Talk of the Town: Disproportionate need for protection

Comments on “Disproportionate need for protection,” (Editorial, 8/09/24) via https://opinion.inquirer.net:

Freed of the humongous burden of her former Cabinet position and other responsibilities after voluntarily resigning from these, it seems kind of unbecoming that she would be loudly demanding that her security detail remains as it is, inordinately too large as it has become, even more so in such a rude and accusing tone. It does not look good.

ricelander

Let the police do their job—the policing by implementing national and local laws account each and every single member of the police force in their contribution to the general public safety. Itemize their work and position and let us see if protective detail is police work. To the members of the Senate and House, nothing defines in the world of earth that a police officer’s task is to protect and act as protective detail (bodyguard). Gumawa po kayo ng batas to create a protective detail service for your security importance as a political leader, not the police force to protect your egos. You always tell the police to be apolitical in enforcing the laws yet you want them to act as your bodyguards—a profession that requires your personal trust and confidence.

Amao Sedong

Close to 400 people as guards? 50 is already a crazy number. This just shows she’s got a small army guarding her. Waste of taxes. Whoever decided this was okay needs to live in the slums for a month.