When Defensive Tactics Become "Offensive"

Rich H

That's right Scab - well done. The sia didn't write the core competencies. If you are after some specifics, then the original NOS was designed by a panel selected from commercial CP companies. Some individuals on that panel were from 22 and Rmp but had not even attended their own units CP course or indeed anyother one whatsoever.

It must be appreciated that the list of core competencies are based solely around CP operations within the UK, hence, the obvious absence of weapons training and related disciplines. In light of this, it must also be made aware the absence of unarmed combat training related to the protection of a third party, which is very relevant to operating in the UK as elsewhere. The nearest description one can find relating to the subject is one of ‘Control and Restraint’ in ‘National Occupational Standards for Close Protection, Skills For Security’, under the heading, ‘Unit PCP 9, Control and Restraint to support Close Protection’. ‘Control and Restraint’ (C & R) is terminology predominantly used by the Police, Prison Service and Health Service in the use of arrest and detention applications and can be defined as, ‘A method used to safely restrain a person that poses a serious risk to the health and safety of themselves or others’, (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2006). C & R consists of holds and releases from holds and restraint positions. Therefore, should a CPO be providing protection on his own as an individual bodyguard (IBG) and they and their ‘protectee’ be confronted by multiple assailants, i.e. more than one; - Who is providing the protection when the assailant is being restrained by the bodyguard? Indeed, if we simplify the scenario further by reducing to just one assailant - how long should the BG restrain the assailant? For, if he is to release the restraint, the apprehended individual becomes an assailant once more. The Principal is certainly not going to wait until the Police arrive on scene. It is imperative that the bodyguard must know how to handle those using verbal and physical attack whilst controlling and protecting the Principal at the same time. The only method to be adopted is the gradual escalation and application of force that is reasonable on another, in direct relation to the force, or threat of force, being received and remaining within the constraints of the law. This can legally involve pre-emptive strikes. The legal definition of self-defence is; ‘Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defence of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances’, (Lectric Law Library, 2006).

‘Physical Intervention Skills’ is listed under ‘Skills for Employment’ by the SIA, but is not part of the core competencies, and states that this, ‘Must be determined by the training providers…and remains the responsibility of the employer and/ or training provider’, (SIA, 2006:5). In other words, this subject could, (is), omitted in its entirety in commercial CP training with the newly qualified civilian CPO being absolutely untrained in any protection related or self-defence combat skills/ methods, other than control and restraint techniques. “In determining which competencies should be mandatory, the SIA has chosen not to include specific skills for employment such as physical intervention skills...”, (SIA, 2006). This is a disturbing fact when one considers the primary function of a close protection operative is to ensure the security and the safety of the Principal.

The core competencies are in effect 'written' by the SIA as they 'signed them off' to that effect. Regardless, they will be rightly blamed.


Rich H

yoda

Great post, and once again another issue with different opinions and views.

Cheers

James Mc

I think the easiest way of putting it is that the industry has grown & diversified, however the training hasn't kept pace!

Thus we have the present skill gap.

The industry is constantly changing & growing, so must the standards, certification & recognition of the training

James Mc

Rich H

Absolutely James,

That said, I know of a few companies that were providing better training before the sia licensing than what they are currently delivering. It's amazing isn't it. The very licensing process implemented to raise standards has, in effect, restricted it due to poor, narrow sighted and cost cutting measures recommended by elements of the commercial sector. Government departments not liaising with other governments departments in seeking advice from the very experts of the UK CP field; the military and the police.

We are all in agreement to the diabolical shambles that this 'Authority' has created. A debacle is indeed an understatement.

Rich H

Scab

No Rich, the core competencies were not written by the sia. The expert group wrote them. The steering group accepted them on behalf of the industry and on behalf of the SIA. It was after that that the SIA stripped what they thought was not needed from the MINIMUM's the industry said was needed.

I can inform you that the majority of the members of the expert & steering groups included individuals (it was not limited to businesses) & companies which are or were very prominent in the industry and very very well regarded. Its actally quite ironc that all over this website people are unwittingly singing their praises of their courses and knowledge, and here and indeed in other places; people go so far as to suggest they don't know what they are talking about, simply because they did not pass through a course in the military. What if their extensive knowledge and experience came as a result of working on the circuit? Does that make them any less credible?

Getting into the point of the C&R training; mentioning that it is up to the training provider to determine how they (if they choose) deliver that aspect is providing a great deal of flexibility. Again, we say C&R, or Physical intervention; its down to the supposedly experienced training providers to determine the best training. However; many don't because they do not need to.

Have a general look at courses and compare the decent ones to what the SIA's requirements are on the website.

"Search Awareness"

Surely search methodology is better than being 'aware' of searches? What does that even mean?!?

Respectfully, I think you are getting a little hung up on politically correct terminology. What counts is the training delivered and the companies who take it seriously go above and beyond what the SIA state is required. And again, the SIA did NOT write the NOS. They did not approve the NOS, the industry did.

Even when the draft NOS went out to wider consultation the feedback came back as either very positive of the draft or mediocre (the content of the feedback, not of the draft!)

What the SIA did was just rip apart the months of work the Expert & Steering groups put in for not even so much as a formal thanks.

