LSE’s provisions for security in Residences are clearly inadequate.

This week The Beaver’s investigations have shown just how simple it is to gain access to a student residence, entering both students’ rooms and supposedly secure areas. Unlocked doors and fire exits make for easy access. 

Had our reporters been interested in theft they would have been able to acquire amongst other things a British passport, an i-pod, an entire stock of microwaves and a brand new dummy CCTV camera. Not to mention the keys to every room at High Holborn, which were rather conveniently stored in an unlocked basement room, putting every resident at risk. Meanwhile at Bankside, unmonitored CCTV footage recorded a man breaking and entering through a ground floor window into a student’s room. In less than a minute, he was able to steal the student’s mobile phone and leave entirely unnoticed.

Further, last term The Beaver was able to show that the level of security is such that a single individual was able to live illegally in Rosebery Hall and elsewhere on campus for years entirely escaping notice of security and concern from students.

What level of serious incident will need to take place for the School to actually start realising that the failure to secure its buildings is putting the welfare of students at risk? Such poor standards of security are unacceptable and fail to protect LSE students in the very place they should feel most safe: their halls of residence. It is imperative that some action be taken to highlight this issue, and students must speak out against the incompetence of the current security systems in place. 

At the same time, students themselves need to take heed of the safety and security advice. In a hall of residence such as High Holborn, there should be no reason that a flat door, with slam locks, should be left open so that anyone can walk in. Central London is one of the greatest places in the world to live, but the reality of the environment is such that we should not be so care-free about our own well-being or that of our belongings.

It is absurd that a student considered his or her room not worth locking when it contained over £1000 worth of electronics, a passport and bank statements. This lackadaisical attitude is commonplace, and we must be careful when criticising LSE security to note that students are as much if not more to blame for their vulnerability. Perhaps this exposure will show students how important it is to take some responsibility for their belongings. 


Meanwhile The Beaver pledges to its readers that it will continue testing LSE security, providing a much needed test of those systems currently in place.