Tags
Armenia
Austria
Belgio
Bulgaria
Cechia
Croatia
Croazia
Czech
Czechia
Czech Republic
Danimarca
Denmark
Estonia
Europa
Europe
France
Francia
Germania
Germany
Grecia
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Irlanda
Polonia
Polska
Portogallo
Portugal
Regno Unito
Repubblica Ceca
Repubblica di Turchia
Romania
Serbia
Slovacchia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Svezia
Sweden
Turchia
Turkey
Ucraina
Ucraino
Ukraine
Ungheria
United Kingdom
8 Comments
We still going on about this?
On the whole, it makes sense for her to have it. The risk for terrorism, assassination and/or kidnapping would be extremely high.
I don’t like it when celebrities get preferential treatment, but there are cases where there is legitimate security risk, and a star as big as she is right now, is that risk.
My daughter went to one of these concerts. I’m very grateful that, considering the Vienna terrorist threat and the Southport murders (edited because I’m a moron), managing the risk for Swift and the concert goers was taken so seriously. Knowing that she got this enhanced security suggests to me that the security around the concert itself was also significantly increased.
Imagine for a second there was no police protection after bomb and death threats, and something had happened. The furore in the the press would be unimaginable.
Personally I’m glad she’s safe and managed to perform at her shows
She should call the next tour in the UK: much ado about nothing
As long as she pays for the extra policing i can’t see a problem. I’m sure she can afford it.
Seen the front page on Sky News press preview around the same time so scrolled back to comment.
It reads like the very high bar for this sort of protection hadn’t been reached – the Met applied the rules fairly and consistently. However ‘government’ applied pressure to ensure the arrangements were put in place. The unusual bit being government is considered political which shouldn’t be applying pressure like this.
Either intelligence wasn’t being shared with the Met, it was political or Taylor’s camp used a connection to push for it.
Honestly, I don’t care. It was the right decision to provide it even at tax payers expense. I know some might suggest it’s non story but the transparency is important.
She needed protection. It would make the UK look awful if something happened.
It’s not that long ago someone bombed an Arianna Grande concert in Manchester. I’d prefer it if we make an effort to avoid things like that.
Are we paying for this shit? No way we as UK taxpayers should be fronting some celebs security.