» Monday, May 23, 2005

G8 Security Costs

Put to him that the costs of the G8 conference in Gleneagles might not be value for money, the PMOS said that the details of costs were down to the local authorities and responsible departments. No one was pretending that the inevitable security involved could be done cheaply, it couldn’t. Equally however it was a showcase to the world and therefore people would recognise the value of that. Asked what the precise value was, the PMOS said that the value was that people from all over the world would be focussed on Gleneagles and Scotland as a whole. There was a clear value in terms of international prestige to hosting such a major international event. The PMOS told journalists that if they spoke to the devolved government in Scotland they would agree. In terms of security of course we all wished that we could return to the days of less security, but given the threat of international terrorism we couldn’t do that.

Briefing took place at 15:45 | Search for related news


  1. To say that people from all over the world will be focussed on Gleneagles and Scotland is pure fantasy. Most people have more pressing things to concern them. The PMOS hasn’t a clue as to why they are even having this junket. Apparently, the PMOS thinks that Scotland is the sole beneficiary of the G8 piss-up. If so, the Scots should pick up the tab.

    If there has been a genuine escalation in danger to the nation one might wonder how this has come about. It’s difficult to believe that the huge expense (in more ways than one) of the Iraq adventure/fiasco has actually served to increase national security.

    Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 24 May 2005 on 1:57 pm | Link
  2. Chuck – on the contrary, the invasion of Iraq has INCREASED the threat of terrorism, as Blair was explicitly warned by the JIC, who said –

    "The JIC assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq." p.34

    <a href="http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/reports/isc/">http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/reports/isc/</a&gt;

    We now also know, from the Downing Street memo, that the decision to invade had been taken at least by July 2002, prior to the charade over inspections, which were designed to fail.

    If you check a dictionary for the word for someone who tells a pack of lies that knowingly endanger the country you’ll find the word is traitor. That charge should be added to Tony Blair’s rap sheet, along with war criminal.

    Comment by Ron F — 25 May 2005 on 6:34 pm | Link
  3. Our leaders work tirelessly to improve the world for us. Such selfless endeavours should be praised and feted and every word uttered by them should be disseminated free to all peoples of the world. Their images should grace our houses and their statues our parks. Not even a corner shop should open without a plaque in their names. Fresh flower petals should scent and comfort their every step and even their long suffering spouses should also be rewarded with shop discount vouchers and speaking tours. Those who project our wise leaders for our obeisance should also be given packs of trinkets and plenty of booze as their reward.

    If we did things properly they would be so overwhelmed by the adulation they could leave us alone. Short of that they will tend to ever more attention seeking wars and promises to feed the world with their half-baked dreams.

    All power to G8, I say. Let\x92s have one every week.

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 26 May 2005 on 11:31 am | Link
  4. It is actually impossible to assess the level of threat by examination of JIC views. The JIC’s comments about increased danger levels as a result of the invasion are mere statements of the bleeding obvious ( – and incidentally why are we paying these incompetents to trot out such platitudes?).

    Conventional attacks upon distant countries never eliminate terrorist threats, even if those countries are entirely subjugated. All that happens is the terrorists become martyrs or heroes – or both. In the end, almost all terrorist groups have to be negotiated with. That is the grim reality.

    And sadly one can cite all too many examples of terrorists becoming ‘respected’ national leaders. Look at Bosnia, Ireland, Kenya, Malaysia, Zimbabwe, Israel, Palestine, Libya, Yemen, Chechnia etc etc. The list is infinite.

    Still, let’s not get too downhearted, eh? – One man’s terrorist being another’s freedom fighter and respected national hero. What about William Tell, for example?

    Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 26 May 2005 on 1:27 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


May 2005
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Apr   Jun »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh