RobinB

Do you agree with me or not ? All comments read with interest - Robin

How the Government has failed the British Close Protection Industry

Established in 2003, The Security Industry Authority (sia) was set up “to raise standards of professionalism and skills within the private security industry and to promote and spread best practice”. It reports directly to the British Government's Home Office, and its remit is “to help protect society by collaboratively developing and achieving high standards within the private security industry”. However, in my opinion, specifically within the Close Protection sector (as well as the door supervisor area) , it has done just the opposite.


Anyone entering the Close Protection industry in the UK must have a license and the only way to get a license is to attended a training course accredited by the SIA. You must have one of these qualifications before you can apply for a front line Close Protection licence; 1) Certificate in Protective Security from the Buckinghamshire New University, 2) Level 3 Certificate in Close Protection from the City & Guilds and 3) Level 3 BTEC Certificate in Close Protection Operations from Edexcel. Once you have attended and passed one of these three courses, you can then apply for your licence at a further costs of £245.00 (490 USD) every three years. At the time of writing this, there were 4,117 valid licences, 32 have been revoked and 101 refused.


I agree with licensing and I also totally agree with good training, accountability and transparency within this specific sector of security, however in the Government's rush and quest to control everything and everyone, it has made the close protection industry frighteningly more dangerous for both operators and, more importantly, the clients themselves. What once once a unique, elite industry manned by some of the best trained professional operatives in the world, is now open to absolutely anyone - anyone from any background can now protect another human being against the threat of assault, kidnap and ultimately Assassination. You can be a over-weight, unfit, supermarket shelf filler, who has not done one minute of exercise or self defence, and still attend, and pass, a Close Protection training course, and apply for and receive a front-line license. In my opinion, this is not making the industry more professional, it is turning the British close protection industry into a global laughing stock.


Admittedly, like every in industry, there were cowboys in this industry as well; there were people running correspondence courses in close protection, there were farcical courses run by people with absolutely no experience what so ever and there were so-called 'CP' courses based entirely on unarmed combat. And admittedly, the sia has rid the industry of most of these clowns. However, prior to the SIA, the industry was pretty much self-governing; contracts were awarded to operatives via recommendations and referrals and only to those that had attended peer recognised training. And recognised training companies never accepted people on their course that were not of a high enough calibre. Yes, it was unfortunate for those shelf-fillers that had wasted their hard-earned money on a unrecognised course, but the industry is ultimately there to protect people against the gravest of threats, and not for feeling sorry for the wannabes who had wasted their money. Now, however, the sole priority for most Close Protection training companies is to pass as many students as possible – who would attend a course with a company that only had a 50% pass rate, even if those 50% were the best of the best? In my opinion most training companies now are only motivated by profit, not by producing an elite team of professionals.

A short while ago I was a guest at a local Close protection training course, talking about living and working in Russia (my speciality). The classroom was on the second floor, on the way up to the classroom I passed a twenty something stone 'student' who was puffing and panting his way up the stairs. During the talk I asked all those students who in the class felt they could 'look after themselves.' Everyone put up their hand. I then asked who had had intensive close quarter self defence training. One person, from a class of thirteen, put up her hand. Everyone said they could 'look after themselves', yet no one knew how to! And if they didn't know how to look after themselves, how did they expect to look after a client? EVERYONE passed the course.


This is what the sia has done to the industry, it has opened it up to absolutely everyone and anyone, regardless of their background, experience or capabilities. They have given the job of protecting somebody against a possible threat of Assassination to absolutely anyone. There are many clients, contractors and employers that now just ask if you have an sia licence, regardless of your background or experience - not because they want to, but because they have to. They want to provide the best service possible but in many cases are limited to employing just those with SIA licenses. As I mentioned earlier, my speciality is high-risk protection in Russia. I have lived and worked in Moscow for many years, my wife is Russian and also from a security background. I know the city as well as my home city and I have hundreds of contacts, yet I was recently turned down for a job because the contractor was British and I did not have an SIA license – the job was given to someone with a license but who had never stepped foot in Russia. This is what the SIA has done.


