Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Chelsea's wedding

  1. Jul 31, 2010 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 31, 2010 #2

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  4. Jul 31, 2010 #3
  5. Jul 31, 2010 #4

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    It is, unfortunately, indispensable that children of prominent politicians is given a larger-than-usual degree of protection.

    If they were not, you could be certain some would take advantage of that situation, to the detriment of the child and the parents.

    There are risks that foreseeably will occur if you choose to become a politician, but it doesn't then follow that the outcome of such risks is not something we do not have a communal obligation to prevent.

    While a politician most definitely can stop whining if he gets bad-mouther, or quoted-out-of-context, his effective protection against
    criminal acts should be as great as that of an ordinary person.

    Since his position indubitably increases the risk of being a crime target, he is entitled to more formal protection than the ordinary person, in order to maintain his personal safety on an acceptable level.

    Same goes for his family members.
     
  6. Jul 31, 2010 #5
    That's to keep Bill away from the bridesmaids.
     
  7. Jul 31, 2010 #6

    He, or her. Their offspring should not be. The offspring did not raised to a function of any importance in a democracy. Theoretically, they should receive no protection save the one offered to any citizen. And since police is not a protection agency, but a law enforcement one, they should hire private bodyguards to protect their offspring, and not abuse governmental power to hinder or forbidden traffic of any kind (road, railway, aerial).

    If they feel there is a security risk they should marry their daughter in a private ceremony with no public exposure whatsoever.
     
  8. Jul 31, 2010 #7
    But, this is their personal event not state event. I see this more of an abuse of their power.





    There was another expensive wedding which +$55m, I don't know if similar security measurements were taken:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3830009.stm

    This wedding is "The wedding is expected to cost between $2m (£1.3m) and $3m (£1.9m), experts told the Associated Press news agency."
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10828516
     
  9. Jul 31, 2010 #8

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Completely wrong theory, founded upon the wilful ignoring of unpleasant facts.

    One of those unpleasant facts being that kidnappers do NOT "theoretically" disregard what status the parents have, or have had..
     
  10. Jul 31, 2010 #9
    How ? He is already there, giving away his daughter, and I think there will be enough Monica invited as guests already :surprised
     
  11. Jul 31, 2010 #10
    Actually, no. The theory is not wrong. The practice is wrong.
     
  12. Jul 31, 2010 #11

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Sure the theory is wrong.

    Since potential kidnappers (and other malefactors) do NOT regard the child's parentage irrelevant, neither should we.

    End of story, refutation of silly theory.
     
  13. Jul 31, 2010 #12

    Who cares ? If they feel there is a security risk, they should marry their daughter in catacombs far away from worlds eyes and hire a private security detail.

    Disrupting aerial traffic is something fit for the heirs of Rome's Imperators, not into a democracy :P
     
  14. Jul 31, 2010 #13
    :rofl:
     
  15. Jul 31, 2010 #14
    Tell this to the mothers who had children kidnapped on the streets of any city in USA or Europe, mon ami :P

    End of story :P This is a big ********

    PS.

    I hope you dont equate the life of a politician offspring with any more value that the life of a poor , needy neighbor of yours.
     
  16. Jul 31, 2010 #15

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    And, your point being?
     
  17. Jul 31, 2010 #16
    Prolly you'll learn it if you children will be kidnapped or otherwise harmed. You'll have the revelation.
     
  18. Jul 31, 2010 #17
    It has nothing to do with their power or any abuse. It's a law:

    http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml#faq9"
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
  19. Jul 31, 2010 #18
    "his or her / spouse". His legally responsible offspring should not receive protection. In any way not one payed from governmental money, and with flight interdiction.

    You are afraid for her ? Very well. Any parent would be. Marry her in a private ceremony, protected by a private security detail at a unknown location.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
  20. Jul 31, 2010 #19
    I'm not sure what you meant by this. Both Bill and Hillary would be protected by this law. If they show up for their daughter's wedding, the protection will be there too. In addition, there may be a law protecting the Secretary of State while she is in office as well.
     
  21. Jul 31, 2010 #20

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Since they are in attendance, they are given protection. Chelsea has the right to have any type of wedding she wishes.

    Not to mention the people that are in attendence. Wiping out all of those top US and foreign officials would be disastrous.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2010
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Chelsea's wedding
  1. The Wedding (Replies: 16)

  2. Torres Moves to Chelsea. (Replies: 41)

  3. The Royal Wedding. (Replies: 120)

Loading...