I wasn't searched at all for Hilary Clinton, and I was searched only once (of maybe about ten comings and goings at the hotel) for QEII. OTOH, once my hotel in Istanbul had a policy of searching everyone, but on other visits (and other hotels) in Istanbul and elsewhere in Turkey, no. In fact, the one that searched me was the worst hotel of the bunch.

Didn't you mean "opposite" side? ;) ;)

The problem with these type of measures is that the actual gain in regard to security of their guest is negligible. While this may prevent people from walking into the building straight forward through the main door, my guess is that there are at least 10 other ways getting in there that are not secured in any other way. And people would probably be able to get illicit equipment even through that main entrance if they just disguise that cleverly enough...

The way this is set up it's only use is to calm people to make them feel safe (as evidenced here, e.g. "I'd take it as a benefit, not a hassle.") and maybe (no reports on this, but this has been done in other countries) to prevent people from bringing in outside food and drinks "for security reasons". Other than that it's utterly useless, and I agree that this type of checkpoint is unwarranted for in a first world hotel located in a major city...

Greetings - Dirk

During the 2012 Olympic Games, because the men's football teams were staying at the the Glasgow Marriott, it had full scale security on the go (it was severely underplayed on their website though!). On arrival at the property I'd to prove I had a reservation and my car reg number noted, next the car was checked for incendiary devices before we could go park it. Then before you got into the hotel you'd to go through airport style security and your bags scanned too. Although it was annoying and inconvenient, you knew the rationale for it ie so there wasn't a repeat of what happened in Munich.

I had friends visiting in London this weekend and they said that before they got into Liverpool Street Station to get their train home they'd to undergo a security search to get into the station.

As the saying goes, better safe than sorry.

Right, because FIRST WORLD countries are terrorism and bombing proof and all of the Western Chain hotels that have been blown up before was just a fluke. :rolleyes:

You would need to make a risk-weighted assessment though.

The pattern of recent attacks in the UK tend towards either crowded locations (tube, concert), or vehicle attacks.

Arguably the JW doesn't fit the "crowded location" profile, and the introduced measures would do nothing against a vehicle attack. So considering a risk-weighted view, I'd argue that the risk doesn't justify the response, unless there is a particularly high-profile individual or individuals staying at the JW at the moment.

Personally speaking I'd say that the JW would be better off investing in large nonintrusive planters / bollards outside to guard against a vehicle attack.

This is ongoing at the Sheraton Grand in London as well.

London is at its highest security threat. I would expect this extra security and appreciate it. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/opinio...sts/index.html

While it may be normal at international hotels in some
less developed parts of the world, it's not a common feature at most international hotels in most OECD countries.

Also, these searches are most typically a dog and pony show as the means to have weapons, explosives and incendiaries inside a hotel doesn't take genius even at properties where these checks do take place.

It's mostly just a comfort measure for the nervous nellies. It's really not additional security. It's additional expenditure in the name of "security" and a measure to make customers in the main to "feel better/safer" even as the measures are of marginal benefit, if even that, for "security". Additional "security" theater.

Well before this summer, the hotel and neighborhood had some measures in place to reduce the impact of an attempted vehicle attack.

Well put. If someone wants to shoot up the lobby of a hotel, having a metal detector or a couple of hotel security guys with wands is going to slow you down for about 1 second as the shooter might stop to laugh at them.

FWIW, as noted above, the security threat has already been lowered to the 2nd-highest. There is, however, an increased security presence on the streets of Central London.

Just curious, would you also never go to a 'first world' sporting event, concert or other event that similarly has bag searches, pat-downs and wanding ?

I no longer go to Redskins games since they do patdowns, and have curtailed my outings to Nationals games due to metal detectors. I used to go to 20 or so baseball games a year, now it's about 1-2. If they moved to wandings or patdowns, I would not go at all.

I can maintain control of my Fist of Death for bag searches, but will not accept anyone touching me under the "it's for your own safety" security theater.

My very last football game a few years back (OAK) my companions missed the first half having to check a pocketbook for a $5 fee. I doubt I'll ever go back to an NFL game again. BTW, I have no trouble sneaking in bottles which avoid standing in costly long lines. It's all for show...

You should be thankful for the added security and not complain IMHO.