Whether providing security for state visits and political conferences, or protecting sensitive sites during protests and periods of heightened terrorist threat, security supervisors face the unenviable task of choosing from a myriad of temporary physical perimeter barriers. As with all security measures, they must navigate the trade-off between cost and level of security provided. But they also must weigh the logistical cost of setting up and dismantling temporary barriers; traditionally, the higher the required level of security, the greater the expense, personnel requirements and setup/dismantling time.  

One of the main requirements of a temporary fence is that it should not require foundations, but finding a suitable alternative is not as easy as it might appear. In the past mesh fence panels, secured at either end with weighted "feet", were considered adequate protection against most threats, providing as they did a simple, versatile and rapidly deployable barrier. But these previously ubiquitous fences are now largely considered inadequate in the face of a concerted terrorist attack on a high-risk facility, or even as a means of keeping out determined protestors. Even when they are secured with concrete feet - rather than the increasingly common water-filled plastic ones - they can be breached relatively quickly, and are generally not rated to stop a moving vehicle.  

But as demand for higher-specification temporary barriers has increased, so fencing manufacturers have moved swiftly