It’s piquant that even as private security has taken on ever broader and deeper duties, has arguably come of age, some in the field of ‘security’ are uncomfortable with the word, and are seeking alternatives, without finding one or a phrase that really satisfies by expressing that range of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ tasks, writes Mark Rowe.
Community safety or protection are options. Partly, the unease over the word security is a result of what it’s labelled with; such as, the ‘update on security’ issued by the National Gallery on Friday; as a result of repeated use by Just Stop Oil protesters of the tactic of throwing soup over paintings (the protesters have even invented a verb, ‘souped’, meaning to throw soup over something). As an aside, one abrupt change in the political mood between the Conservatives and Labour has been over such protest. While Tory Home Secretary Suella Braverman got worked up against protesters and brought in laws to combat them (evidently without effect), Labour’s Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has other priorities, such as violence against women and girls (VAWG).
The National Gallery described its decision on Friday to ban visitors bringing in liquids (except for baby milk and medicines – loopholes for JSO to exploit?) as ‘difficult and unfortunate’. The Gallery admitted that the change in policy would make it less welcoming, and checks on entry (the Gallery already had detection arches in place) would mean it took longer for visitors to enter. This is what security people want to avoid, on any site – being associated with ‘inconvenience’ (which the Gallery apologised for), seemingly punishing the law-abiding for a few with their own selfish or malicious agenda.
No matter that (as at airports, after you go through checks and emerge airside) inside the Gallery you can buy liquids. Nor that other tactics as effective (to cause ‘small amounts of damage and disruption’, in JSO’s words, to be photogenic in the name of publicity) for protesters remain, such as glueing yourself to an object (as JSO has done inside the National Gallery). JSO responded to the jail terms for its supporters by unfurling a banner in front of the van Gogh Sunflowers painting that two supporters threw soup at (protected by glass) and were jailed for criminal damage. As a tactic, throwing soup seems here to stay – JSO supporters abroad threw some at some British embassies. Who wants to provide a service that you have to apologise for?
The National Gallery shows how difficult it is to provide protection to assets, no matter how valuable (Van Gogh painted more than one Sunflowers, but isn’t painting any more) and no matter how layered the security. The National Gallery in Trafalgar sits arguably in the most protected part of the country. On the Square are uniformed ‘heritage warden’ patrollers, pictured, provided for the Greater London Authority by the contractor Amulet. The Gallery’s own security officers routinely on duty face outwards onto the Square, so as to see any threats emerging (everyday good practice now, yet only welcomed by police in the last dozen years or so). Then you have the bag search, again, routine at landmark venues since the watershed of the Bataclan-Paris terror attack of 2015, and video surveillance; and invigilators around the galleries.
Here lies the dilemma for any site in a free country; hospitals, museums, railway stations, want to let people in as smoothly as possible, including to avoid queues which can be uncomfortable to be in and can present a target to terrorists, beggars and pick-pockets. An airport-style search regime would provide assurance as on an aircraft that passengers are not carrying weapons; but do you want to go to that trouble to see a Canaletto?
