolly in an "authentic restored industrial milieu" where there happened to be a Michelin-starred seafood restaurant and they could watch the seals in the river, rather than doing the job they're paid for, talking to each other and making decisions, which they can do at any given anonymous concrete block of a hotel at an airport.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by KeithW »

M4 Cardiff wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 01:12
That is why I said it was an impossible problem as there seems to be no method currently used to exclude hooligans from mixing in with lawful protesters and hijacking the protest, other than obstruction of the right of protest in the first place.

The only thing I can think of would be to use laws like those used for football hooligans. Football hooligans can be banned from stadiums or foreign travel, and this is backed by by monitoring their movements at the time of matches where trouble is forecast. So maybe it could be that if a person is convicted of illegal violent protest, rioting etc, part of their sentence is that they lose the right to attend protest events and have to stay at home or check in at their local police station during protests where trouble is likely. This should disrupt the brick throwers, but permit non violent peaceful protest to continue.
Football Stadiums are not public places and foreign travel cannot be equated with walking down the high street however there were mechanisms for doing just what you suggest in the form of an Anti Social Behaviour Order usually shortened to ASBO. This was widely discredited, for those with hooligan tendencies it became a something to be boasted about and was replaced in 2014 by giving the courts the power to issue an injunction against specific activities.

Outside of the more rabid press reports of the Daily Mail there is little evidence that peaceful protests often lead to violence. A blanket ban on peaceful protest would be a huge overreaction and would undermine one of the basic freedoms inherent in any civilised society. Working in the Nuclear industry I saw plenty of protests most of which were good natured if rather ignorant. Personally despite being an obviously wicked Tory I am not in favour of repressing peaceful protest, That way lies the totalitarian state. If individuals break the law the answer is to bring them before the courts not undermine basic human rights by allowing the state to decide what protests are allowed. The next step beyond this is the declaration of people as being enemies of the State,
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: G7 summit at Carbis Bay

Post by KeithW »

FosseWay wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 15:42 Newquay airport isn't the problem. As you say, disruption there will be less of a problem than disruption at a larger airport. The problem is that Carbis Bay is, basically, nowhere near the airport. There will be traffic disruption directly and deliberately caused by the the dignitaries themselves on the public highway (which in this case is one of the main roads through Cornwall).

If you hold the event at an airport with the necessary facilities, you don't need to close nearby major roads at all. You close some of the airport and you book out the hotel/conference centre and cordon it off. No-one outside the airport needs to even be aware it's going on. There will be some disruption to flights, yes. Some disruption somewhere is inevitable. But if it is planned in advance then the result for the airlines and their passengers is simply that you can't book flights on that day because there are none to book. That is rather different from blocking off the only sensible access to/from an area.

The principal problem with these things is their size. If the PM goes to open a school or tour a fish plant or something, sure there's a security presence but it doesn't grind the entire area to a halt. A sense of perspective is necessary. I mentioned the EU CoM conference that was held in Gothenburg a few years ago. I had to take leave for those two days because I couldn't be certain I'd be able to get to work *at all*. Both bridges were closed at rush hour and boat traffic was suspended. All because some stuffed shirts wanted to hold their jolly in an "authentic restored industrial milieu" where there happened to be a Michelin-starred seafood restaurant and they could watch the seals in the river, rather than doing the job they're paid for, talking to each other and making decisions, which they can do at any given anonymous concrete block of a hotel at an airport.
Or you can just hold the meeting in a a remote part of the country where effects are localised and the locals are happy to get the business without disrupting the plans of hundreds of thousands of travellers, this is of course what is being done. I repeat major airports are a nightmare to secure, Their design philosophy is based on the ide of maximising the speed of getting people in and out. Security starts at the check in desk where you have to show ID and a ticket. Close off part of a major airport and you have a huge problems, securing a resort hotel/conference centre with just one access road is a doddle.

If you think you can keep a major summit meeting location a secret you are deluded, all you need is one politician, civil servant or journalist to spill the beans and it will be on the news feeds in minutes. Its also rather difficult to hide Air Force One landing, Stansted airport handles 27 million passenger movements a year and has just one termina'l and 5 airport hotels close to it. To secure that would mean excluding all other traffic.
Post Reply