Munch Attendees

22 Apr 2007

Please do not read this post, or use this thread as any sort of personal attack on any specific or individual munch organiser.
The SUBJECT/TOPIC is "Munch Attendees"

Quote by A Munch Organiser
Important announcement
I just wanted you all to know about two guests who will be attending the Munch. These are the two people who will be working on the publication of the Swinging Heaven Magazine.
The reason behind the visit is to get to see first hand what a Munch actually is like and hopefully to get to see what a fantastic bunch of people you all are.
They will not be bringing any cameras or interviewing people on the night, as the aim of the visit is purely for them to see what goes on and get some ideas of what we, the members of Swinging Heaven, want from the Magazine.
I can assure everyone who is attending the Munch, that there is nothing deceitful behind the visit, and that your privacy will not be invaded in any way.

My very first response, and reason for not attending, is to the final sentence. My privacy willbe invaded. By their very presence. I chose therefore, to not attend. That's all very simple really. There was something about the Munch that I didn't like, so decided not to go. Nothing more - nothing less. Life for me is so easy in this very simple world I live.
But . . . . .

Quote by dirtyduo
Dont forget, if we feel threatened by the presence of these people, how does Mrs NWC feel, she has put her neck on the line trusting these people. What ever the threat might be for members to feel wary of, Mrs and Mr NWC have the same threat levelled at them.

But is the "threat" ( dunno

) to NWC the same "threat" to you ? Or to me and mine ? Could the "threat" and/or any consequences be different to different people.
I personally see no "threat"

Quote by dirtyduo
Annie is there to help promote our activities.

To whom ?
For what purpose ?
On behalf of whom ?
I've actually lost track of the proposed purpose of said magazine. I think I remember reading somewhere that it's "our" magazine, for "us" :dunno: At the time I allowed my own cynicism to tell me otherwise. I still do.

Quote by dirtyduo
Right, anybody else wants use of the soapbox?

If expressing opinions and concerns means having to stand on a soapbox, then it looks like I'm going to have very clean feet rolleyes

Quote by dirtyduo
We understand everyones worries but sorry they did not trust MRS NWC more.

This has nothing to do with trusting or not NWC.

Quote by fabio

The reason behind the visit is to get to see first hand what a Munch actually is like and hopefully to get to see what a fantastic bunch of people you all are.

what is the advice given to a lot of people that want to get into the scene, go to a munch and see what we are like, and from what I see that is all they are doing,

Indeed it is fabio. It is the general advice that both you and I (and others) have often given. To, as you say above, people that want to get into the scene. Get into the scene as (possible) participants, and/or members of the site/scene/lifestyle.

so now lets play devils advocate......
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/131372.html
go back to lilacgems thread about not wanting to go the munches again because . . . . . .
what is the difference in this case? I don't see it.....

Although I can't see a connection between the two, I'll also play Devil's Advocate a little and offer this as a counter . . . . . .

A Munch is open to all - couples, singles, Gay, Bi, CDs, etc., there are no limits. The exception to this is the brand new newbie, i.e. those who have just joined the site or have not been an active participant on Swinging Heaven. This is only to prevent gawpers, journalists and those who are just TOO curious. Remember, if you are keen to attend a Munch and meet other swingers, but are considered too new for this one, join in and keep posting because there'll be another Munch coming along shortly.

To be absolutely clear - I do not view 4T and/or their representatives and agents as members of the site, scene, or lifestyle. In particular, I would and do view the SHM editor and staff as journalists. Please don't misunderstand that, or see it as a dig. It isn't. They have their part to play and get from SH what they do. I have mine, and get from SH what I do.

Quote by kazswallows
I don't like the idea of being in a goldfish bowl, regardless of whether or not they will be doing interviews/photo's.
If I wanted to be watched or talk to someone about this lifestyle I would do it on my terms at a time convenient to me. I don't want it to be when I'm out enjoying myself with friends.

. . . and that's pretty much how I feel about it.

Maybe this can be split from the original munch thread so people can discuss it properly without detracting from the munch??

I'm trying Sweetie rotflmao

I was appalled to read what I did in the actual Munch thread :roll:
And finally, Esther . . . .
I'm not naive enough to ignore the fact that Munches have changed, almost beyond recognition, of late; but - I can't help but believe the inclusion of "other people" goes against the ethos - regardless of their purpose and intent if the following passage isn't respected.

A munch is a purely social event held in a totally neutral environment, often somewhere like a pub, where members of Swinging Heaven get to meet each other. As there's no play involved everyone can relax which gives newbies a chance to ask questions of the more experienced without any fear of getting jumped on, and gives the regulars time to catch-up with old friends and make new ones.

Discuss

22 Apr 2007

Would Annie be getting her tits out?

22 Apr 2007

Quote by PoloLady
Would Annie be getting her tits out?

Wouldn't that be "inappropriate behaviour at a munch" ????
bolt

22 Apr 2007

Quote by dambuster
Would Annie be getting her tits out?

Wouldn't that be "inappropriate behaviour at a munch" ????
bolt

Not according to some munchers and the rules - apparently.
But I do have a less flippant question:
Why would the SHM want to write about munches, something that is so openly discussed and already has masses of info written about them on the forum and other parts of the site? I do recall it being explained that the magazine was not going to be a duplicate of the forum – if I am not mistaken?
So… Who is the target audience for this 'article'?

22 Apr 2007

this looks as if the debate has raged elsehwere.. but it also appears, as stated, a good subject to be thrown out for discussion etc.....
hmmm... now then, I'm no great (so far) attendee of Munches and whatnot... but I'm learning, and what Ive seen/done so far, they have thier place, are enjoyed by many... and have thier own rules and guidlines to help ensure a good night for all guests, developed, no doubt, over time.
Isn't one of those rules that attendees at Munches be Members of the site... not guests of members, and I thought, though I'm not going to go check, that there was a mention of no reporters etc etc.
(a journalist being a reporter, or am I a little slow here?)
so... I can undertand why some folk, the members attending a Members-only, private event, may feel uncomfortable with thought of being viewed in their social activity for the benefit of the entertainment of readers of a magazine.... be that with annonymity assured, or otherwise.
It might well just put a pawl (sp?) over the evening for some... forcing an adjustment to thier behaviour... feeling observed by *strangers* and fearing judgemental reporting, perhaps?
would the *guests* be announced publicaly at the start of the evening?
Maybe wear a Munch badge stating:
non participatory *guest*
>SH Magazine<
so that Members can choose to speak to, or avoid the *guest* as they see fit?
Im not happy with the idea of the guest attending Member's events... but that's just me.
SHM's reporters may want to think about interviewing members seperately... not as part of an event, for thier feelings about Munches?
or invite members, for a fee, to submit thier own articles following a specific brief?
gotta go now... my fingers hurt
lp

22 Apr 2007

Quote by PoloLady
But I do have a less flippant question:
Why would the SHM want to write about munches, something that is so openly discussed and already has masses of info written about them on the forum and other parts of the site? I do recall it being explained that the magazine was not going to be a duplicate of the forum – if I am not mistaken?
So… Who is the target audience for this 'article'?

'Article' ??????
Who is the target audience for the whole Mag ? - but that's another question.

22 Apr 2007

Quote by bartdutch
2. Site has given up the moral high ground and it will be very difficult for it to admonish people, without looking a total prat( one rule for the rest, another rule for the selected few.)

:scared: don't say that here I'm bolt

22 Apr 2007

Got to admit itDammie youve covered all the angles for me and mine. We concur.
Respect

22 Apr 2007

Quote by dambuster

But I do have a less flippant question:
Why would the SHM want to write about munches, something that is so openly discussed and already has masses of info written about them on the forum and other parts of the site? I do recall it being explained that the magazine was not going to be a duplicate of the forum – if I am not mistaken?
So… Who is the target audience for this 'article'?

'Article' ??????
Who is the target audience for the whole Mag ? - but that's another question.
I can understand the thinking behind the magazine based on what has been said about articles (hopefully well written and checked for accuracy on information which may be taken as fact) that would not normally be discussed at any length or in any depth in the forum or on the site. However, an article about site munches wouldn't be any of that now would it?

