Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Lido operators and lifeguards have a legitimate duty of care to keep staff and visitors safe, and when guards are being shoved into the water, brawls are breaking out and premises are being broken into, stepping up security is a proportionate response rather than an overreaction. Protecting facilities and staff also protects access for the great majority of visitors who simply want somewhere safe to cool off, and doing nothing while incidents escalate would risk pools being forced to close altogether during the very heatwave when people need them most.

The case against

Others would caution against framing this primarily as a policing problem, arguing that record heat has driven unprecedented, unplanned crowds into a small number of free or low-cost outdoor spaces that were never built for such volumes, and that disorder is as much a symptom of overcrowding and inadequate youth provision as of bad behaviour. On this view, heavier security risks deterring or excluding teenagers – especially those from less affluent families who rely on public lidos rather than private pools or gardens – without tackling the underlying shortage of accessible ways to cope with extreme heat.