I recently attended a SIA network meeting. In an open question forum I asked the SIA: if licensing was supposed to professionalise the industry, why can almost anyone pass an SIA course, surely this is a contradiction in terms? They had no answer.


There are still many good, honourable, experienced, professionals working within this industry sector here in the UK, but since the SIA introduced licensing, there are 1000x more wannabes than there ever were.


©Robin Barratt
www.the-bba.org.uk

def

if you can `t beat what you see as unfair ,why not do the sia course. Or make the change and train the wanabees !! with your skills and help the job you love can make the differents between p*ss poor and up to the mark
def

RobinB

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the training is bad - there are some well respected training providers, providing some really excellent training. I am just pointing out how, in my opinion, the industry has changed so much over these past few years since the sia and how many more people are now in the industry that would have never have been in it years ago.

Is this a good or bad thing ? - this is my discussion.

Yes, over the past few years since returning to the UK I have thought many times about taking an SIA course, but I have only rarely worked here in the UK, and actually am rarely operational now, and 46 years old !! Should I spend the money on something that I really wouldn't use ? Instead I hope to take a degree in Protective Studies - I always regretted quitting uni so now I can!

Thanks for your feedback.

Hawk

Several years ago when we heard the industry was going to be licensed, I thought ?
In Scandinavia the security industry have been licensed since the early 1940´s when Securitas was created in Sweden (maybe have the wrong decade?)
But atleast since the 40´s..
The Police and the Government have the authorisation system, for diffrent services.
However NO individuals are aloud to operate in Sweden only authorised security companies with trained staff.
And where the training companies also have to have authorisation from the national police and the Government.
A securityguard have to have 3 weeks training with specific hours scheduled out such as laws, defense, fire, ethics etc..
If they want to work with Close Protection (armed) its a specific authorisation only given to the 7-8 biggest companies since this is not a security company service ( its police)
and that means its only given as a side thing to other services.
Aditional 95 hours is a must plus 21 hours tactical pistol training since CP operatives are legaly armed in Sweden.

If a security company want to employ staff..the individual has to be vetted by police and given OK..and then the application goes into the Government where if nothing (CBC) is shown on his/hers register they are auhtorised if they have the training ofcourse.

This means companies are licensed to operate with authorised staff.
And only for the services (authorised for).

I heard this system was the one they wanted to adapt in UK.
But instead they licensed every one with a sia course and written exam.

Also a interesting thing only 3 companies are working with authorised security courses in Sweden. And that means the bigger companies are given authorisation to do inhouse training if they hold the license for this, however they are only permitted to train there own staff.

Last year they also changed the hole system, the Government want to remove all small providers on the market, and only have the bigger ones left.
(incl services) due to alot of unprofessional behavior.

If a person is quiting his/her job with a security company they have 3 months to apply for a new position within a authorised security company ( and then the company dont have to pay the license fee that is about 50£ (one time cost) if youre staying with the same company..
If you change within the 3 month period no costs come to the new contracting company, if more then 3 months is past they ask for the 50£ again.

Also the security companies have to be a member within the industry training organisation. So a small tax goes to the transportation union, and when a company want his staff trained he hardly dont pay anything for the student.

This system have been working for 40-50 years..and only controlled companies are alod to operate, and no individuals, this some might think is bad some good.
but it does give a special trust to the industry, specially for a client.
Since just any muppet can write and make it with a test..

He / she still might not be suitable for the position.

When it comes to public order guard they have Police authority.
And use the police laws when operate and work.
They can make arrest or use force as a police man but only on the site they are working, and are only trained by the Police force..no training companies are aload here..

Just a explanation of how things work in my region and their is good and bad things ofcourse with all systems, but I have to say our is working out good and we hardly have any complaints.
It has been very difficult to get this authorisation now.,
And proof of experience is a must for obtaining this.
Also uniformes, equipment, company logotypes, personnel, contracts, insurances, tax, debts, the owners/directors past history (financial, criminal, etc.. is vetted)

If anyone have any questions about this, feel free to ask
Robin, I was told by the Police I were up for exemtion, due to my previous training, and having a authorised course in Europe, but no..it had to be 3 years old, and I actually lost interest when they have lost my 2 application..

