Latest rink update

[Electro]

I haven't suggested what l would class as appropriate policing.

I simply stated that the response to 100+ fighting at a public event was surprisingly poor considering the location, potential attendees and current situation.

I'm well aware you cannot have police everywhere.

Which is why public events employ suitable security staff and have risk assessments.

I guess at least it wasn't anything more serious than a near riot in an enclosed venue.

 

[KaneDevils]

Let's hope IAW puts on better security at the next event.

I'm surprised there wasn't a better police presence considering the current threat from ISIS. Boxing in the past has tended to attract service personnel, the proximity of the IAW to the Special Forces Support Group HQ at RAF St Athan l would have expected better.

Seriously out of order comment to make. I hope mods will remove it.

dont take the bait, he is a joke of a human being, total plank.

The most over the top, crass comments I've read in a while. No wonder most members don't post. WD

 

[Earnie]

The point I am trying to make is that we live in a troubled world as they well know in France. Comments relating to whereabouts or movements of our security forces, armed forces and even police should not be discussed on a public forum.

What's the top and crass about this KaneDevils?

 

[Ocko]

I haven't suggested what l would class as appropriate policing.

I simply stated that the response to 100+ fighting at a public event was surprisingly poor considering the location, potential attendees and current situation.

I'm well aware you cannot have police everywhere.

Which is why public events employ suitable security staff and have risk assessments.

I guess at least it wasn't anything more serious than a near riot in an enclosed venue.

But why do the attendees (military) make any difference in terms of fighting that broke out amongst some rivals? The security threat is irrelevant in this case, it's hardly like its the Army Navy rugby match with 80k military personnel there. Your theory just isn't practical. If you based it on just insufficient numbers of security to deal with fighting then you'd have more of a valid point. Bringing in a handful of potential military attendees as part of your argument sounds ridiculous and scraping the barrel of things to moan about. Not only that making out like they're different to normal military to enhance your point, thinking people won't know SFSG aren't actually special forces. And what are you on about with a media blackout. I made the point that if a terrorist group were targeting the military they could do a lot better than taking the chance that a boxing event must surely have military people there because they like fighting right? Lazy point.

You're trying to sensationalise something that isn't there because you have a problem with IAW.

 

[Electro]

My comments make no reference to any military attendees merely the possibility of due to the location of the event and the base. I'm surprised you find it odd that I'd voice concern of certain venues, locations and risks considering the advice given to service personnel.

My theory is not a theory, it's based on being involved within an industry that provides facilities to events, hospitality and catering in various locations of various organisations including govt and the risk assessments at such.

My comments regarded both security staff and police response. Again you're not grasping my points. I quite clear stated the article compared to security at other venues, if you read the article it was compared to the O2.

My reference to the SFSG was based not on what or who the SFSG are, but highlights the fact the base has service personnel that have worked in operations fighting against ISIS. The very fact you believe does personnel do not require additional consideration I'm afraid does not mean there is no threat.

My reference to the media black out was in response to a comment that posting on a public forum comments regarding service personnel and there movement.

Again there any venue that attracts a crowd has a potential risk. Having poor security that failed to deal with a crowd fighting and the poor attendance of police in my opinion as l clearly stated was surprising giving the current threat UK threat level, add the French attacks and an event that could possibly contain people from a near by base.

I'm not sensationalising anything, please go and look at a dictionary, specifically the word surprised.

 

[Electro]

Sorry I need to edit some missed auto correct additions that make it read poorly.

Reference SFSG my comment meant to say "the fact you don't believe personnel do not require additional consideration I'm afraid does not mean there is no threat".

I meant to edit out " Again any venue that attracts a crowd has a potential threat".

 

[KaneDevils]

The point I am trying to make is that we live in a troubled world as they well know in France. Comments relating to whereabouts or movements of our security forces, armed forces and even police should not be discussed on a public forum.

What's the top and crass about this KaneDevils?

Those are not the posts I quoted? :?
Some on here really could start an argument in an empty room.

 

[Ocko]

My comments make no reference to any military attendees merely the possibility of due to the location of the event and the base. I'm surprised you find it odd that I'd voice concern of certain venues, locations and risks considering the advice given to service personnel.

My theory is not a theory, it's based on being involved within an industry that provides facilities to events, hospitality and catering in various locations of various organisations including govt and the risk assessments at such.

My comments regarded both security staff and police response. Again you're not grasping my points. I quite clear stated the article compared to security at other venues, if you read the article it was compared to the O2.

My reference to the SFSG was based not on what or who the SFSG are, but highlights the fact the base has service personnel that have worked in operations fighting against ISIS. The very fact you believe does personnel do not require additional consideration I'm afraid does not mean there is no threat.