22 Apr 2007

With regard to the threat level being the same for everyone, I don't think that's true:
Some members are happy for everyone and anyone to know they are swingers, I for one am not. I value my privacy.
-I do not know who Annie is or the other "guest" dunno

-I do not know if they are genuinely interested in swinging :dunno:
or
-If they think we're a bunch of filthy perverts and they only took the job because they needed to pay the mortgage. :dunno:
I don't know where abouts they live. Could they be my next door neighbour/friend/relative? :dunno:
What I do know is that the rules were put in place and the mods have done a lot of things to make sure they are upheld - to the extent of asking organisers to remove the names of "non-active" members or unsticky and relabel the events as socials and declare "non-active members/vanilla friends" are attending. confused

With regards to Pololady's post, I think this is a valid point.
If the magazine is aimed at "all swingers".
-Some people on this site love munches
-Some people on this site hate munches
-A lot of swingers don't use websites and wouldn't even entertain the idea of a munch.
If the magazine is only aimed at site members, I don't see the point :?
As a proactive note, if the editor does still want to go ahead with this, I think his&hers had the right idea. :thumbup:
A social (calling it a munch would be breaking site rules) could be organised and members could choose for themselves if they are satisfied their is no threat to theirpersonal circumstances and choose if theyare comfortable attending

22 Apr 2007

Quote by HornyLittleBlonde
I do not know...
I do not know...
I don't know...

And the thing I don’t know is...
the contractual terms of the editor or this ‘undisclosed’ guest in terms of what they can and cannot do with any information about swingers/members they pick up here (both whilst they are working here or after they stop working here!)

22 Apr 2007

Quote by PoloLady
And the thing I don’t know is...
the contractual terms of the editor or this ‘undisclosed’ guest in terms of what they can and cannot do with any information about swingers/members they pick up here (both whilst they are working here or after they stop working here!)

:thumbup:
Hence why I will always decide for myself what I determine to be risk and so should every other member of this site
And in terms of rules for future "Munches" - in my mind there is a clear distinction between a site member and a paid employee who has a login

22 Apr 2007

As a member of SH i think i would be a little uncomfortable at the thought of anyone from "the magazine" being at a munch.
Munches are for members, new and old to attend a social gathering of people actively seeking involvement in the pursuit of said swinging :shock: .
I think a lot of the old SH crew would testify that muches and socials have changed significantly and that the ethos of the site has changed.
In reality this is now a profit making site, there is no getting away from it, and to be honest there is nothing wrong with the site, making money from "the site".
I think in my humble opinion, that the SH magazine is a bad idea as it will open the flood gates to the people who aren't really interested in what the site was originally intended for.
Why have journalist and/or writers of magazine articles at a munch, they dont really belong there and may alienate the people that do from attending by their very presence. Can they not get an idea of what people want in this magazine by asking about it in a forum especially created for the magazine? (just an idea).
I agree with dambuster on a large amount of his thread and think there is a lot more to think about than whether this will affect only the munch that the journalists are attending.
This site is supposed to be about its members, thats how it creates profit, it would be better if this had been discussed before hand and a general opinon reached!

22 Apr 2007

munches are not the ownership of the site.
they are only for active members to be invited to.
if the "reporters " are not going to mentally take notes, ( if not overtly conducting interviews) then why are they going?? they are as far as im aware not active in the swingng lifestyle, other than making money from it, so why even want to attend???? oh yeah to take mental notes to use in a artical , so they are therfore actually being a reporter?, and no reporters are allowed. rolleyes

we are not anthropological (sp) studies. please do not treat us as such and think the best way to study "us swingers" is to try and sociolise with us.
this is insulting and ignorant.
munches are as far as im aware a "special" event thought up by this site and its members, so why does the fact need massive advertisement/ promotion call it what you will in a non member freely availabe magazine??
so we can have a whole load of numpties joining the site and hoping to have a field trip out to study the lesser spotted swinger????
never liked the idea of a mag,and people being "paid" for articals, was once upon a time you couldnt say you had a tv for sale here, yet now it seems you can sell a story????
hummm
glad im not attending this munch
and ty dammie for bringing this out of the munch thread where i woudnt have read it ( as i wasnt attending) to the members attention.
i can hear the cash cow being milked
xxxx fem xxx

22 Apr 2007

Quote by HornyLittleBlonde
If the magazine is only aimed at site members, I don't see the point
As a proactive note, if the editor does still want to go ahead with this, I think his&hers had the right idea. :thumbup:
A social (calling it a munch would be breaking site rules) could be organised and members could choose for themselves if they are satisfied their is no threat to their personal circumstances and choose if they are comfortable attending

I think the above is a good idea. Rather than have the guests attend a munch at this moment in time then why not arrange area shm socials. I know it need someone to arrange such things so may not happen.
As of this time all munches and social activities are arranged on a voluntary basis and there are no official Site or site owner run events and this may be a good opportunity to change that.
The only worry i have at the moment is the fact the editor is unknown and was made a member when taking on the job as editor thus it is unknow if she or any of the shm team are part of the scene.
Im still not worried enough to not attend the munch in question as of this time and have not yet decided untill i have more info from the organiser and others.
I/we have been given assurances on the reasons for them attending an my privacy and until anything changes on that i will keep with that view for now untill i know or learn more.

22 Apr 2007

I have no problem with the site being a commercial venture.
I have a problem with the fact that as it is a commercial venture it has a duty of care to it’s customers.
There are already far to many loop-holes, inconsistencies, double-standards, infringements and actions of down right wilful neglect in terms of this duty of care and how rules are applied – without opening up more cans of worms and exposing members to what are at this time unknown risks.
In wanting to expose it’s customers to people who potentially could use information gathered at munches (as well as on this site) for reasons outside of the SHM publication – what steps have the site taken to ensure it upholds and respects the privacy of it’s members?
Some people may not mind information about them appearing in SHM... but would they be so happy if it appeared in the NotW 2 months later with a slightly different slant to it dunno

It is a very simple question which could reassure most people (if it’s the right answer that is)... What does it say just above the dotted line?

22 Apr 2007

I think we have hit a dangerous mark.... because unless you ask every single person on the site what there occupation is, how are you suppose to know, if someone just happened to be a swinger and a journo/freelance writer are you going to tell them they can't come along because of the job they happen to do....so whos next????
I know of journo's and freelance writers who have been to munches, I hate to shatter any illusions they haven't, I suppose they haven't written about it because they are swingers, they want to keep their public and personal lives seperate,
the one person i feel upset for is NWC, that for someone who has organised a lot of socials and munches for the site and for all our benefits, that her judgement on this matter was questioned, or rather than actually ask her about it people were pulling out.........
and if this whole sorry episode has put her, or any other potential organisor off doing other events... then we have all lost out.......

22 Apr 2007

Quote by dambuster
To be absolutely clear - I do not view 4T and/or their representatives and agents as members of the site, scene, or lifestyle. In particular, I would and do view the SHM editor and staff as journalists. Please don't misunderstand that, or see it as a dig. It isn't. They have their part to play and get from SH what they do. I have mine, and get from SH what I do.

agreed :thumbup:

Quote by kazswallows

Maybe this can be split from the original munch thread so people can discuss it properly without detracting from the munch??

I'm trying Sweetie rotflmao

I was appalled to read what I did in the actual Munch thread rolleyes

You and me both and thankyou smile

I believed that munch attendees had to be active and trusted members of the site to get an invite. If they weren't then and active/trusted member of the site had to vouch for them.
This was among other things to stop us living in a goldfish bowl, with threats of reporters/journalists attending.
I have seen many of the older members write posts about 'what is a munch'. The difference this time is these are paid journalists. They, even by observing are prying into our personal lives.
The magazine will be on sale to anyone that wants one. The powers that be may decide to make it available to site members only, well thats not hard to become is it? Not even for my 12 year old :shock:
The whole idea of being watched makes me feel sick.
The whole thing is becoming too commercialized for me.
Yes I can leave the site, go elsewhere, but why should I. My friends are here as well and I am a genuine member.
As has been said on here, there is loads of information about what goes on before, during and after munches.
If you want to come to a munch, then be a liked minded individual not someone who is there to get a salary.
bolt

22 Apr 2007

ok, so all MEMBERS may not disclose their occupation before attending a munch, but they are attending as swingers, and are site members.
these journalists are attending as that. they have nothing to lose if the story/info was used as they are not swingers.
in fact they indend to use the info they gather
please dont tell me they are not going in a work capacity and if there not then why go, as far as they are concerned???
xxx fem xxx

22 Apr 2007

Quote by fabio
the one person i feel upset for is NWC,...that her judgement on this matter was questioned, or rather than actually ask her about it people were pulling out.........

Sorry Fabio, but I think you're completely wrong on this point.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not so stupid that I don't assume any swinging event is risk free, but I reserve the right to pull out of an event if I personally am not happy with a change in circumstances.
Nobody else knows mypersonal life circumstances in full and noone apart from me can decide what I personallyconsider to be too risky.
I made the decision that I was not happy to attend so withdrew. I didn't make a song & dance in the thread and I have pm'd NWC (who I think is lovely) to explain my reasons why in full.
And regardless of that, it was against the site's own guidelines for munches. Guidelines that were only updated 2 weeks ago (see st3v3's sticky in LMU).
If the mods and admin are going to ignore the guidelines, how the fluck can they expect other organisers to abide by them? dunno

A Munch is open to all - couples, singles, Gay, Bi, CDs, etc., there are no limits. The exception to this is the brand new newbie, i.e. those who have just joined the site or have not been an active participant on Swinging Heaven. This is only to prevent gawpers, journalists and those who are just TOO curious.

Or is it just me that missed the smallprint that states "With the exception of SHM journalists"? :dunno:

22 Apr 2007

Quote by fabio
I think we have hit a dangerous mark.... because unless you ask every single person on the site what there occupation is, how are you suppose to know, if someone just happened to be a swinger and a journo/freelance writer are you going to tell them they can't come along because of the job they happen to do....so whos next????

I often profess to live what I call "the real world"
And I've also (now even publicly) said that there is far more chance of me, PoloLady, or even you fabio, being an "undercover journo"

I know of journo's and freelance writers who have been to munches, I hate to shatter any illusions they haven't, I suppose they haven't written about it because they are swingers, they want to keep their public and personal lives seperate,

and there, you answer your own point/question - "I suppose they are swingers"

the one person i feel upset for is NWC, that for someone who has organised a lot of socials and munches for the site and for all our benefits, that her judgement on this matter was questioned

Hence this (preferably) completely different thread ! !

or rather than actually ask her about it people were pulling out.........

:x :x
I don't know if that was "aimed" at anyone, or at all - but as I was one of the first to pull out, I'll put myself int he firing line.
A decision was made by a Munch organiser that I disagreed with. "I" disagreed with. I became uncomfortable about the Munch - so I chose not to go. I did not explain my reasons in public for the very reason that I didn't want any can of worms opening, or create a distraction from the Munch itself ! ! !

and if this whole sorry episode has put her, or any other potential organisor off doing other events... then we have all lost out.......

"sorry episode" ???????????
Sorry fucking episode ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Words fail me - except . . . .

Quote by dambuster
Please do not read this post, or use this thread as any sort of personal attack on any specific or individual munch organiser.
The SUBJECT/TOPIC is "Munch Attendees"

22 Apr 2007

no it wasn't pointed at you dammie.......
however I have talk to people who were looking at holding munches and have now decided that after seeing "the fight" that happened in the thread last night that it is not worth holding one.... hence why i called it a "whole sorry episode"
I personally was going to announce a munch for october but after seeing everything not anymore... the infighting is too much for me, i don't need to hassle, my health and sanity are worth too much..... and I know that others feel the same

22 Apr 2007

I love munches, Ive bought my (rather fab!) costume, and I'm still going.
I saw the notice about there being a jounalist attending, and at the time it didn't bother me at all, but after reading other people's comments I can see where they are coming from.
I agree that "Annie" should be introduced at at the beginning of the night, and should have some sort of indicator so that even when people are very tipsy they still can decide whether or not to speak to her.
I also agree that the mag would be better served asking people for their opinions on a dedicated thread.
I cant help but feel that if this person is expecting/hoping/interested in seeing some sexual activity, they might as well just go to a swinging club, seeing as Munches are designed to be purely non-sexual functions.
Anyway I'm still 100% looking forward to it lol

Cherry x

22 Apr 2007

Quote by fabio
I personally was going to announce a munch for october but after seeing everything not anymore... the infighting is too much for me, i don't need to hassle, my health and sanity are worth too much..... and I know that others feel the same

Indeed.

