Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Were Haringey roads closed due to Terror threat posed Finsbury Park Festival?
Local activist Clive Carter this week tweeted a copy of the traffic order used to close road near to Finsbury Park to enable the Wireless music event over the past two weekends, questioning what terrorism there was, related to the festival.
On the face of it, he has a point. The application of a measure designed for terrorism scenarios does seem odd. But, in fact, this looks it may have been a clerical oversight since in fact, the order has a much more wide-ranging set of applications.
Orders can be made for the following reasons:
- for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising, or
- for preventing damage to the road or to any building on or near the road, or\
- for facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic (including pedestrians), or
- for preventing the use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or its use by vehicular traffic in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property,
- (without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (d) above) for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot, or
- for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs, or
- for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of section
- For the prevention of terrorism.
If it was an accidental error, it was surely a bit of a howler by Haringey to have hit on subsection h for inclusion in the notice, but, sparing the hapless employee's blushes, fortunately of no consequence.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Konrad B on
-
It wasn't a “howler” or a "clerical oversight". The use of the terrorism sections of the Road Traffic Regulation Act was deliberate.
I emailed the Council a couple of weeks ago and raised the following points about the use of the terrorism sections:"A major problem of having huge crowds (45,000) is the chaos which arises when the they leave the park and completely swamp the local area. The surprising thing is that the Council are stating that the reason for the Traffic Order is “for a purpose relating to danger or damage connected with terrorism”"Where is the danger from terrorism? The problem is the large numbers leaving at the same time - nothing to do with terrorism."If Haringey Council really think that there is a danger from terrorism shouldn’t they 1) be warning event attendees not to attend and 2) cancelling the events."If there is no genuine threat of terrorism why is the Council using Sections 22C and 22D of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984?"………………...I received the following reply from Daliah Barrett, Licensing Team Leader, Haringey Licensing Authority:"Section 22C & 22D enables certain powers and provides additional provisions for the Police for the management of risk at sites potentially vulnerable to attack eg events with large volumes of crowds.Security for large events is now commonly provided by security guards and stewards in partnership with Police therefore an ATTRO (Anti-Terrorism Traffic Regulation Order) is required to provide the necessary powers to put in place certain measures and procedures for the safety of the public in the event of a terror attack."An ATTRO is the most appropriate legislation to be using in the circumstances. The main reason is that some of the infrastructure used to support the road closures also serve as proportionate hostile vehicle mitigation measures."The UK Government keeps us all informed about the current threat levels Threat Levels | MI5 - The Security Service. We all have a duty to ensure that we factor in this guidance in the planning and even in our everyday lives."There is currently no specific terrorism related intelligence in relation to this event however, the threat to police officers and the threat to the UK from international terrorism are both currently ‘Substantial - an attack is likely’. However, the measures are considered precautionary, proportionate and necessary for the safety and security plan for this particular event and the MPS regard these restrictions as an important part of the plan to avoid, or reduce the likelihood of danger connected with terrorism.”………………..It is curious that other large events in North London don’t require the use of the terrorism sections. For instance, road closures due to the event in Trent Park this coming weekend uses Section 14(1)(b) of the Act; the road closures on various dates in July due to events in Alexandra Palace/Park uses Section 16(A) of the Act.The terrorism sections apparently give greater powers to the police and security guards to enable them to control the huge crowds e.g. by closing Seven Sisters Road. Without these powers there might be even more chaos when the 45,000 are suddenly discharged onto the streets most of whom seem to aim to get to FP tube station. It there was even more chaos then the suitability of Finsbury Park for such large events might then be brought into question and Haringey Council wouldn't like that.
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon T on
-
Sign: Danger - Elephant Trap.
"Hello: why've you set up an elephant trap? There are no elephants in the elephant trap".
"Well then it's keeping the elephants away isn't it".....
-
-
An ATTRO is the most appropriate legislation to be using in the circumstances. The main reason is that some of the infrastructure used to support the road closures also serve as proportionate hostile vehicle mitigation measures.
This seems quite common now when I go to football throughout the country. Lots of measures designed to stop a vehicle plowing into the crowd when previously there were none. Can't remember exactly what triggered it (London Bridge attacks maybe) but, thinking of Arsenal as an example, initially it was just council vans parked up to stop cars getting through but now it is more sophisticated, portable devices like this type of thing
Can't say I'm particularly surprised if that kind of thing was in operation as everyone left Wireless.
-
Permalink Reply by Charlie Owen on
-
It's almost as if they pass a law to counter terrorism - knowing that purpose will get support for it. And then use it for other purposes, such as crowd control, when they know a law like that may not get support.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