My reference to the media black out was in response to a comment that posting on a public forum comments regarding service personnel and there movement.

Again there any venue that attracts a crowd has a potential risk. Having poor security that failed to deal with a crowd fighting and the poor attendance of police in my opinion as l clearly stated was surprising giving the current threat UK threat level, add the French attacks and an event that could possibly contain people from a near by base.

I'm not sensationalising anything, please go and look at a dictionary, specifically the word surprised.

Your references to police and security are strange. Should we have police at Devils matches? The capacity is the same and there are a fair few servicemen who go, probably just as many if not more. Football matches are heavily policed and they would still struggle to contain a 100 man brawl. Why was this event so different from a hockey match?

You can refer it to the O2 all you want, that holds 20 thousand. The amount of security is proportional to the attendance.

And you are factually incorrect. SFSG have never fought ISIS. Don't make things up. And if by some random reason you know that to be true you shouldn't be putting it on a public forum.

 

[Devil_Abroad]

The point I am trying to make is that we live in a troubled world as they well know in France. Comments relating to whereabouts or movements of our security forces, armed forces and even police should not be discussed on a public forum.

What's the top and crass about this KaneDevils?

Those are not the posts I quoted? :?
Some on here really could start an argument in an empty room.

I'm not alone?! :O


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Electro]

My God Ocko.

Why is stating you need sufficient security at an event and then when a mass brawl breaks out being critical of insufficient police arriving to deal with it strange. No l never stated police should be present at any of the IAW events.

I haven't referred to the O2, the author of the article did.

So your saying the SFSG was not born out of a need to support Special Forces in operations against ISIS.

Maybe you need to Google start with Operation Shader.

Took this from Britisharmedforcesreview


A further argument is that there is already UK direct and indirect participation in strikes against Syria. HMS Duncan is helping defend the present USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, as it it predecessorsHMS Defender and HMS Dauntless. There are, (not publically stated but known) UK Special Forces such as the Special Air Service or Special Boat Service operating around Syria, and possibly even the Special Forces Support Group (SFSG). As known, Special Forces operations, at least in the UK, are never officially broadcast and will never need parliamentary approval. Given such activity, why fret over personal on exchange?

It's pretty obvious that if the SAS is fighting ISIS there support group would be involved, afterall what would be the point of a support group born out of a shortage of SAS troopers to give the necessary supporting role.

 

[Chris]

Can you two/Can everyone take this to PM?

I can't be bothered trying to tidy the thread up tonight because i'm basically melting, but anymore posts that aren't specifically about IAW will be deleted/edited.

 

[Tinkyadrian]

Anyone know when the ice is going to be painted this year?

 

[matbur]

Yeah, I'd be interested to know in any changes/improvements big or small that we can look forward to.

3G or wifi would be nice along with reduced waiting time at the bar/cafe.

 

[Kal]

Yeah, I'd be interested to know in any changes/improvements big or small that we can look forward to.

3G or wifi would be nice along with reduced waiting time at the bar/cafe.

I was skating last week and could get 4G on the public pad.

 

[Jenks91]

Found this on twitter
{removed at the request of the Devils} James

 

[august04]

Found this on twitter
{removed at the request of the Devils} James

What's all this about?! Not often the mods censor anything, so very intrigued what this could have been?

 

[James]

It was a plan on the ice with all the sponsors on. Some haven't been announced officially yet so the Devils asked for it to be withdrawn. Nothing juicy sorry

 

[august04]

It was a plan on the ice with all the sponsors on. Some haven't been announced officially yet so the Devils asked for it to be withdrawn. Nothing juicy sorry

How disappointing!
Anyone heard whether improvements have been made or are planned to be made for the following niggles that I had during the last few games of the season at IAW?

Mobile signal/wi-fi - seems that may be partly answered above with 4G available in the second pad area. Any wi-fi in the main arena?
Goal lights - couldn't see them properly and they were too far away from the ice to view immediately.
Scoreboard - I recall we didn't have the full scoreboard available as the ice couldn't be seen from the DJ booth, so the game was shown on the scoreboard instead with reduced scoreboard graphics. There was talk of the DJ booth being relocated higher up on that balcony area. Is this still happening? The full scoreboard was used at a Fire game and it was great.
Benches - doesn't look like anything will be done there sadly.
Catering facilities - anything planned to get around those massive queues?

 

[pjj365]

These basics need fixing. If not when IAW host CC final Devils will be a laughing stock. Visitors who don't normally travel willnot differentiate between Devils and IAW

 

[Electro]

I'd be surprised if these issues have not improved greatly. Then again with the history etc.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk