Security

Sometimes, I do think it is important to have higher security in London and London Theatres. I do think that the likes of Harry Potter are a bit over the top to do that at every single performance but, there are some examples of times when it is relevant. In this day and age, terrorism is high and London is a huge target. When I went to see Beautiful the day after the Paris attacks, there was extra security searching every person who entered, a proper pat down rather than just bags. Also, the people in the Upper Circle were asked to use a different entrance rather than the outside one as it was deemed to risky to have an entrance on the street at this specific time. But this was a time when London was on high alert for an attack. I don't think it should be Harry Potter level every single performance though, it does come across slightly like the Producers are making it over the top and more of a tourist attraction than it already is haha.

I agree. Though I think it is sometimes over the top, I'd rather the better safe than sorry approach than any danger to myself, the audience, theatre staff or performers and crew.

I think possibly the thought is the sheer publicity/profile of it? If a terrorist/individual WERE to decide on a theatrical target, then logically they'd go for the hightest profile target possible? 

I'm not sure how good security is at theatres though. Anytime I've been where there has been security and a bag search they take about 2 seconds. I'm not sure it's thorough enough to pick up anything. Almost as if it's just a token gesture.

No, I know. I was just mulling that over. 

Im just not sure how a theatre full of Potter fans merits more stringent security than a theatre full of Opera/ballet/Musical/Shakespeare fans I suppose. 

If (God forbid) there was an attack on HP would that garner more publicity than an attack on Dreamgirls?

I think it would, personally. In the same way an attack on an 'iconic' building garners more attention/long term notority than others. It's a global brand name being (theoretically) attacked rather than something that is fairly obscure to most people (in a worldwide sense)

For big scale terrorist attacks it's as much about the publicity (for want of a better term) 

I have no idea what that means. Can someone explain please?

Yes I would much rather have my bag checked or walk through a metal detector than risk a terrorist attack occurring.

If, god forbid, anything were to happen then like Snutte said the theatre industry would suffer massively. People would stop going to shows and I can see lots of theatres having to close. Look at what happened to Egypt and Tunisa's tourist economy after their terror attacks. The theatres should make us feel safe

Terrorism really mad 'fear', part of that is the fear something is going to happen.

If you want to completely isolate yourself from something happening, easy way to solve that is not leaving the house, which obviously is absurd. I think you are more a risk travelling to the theatre, than in the venue itself.

I don't think security at theatres is about security at all. They're always checking for contraband food stuffs or professional photography gear, but I don't believe they're actually security checking at all, apart from the basic "how drunk is THIS guy" and "oh heavens, I must break up that fight".

The fact we've not had a major terrorist attack in London in over ten years is I think a real testament to the larger forces who are tackling it all behind the scenes and putting a stop to things before they happen. There's also a lot to be said for our national response to the Dunblane tragedy. Sure, you can still get guns in the UK, but nowhere near as easily as in the US where any disaffected white boy can commit mass murder as easily as swatting a fly just because he thinks the world owes him a girlfriend or that racists have a good point actually. We probably also have a decent amount of protection still by being an island nation.

Also also I think theatre's elitist reputation might offer an additional (admittedly thin but) layer of protection. If I wanted to take out enough people to make a point, I'd rather go for somewhere like the O2, or Westfield if I'd spent all my money already on my means of mass destruction. If you want to get into a venue before committing an atrocity, there are cheaper and easier places to get into than, say, Cursed Child (assuming you'd make it easier on yourself by getting in via a legitimate method rather than just storming the place). If you really want to appal as many as people as possible, the general populace might not be that sad about losing a theatre full of poshos (which, WE know we're not, but the general populace, not so much).

It doesn't hurt to be aware of your surroundings and have a contingency plan for if awful things do suddenly happen (ALWAYS KNOW WHERE YOUR NEAREST FIRE EXIT IS AND PUT YOUR PHONE ON SILENT WITH NO VIBRATION IF S*** DOES HIT THE FAN) but it does hurt to worry too much. Don't let the terrorists frighten you into not living your life.

I don't think airline-style security would be possible or necessary for public transport. It would clearly be a technical impossibility considering the number of bus stops and railway stations there are, and there's also the issue that public transport isn't a very good target. Planes make great targets: a comparatively large number of people can be killed for a small amount of effort and the result is a news-friendly swathe of devastation cutting across the countryside, and there's also the dramatic contrast of happy holiday-makers being plunged into terror in an instant. A dozen commuters and pictures of a burnt-out bus aren't going to have the same effect. On a train most of the passengers wouldn't even notice something had happened.

In Europe there's the additional factor that after two world wars most countries have a level of pride in the idea of carrying on no matter what. Try as they might no terrorist organisation is going to come close to doing to Britain and Germany what those countries did to each other. Contrast that to the US, where war is something that happens in foreign lands. The US doesn't have a Coventry or a Dresden in living memory, and it shows.