And I will never work in UK hehe

cheers
Hawk

80085

Personally before you take up a CP course I think that a students fitness should be up to a basic level. I also think that everyone should have some knowledge of close combat or defensive training.

Again it is up to each individual to progress with their training. As CP course is only basic knowledge to build upon. Like a building, a good foundation makes a building stand strong.

Experience and further training is the making of a good CPO. This is the info the government forget to mention... Self investment.

__________________
.

Heno

Robin,

Good topic and hopefully someone from the sia will take heed of the comments have been made and watch the thread as it grows.

I agree that the industry did require some form of licencing, the failure was giving it to a bunch of civil servants that don't have any working experience. They've never stood in a hotel corridor or planned a route with alternatives etc, nor have they stood on a door in the cold and had to tell a bunch of drunken numptys that they weren't coming in and then dealing with the consequences of that.

As for fitness and self defence skills, I've been on courses that have had some grossly overweigh/unfit/incapable of defending themselves (let alone a client) and they passed, this was before licencing by the way.

As part of the requirements to get a licence, I would suggest that a basic fitness test be carried out PRIOR to beginning the course. Should the candidate fail, then they should not be allowed to participate until they can pass the BFT.

Self defence skills are not hard to learn, in fact only a few basic strikes can turn someone into a capable fighter (W.E. Fairbairn was into simplicity, and just look what he was capable of), it's actually having the self discipline to practice practice practice until it becomes instinctive that needs to be drilled in and what I find worse than having no self defense skills, are skills that belong in the dojo/Hollywood/In Chuck Norris movies,although having said that, I feel that every BG hould be able to do a backflip through a window and roundhose kick 5 assailants in the head

Heno

RobinB

Absolutely agree - the initial course should only be an initial course, but for many it is not; they take one course, once and that is it. How many sia badged CPOs can honestly say that they have started CQC classes after their course (if they have had no prior training?) How many can honestly say they have embarked on a fitness regime ?

Of course this does not mean that those totally unsuitable yet with their SIA badge will ever get work, of course not, but the discussion is whether it is a good or bad thing to open this sector up to everyone, regardless.

The consequences of this can be huge and frightening, and will only come to light when something tragic happens to a client and the CPO was found not to have coped...yet had an SIA badge.

As you will probably understand, I was not accusing CP training companies as a group, but you must agree that many are financially morivated and will take every single student even though many students are simply not fit to work in this specialised sector. Is this right ? Should we give everyone the opportunity to work as a CPO, even if they are really not suitable, or should the industry be specifically for those that are suitable. I do fundementally disagree with elitism, but should this industry be elite ?

As Hawk suggests, elitism in Sweden works because the sector is specific and demanding, and those not suitable could not enter the industry. Yet when he tried to work in the UK the sia lost his applications...twice. The SIA's remit is professionalism in the industry, but this seems to exclude the SIA!!!

Thanks for your comments.

Robin

Heno

I disagree with elitism also, however, I disagree with amatuerism more, to use an old phrase

"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional.....try hiring an amatuer"

A single course entitles the candidate to legally work as a CPO, but what are the chances of said candidate actually finding work if they are 20stone, unfit and only have that one certificate?

I agree that some companies will take anyone on their courses, and that begs another question, who vets their students (Mark Yates, jihad cheallenge anyone?).

They may not get the licence, but they can still get the training.

Fitness and vetting do warrant futher consideration for the SIA, these should be done before the course, I know that there would be some issues regarding that practicles of the vetting but it's not insurmountable.

Heno

80085

Mmm the SIA... alot not to be said about them. Although, incompetant springs to mind. Whilst the idea was good in theory, but nooo!

Talking on the phone to an operator who has not got a clue as to what you are talking about...very frustrating to say the least. You would think they would have the CSO's trained to competancy level, to a particular sector. This way they would have some idea of what you are asking when you telephone the helpline...but nooo.

__________________
.