Quote by dambuster
:( :( :( :(
Oh - Heavy Heart.
Due mainly to the topic itself, and some of the comments/suggestions/ideas in the now locked thread about munch behaviour; it is with sincere and VERY deep regret that I have to tell you that I will not be putting on this Munch.
I'm hoping that nobody has yet made any firm arrangements and certainly not yet booked hotel rooms or had any financial outlay.
I do know that some have already rearranged other things and had to make a choice between Munching or "other stuff"
To those, and indeed, everyone - I can only apologise.
I am so very sorry.

from here - http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopicpage/86860/60.html

22 Apr 2007

As far as I am aware, (from what I read this morning in the Wigan Munch thread), NWC has decided not to have the journalists at this event after all so no one should be concerned about that particular event.
Although it was that thread that raised the issue, this is (at this moment in time) now a hypothetical debate for site members to give their views

22 Apr 2007

And I've also (now even publicly) said that there is far more chance of me, PoloLady, or even you fabio, being an "undercover journo"

May I quote you on that? lol

22 Apr 2007

Quote by PoloLady
May I quote you on that?

Of course you may.
:shock: - You just did :shock:
But you need to get your / and [ and # and ~ and > 's in the right places.
As do we all
wink

22 Apr 2007

Quote by fabio
I think we have hit a dangerous mark.... because unless you ask every single person on the site what there occupation is, how are you suppose to know, if someone just happened to be a swinger and a journo/freelance writer are you going to tell them they can't come along because of the job they happen to do....so whos next????
I know of journo's and freelance writers who have been to munches, I hate to shatter any illusions they haven't, I suppose they haven't written about it because they are swingers, they want to keep their public and personal lives seperate,
and if this whole sorry episode has put her, or any other potential organisor off doing other events... then we have all lost out.......

Fabs whilst ive met you and think ur a great guy i dont agree with some of what you have said here, namely...
"the one person i feel upset for is NWC, that for someone who has organised a lot of socials and munches for the site and for all our benefits, that her judgement on this matter was questioned, or rather than actually ask her about it people were pulling out......... "
Now i dont know NWC and though im sure they are great people themselves and have seen their posts on the Forum and know them to have done a lot for the site users, but are the attendees of a munch to rely on their judgment that these journalists are not a threat to the attendees privacy and discretion?
I certainly wouldn't trust anyone else's judgment in this instance and if i had been going i would have pulled out (but would have PM'd NWC and tod them why)
had i have been informed journalists were going. As others have said, the very fact journalists are there even in a non-questionig capacity doesn't stop them from getting information or forming their own ideas about what is going on.
This isn't a slur toward NWC at all just an opinion that i believe a munch organiser should have considered the implications of having these people at the event a little more thoroughly. People attending will inevitably think that they are in a goldfish bowl or being scrutinized and socially disected thus stopping them from being able to act in a way they would naturally have acted should this not have been an issue.
How many people would think " journalists are going to be there OMG" then the mind starts racing "what will they think of me, swingers etc,etc" making it imposible for the attendees to behave to their usual norms? This would ruin an otherwise great evening for a lot of people possibly?

22 Apr 2007

Quote by HornyLittleBlonde
Although it was that thread that raised the issue, this is (at this moment in time) now a hypothetical debate for site members to give their views

indeed... and it is something that should IMHO be *put to the hoardes* for discussion...
I hope the munche/s effected go ahead and all involved have the best of times.
lp

22 Apr 2007

I'm not attending my first SH munch til November, but I organise events so I do have quite a strong view on this.
I don't particularly like the idea of the SHM staff being at this munch or any other. I'm a person who happens to swing, I wouldn't wish to be studied by non swingers at an event, whether they are journalists or someone's mate who fancied a gander at The Swingers.
Of course, I am assuming that both people are non swingers, the fact that they need to attend an event to find out what they're like suggests to me that they aren't swingers. I may be wrong about that?
But....that makes me wonder if there are any people working on the magazine with actual knowledge of the lifestyle in the first place. If not, then attending one munch will hardly equip them with enough understanding, so would they need to attend more?
I'd be genuinely surprised if anyone at SHM finds this reaction a shock, people feel uneasy about being observed in this fashion by people they are unfamilar with (SHMEditor) and someone who remains unidentified (the other guest). That's why the munch rules state that only members can attend. Ultimately, munches and socials are the domain of site members, organised by them, attended by them and funded by them. Using peoples social lives as a research tool suddenly makes a relaxed event for like minded individuals a night out where people will be guarded and on edge.
I can understand why SHM wants to do it but it's just a little too invasive imho.