James Mc

To be honest they have let the industry down in some respects.

However they are here & we have to abide by the standards they set, but with a bit of thinking outside the box training providers can still deliver training well above & beyond the minimum standards, thus providing good trained CPO's.

It's all we can do & to be honest if they don't offer improved add on's they may find their numbers dropping & it will certinaly be intresting as & when they change the mil resettlement package & companies who are fighting for places on the civil market can show what they have to offer.

James Mc

Scab

The sia have let the industry down completely and utterly. But we do not have to abide by the standards they set. We have to hit the minimums. They are not stopping anyone going over that. Maybe people are just ignorant of that fact; Minimums are just that.

If anyone says anything along the lines of "We only do this because the SIA says so" then in my humble opinion, they are not worth listening to.

jmaccauley

So Gentleman, what I am seeing is typical government CYA. They acknowledge that the skills are needed and necessary, but are not willing to stand behind the training. That way when it goes south they have someone, other than themselves, to blame. Seems a world wide problem. Nice to know we're not alone on this issue.

Any suggestions on minimum training requirements for physical intervention? Should there be a force continuum (which is being phased out in the US incidentally)? Or some other standard?

Rich H

Scabby,

I am fully aware of what the sia has and has not done. I'm not about to have a slanging match on a play with words. Yes, you are right, as I have said that the NOS were devised by a steering group but the SIA are overall responsible for what is and what isn't included.

Since the introduction of licensing in the UK in 2006 I have been frustrated with the initial core competency framework of the National Occupational Standards, (NOS), and Accreditation of Prior Learning, (APL), as set by the British Governments Security Industry Authority, (SIA). I subsequently authored a research report – An Examination of the Required Operational Skills and Training Standards for a close protection officer in the United Kingdom and have persistently lobbied for changes directly to the Home Office, The Cabinet Office, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Skills For Security and the SIA themselves. The sole aim - to raise the decided standards and implement a more reality driven framework for the basis of APL, Close protection training, operational standards, and the employment practise of CP Officers in the UK. In 2008, I was selected as a member of the Expert Consultation Group for reviewing the NOS. After the first meeting I became further infuriated at the disjointed organisation of the criteria process for reviewing the standards, the bureaucracy involved to implement change to the core competency framework and the overall disinterest by both organisations that should be involved in rectifying omissions and the wrongs with both the NOS and APL. I then authored the Close Protection National Occupational Standards Review Report 2008, a review with strong recommendations for change to both the NOS and APL and submitted the report to all those government and commercial organisations as before. I then removed himself from the Expert Consultation Group in protest. Incidentally, having extensively researched this matter, I know every single person who was sat round that table during the initial consultation process and believe me, it is scary.

Regarding your perspective of 'Flexibility' concerning C&R - this is absolutely wrong. It should be made mandatory without question, as should Advanced Driving.

Like it or not, the relevant experts in this field are the military and police and it is these units that the government should have first sought advice. With no knowledge on CP the SIA have sought, listened to and adhered to, advice and information on Close Protection matters from individuals that are not deemed as experts in their field by the Governments own authority on such matters; the MOD; the Royal Military Police Close Protection Unit and 22SAS, and also Police Protection units. As a result, they have implemented measures concerning licensing that illustrates a severe lack of understanding of the subject matter as previously discussed. Both standards and training competencies had to be established. In a democratic society this means by committee, and in a community with strong minded individuals, everyone has to ‘push’ their view. So, having started to design a horse the finished product ends up with stripes, a long neck and two humps as did the CP competencies.

The Close Protection National Occupational Standards, (NOS), were established by S4S, (SITO), and from this, the core competencies determined that must be covered by training providers on close protection courses. According to ‘Skills For Security’ and the SIA, driving within the role of Close Protection is not deemed important to be made mandatory training and is not listed in the core competencies one should attain. It does however, mention the use of ‘close- protection vehicle techniques’ but this specialist area is unbalanced in the list when one considers that basic driving skills should be first improved upon before one conducts such training. Another confusing aspect is that ‘PCP 7, National Occupational Standards’, does contain the heading, ‘Maintain the safety and security of Principal’s whilst in transit’, but only under the subject heading of, ‘Surveillance Awareness’, (SIA: 2006), and no where does it refer to the standard of driving to be attained. It is imperative to note that ‘Driving Skills’ is listed with ‘Physical Intervention Skills’; as ‘Skills for Employment’ and not as part of any mandatory SIA core competencies, and therefore not obligatory.

The SIA have consulted with the commercial Close Protection industry as a result of lack of knowledge on the subject matter and the importance of obtaining knowledge, combined with and influenced by, contacts and relationships with commercial figures. It appears the SIA have either been naïve in their decision making process regarding the consulting of relevant experts, or have conflicting loyalties between that of Government, (working to obtain expert, unbiased, effective and accurate advice), and that of commercial companies. In so far as the SIA addresses the quality of private security provision, it does so by reference to the commercial vales of ‘best practice’ and ‘competitiveness and effectiveness’ rather than articulated ethical standards. Improving the quality of security services is sold as a way to increase access to markets without focusing on training and operational best practise.

Rich H