London s Blackfriars Bridge has become an absolute shambles with thousands of cyclists being forced to squeeze through one lane due to security barriers put in place following recent terror attacks, groups have complained. Photos from the bridge early on Tuesday morning showed long queues as cyclists passed through the barriers, which authorities have been criticised for putting too close together. City Cyclists wrote on Twitter that the barriers on the bridge, which is on the route of Cycle Superhighway 6, are a good idea but they ve made the bus lane unusable + bike highway and footway way over capacity .
It added that cyclists had no issue with the barriers but they need to be done properly . The barriers were also installed at Lambeth, Waterloo and Westminster bridges following the London Bridge terror attack1 that killed seven, on June 3, and the Westminster Bridge attack, on March 22, that resulted in five deaths. Transport for London (Tfl) has been accused of making it safer to cycle on the road again on Blackfriars Bridge and the BBC s Tom Edwards tweeted that they had caused an absolute shambles .
He added: Barriers are put in by the Met with little consultation . City Hall says it is working to improve them short-term & for long term solution. Video from the bridge on Tuesday showed cyclists having to slow down before entering the barriers in single file as TFL officials watched on. Cyclists expressed their frustrations on social media.
One wrote: Four traffic officials needed to man new security barriers on the cycle highway over Blackfriars . People are going to get hurt when it s busier. While another implored London Mayor Sadiq Khan and Tfl to move the barriers further apart. A spokesman for London Cycling Campaign told the Evening Standard2 the barriers had created a real safety risk as they forced riders into quite fast traffic .
These barriers had to go up very fast indeed .
We hope that something can be done to modify or change them to provide security and not make things worse for cyclists, the spokesperson added. A TfL spokesperson directed HuffPost UK to the Metropolitan Police for comment, but added: The Met has installed barriers to increase security on London s busiest bridges.
We are working with them to ensure that these barriers affect cyclists and pedestrians as little as possible, while ensuring the security of all road users. The spokesperson said he was not aware of any complaints concerning other bridges where security barriers were put in place.
The Metropolitan Police have been contacted for comment but are yet to respond. Police, TfL, and council officials have faced serious questions over why barriers were not installed immediately after the terror attack in Westminster that saw Khalid Masood plough into four pedestrians before stabbing a police officer to death. The method of attack was replicated on June 3 on London Bridge, before the three attackers then stabbed people in nearby Borough Market.
Brexit: Business and security risks of leaving EU data sharing scheme ‘not on Tories’ radar’, experts warn
Conservative ministers are failing to recognise the danger to businesses and the fight against terrorism from losing rights to share data with the EU after Brexit, experts have warned. Britain risks a wait of up to three years to be granted an adequacy decision from Brussels, threatening to stop the flow of data immediately once EU withdrawal is completed in March 2019. There are fears just two weeks after the Manchester bombing that the police and security services will lose a vital weapon to counter terrorism and organised crime.
At stake is access to information-sharing through the Europol law enforcement agency and to the Schengen information system, which holds an 8,000-name watchlist of potential terror suspects. Now technology experts have told The Independent they fear the danger of a cliff edge is not being given appropriate priority or is even properly understood by the Government. Without a temporary agreement, companies will have to move part of their operations to the EU or risk losing business to rival firms on the Continent.
Crucially, in the absence of an over-arching deal, separate agreements would have to be struck with individual police forces and intelligence services with the danger that vital information will fall between the cracks , one expert said.
Those organisations would need to be persuaded that Britain can be trusted with data . At the very least, it s likely to be disruptive and uncertain, said Ruth Boardman, a partner at the international law firm Bird & Bird.
The worry is that government simply doesn t have this issue on its radar as a high enough priority for both the economy and law enforcement. The warning was echoed by Antony Walker, the deputy chief executive of the trade association techUK, who said: The danger of an ad-hoc fix is that things fall between the cracks and, for security issues, that would be a significant risk.
Ministers say this is on their list of 10 priority issues, but I m not sure they understand the full significance of the threat. The British Bankers Association has also warned the flow of data could lapse overnight at the point of UK exit from the EU .
Transitional arrangements are needed to avoid a damaging cliff edge effect in the movement of data between the EU and UK, it advised, in a recent policy document.
Strikingly, a Home Office minister, Baroness Williams of Trafford, left a House of Lords committee in the dark when she gave evidence on the controversy in April. She was unable to say what the transition arrangements might look like , telling peers: I am not being unhelpful . It is just that I cannot. Asked whether Britain was willing to sign up to amendments to data transfer rules after Brexit, to ensure continued compliance, Baroness Williams replied: I literally do not know .
That is to be determined. The minister was also unable to say whether anyone from the Home Office would be represented at the Brexit negotiations, to ensure the issue was given prominence. The threat arises because, after Brexit, the UK will be treated as a third country requiring the European Commission to be satisfied it will protect data to the same degree as EU members.
Both Ms Boardman and Mr Walker warned that securing the adequacy decision would take at least two years, from March 2019, on the basis of such negotiations in the past making a temporary deal the only option. Furthermore, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that mass data retention of the kind allowed in the UK under the Investigatory Powers Act, or snoopers charter , is unlawful, throwing up a further hurdle. And Theresa May has insisted the ECJ will not have any legal authority in the UK after Brexit despite Sir Julian King, the European commissioner responsible for security, insisting that will be necessary.
Ms Boardman added: Anyone asked about the state of UK data law after Brexit would say they don t have a clue, because there is nothing there to tell us we simply don t know what they are going to do. Mr Walker said the alternatives to an adequacy decision don t give strong legal certainty and would be difficult and costly to put in place . Warning businesses need time to move data functions to within the EU, if necessary, he said: The cliff edge is not right at the end of the process for business the cliff edge is soon .
We need a solution soon. A Conservative spokeswoman said: We have been very clear that as part of the Brexit negotiations, we want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU to ensure continued cooperation on security . Theresa May is the best person to secure that arrangement.
Hello All, I would like to ask a question regarding pre-employment medical screening for close protection jobs. What type of information do you have to disclose on a pre-employment questionnaire? Are there any bars or specifics that would stop you from taking on a CP role?
I have completed pre-employment health / medical questionnaires in the past, but not for close protection officer positions, is there a lot of difference? Does anyone have an example of what is asked or required? Lastly, when some companies and organisations ask for a pre-employment medical do they just want you to complete the paperwork and return it with maybe confirmation from your g.p?
Or do some companies have a policy that they want you to complete a medical with a medical professional of their choosing? All experiences and information regarding these issues would be much appreciated, especially from guys who have worked maybe for more than one company in a CP role. Thanks in advance.
Close Protection Medical Standards 2017