Private Investigor Course's

[hippy]

nmc, if you read my earlier posts you will note I have already suggested that smooth holds off on a course due to the delay in SIA licencing... And for that very reason he should hold of on surveillance training as well.. Well certainly any training that is going to cost.. In fact surveillance is prbably one of the least used skills by the average PI in this country. Most work consists of serving court papers....

[isstraining]

I thought that last post and advice a bit unrealistic. What does this guy want: to be trained in surveillance or want of a licence?

If he doesn't have any surveillance training, I or any of the other security companies that I am involved in won't employ him. Would you?

He will end up being licenced for something that he is not trained to do because the SIA is just after our licence fees.

Let's look at it in real life terms, conversation:-

Smoothopertaor: 'Excuse me PI, can I have a job doing surveillance?'

PI: 'What training have you had?'

Smoothoperator: 'Er, none but I have a licence!"

PI: 'Licence to do what? nice photograph by the way.'

Smoothoperator: 'Be a private eye'

PI: Yes, but what surveillance training have you had?'

Smoothoperator: 'Er not much really, in fact none!"

PI: 'Well fuck off and get some'

End of conversation. True or false?


BTW, I and most of the guys I work with have been carrying out surveillance more or less every week for the past 16 years and not served a single document in that time. It is what you choose to do....

Peter
ISS Training Ltd

[hippy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by isstraining IBTW, I and most of the guys I work with have been carrying out surveillance more or less every week for the past 16 years and not served a single document in that time. It is what you choose to do.... Peter ISS Training Ltd

Peter, that is because that is the work you specalise in.. However pick up a yellow pages and thumb through it.. Most 'PI's spend their time working for solicitors... Only the larger companies run proper surveillance tasks and they tend to be, such as yours, specialists in such areas.. Would you suggest that someone who is asking how to get a 'PI' licence just fork out for any course without knowing if in a few months time it will be one excepted by the SIA? The question was not "How do I become a surveillance operative?" was it..


Indeed it is what you choose to do.. personally I wouldn't serve papers.. Long hours, with not much to show for it is my understanding... Bu

[isstraining]

Hi Hippy,

Agree, but that's why I suggested to Smoothoperator to take a look at Jigsaw Services, a short and cheap alternative to understand the industry before committing to full time training.

I was on another forum not so long ago and someone put up a naive posting saying that training was a waste of time and a rip off by the training companies. I don't think he did himself any favours as he admitted that he had not undergone any type of investigation training whatsoever and he was 'doing okay'. Don't think he got much work after that! He had a nice fancy website as well.

Cheers

Peter
ISS Training Ltd

[littlewoman]

The PI licensing was sent back to the Home Office to be reconsidered in January after the SIA realised (with a little help) that some of what they were classing as PI work was also carried out by CPO's and that the legislation they were about to bring in would stop CPO's doing some aspects of their work.
So I would imagine it will be some time before we see SIA accredited qualifications.

[hippy]

Peter,

I wouldn't for a moment suggest that training was awaste of time.. I am a qualified trainer myself... My concern is not the training companies (well not the good ones anyway and if you check other threads you will see I have reccomended your company to people asking about surveillance training) but the problems caused by the SIA and their somewhat abstruse choices...

I just dont wish to see people spend money on a course that will not help them obtain the little piece of plastic... I'm having enough issues with it and I have a govt background in investigations as well as an NVQ (level 4)..

I take on board what you say about 'Jigsaw'.. I have been sceptical about 'introductory' courses in the past, but mostly as they are often run by the get rich quick brigade... Not knowing Jigsaw I cant comment personally on them in particular, but if they are good enough for you, then their good enough for me!

[isstraining]

Littlewoman, Hippy,

Can't be long cos' I'm busy but what Littewoman said is partly right. It was voiced that 'why do CPO's have to become licenced under the PI scheme because they do surveillance work on their downtime?' They would end up being licensed twice and I agree, it shouldn't happen but the SIA has to make a stand somewhere. Look at it from the other perspective, a PI is quiet from doing investigation work and takes up a bit of CP work, does he have to get a CPO licence? All the CPO's would rightly so say yes.

Which goes to prove how confused the SIA really is and I am not always this polite.

I wrote this below on another forum that you may be interested in about the SIA and the investigation sector in response to someone who said that training was a waste of time. Its quite a bit but take time to read it.

>>>>
I think that the newbies coming into the industry (investigation or surveillance) are being given bad advice from those that have not got their eyes on the SIA ball or misunderstand what is going on in the industry. This is a long one, but bear with me, you might learn something that you did not know 5 minutes ago.

People go on training courses to get trained, in order to self improve and to do the job they claim to do, properly. Why do people say that it is a waste of time paying for training if it will not help them get a licence? If we all had that attitude, we would all have a nice SIA licence but would be shite at the job because we have had no training in what we are licensed to do.

My uncle’s got a taxi cab licence but he’s a crap driver…

Last August the SIA produced a document called the ‘Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment’. It was a suggestion by the SIA on how to regulate the investigation (and surveillance) industry inviting responses from those with ‘boots on the ground’ for their opinions. These opinions had to be sent back to the SIA by the 24th October 2007.

The SIA claim there are over 10,000 working in the investigation industry (ker fucking ching for them). No more than 200 responses were returned!!! Mainly due to apathy – the SIA are not listening so why bother!

In this document, the SIA suggested that licencing will either be ‘non-competence’ based (just take your money, no training) or ‘competence’ based (take your money, with training (by us or our agents)).

Either way, if the SIA says that it will grant licences to PI’s without having to go through any training (no competency). The guys with a licence will not be qualified or experienced to do what they are licenced to do.

Hope you are following this but would you give a surveillance job to someone who has a nice little plastic card with a photograph on it but has not had any training? Probably not.

The other option suggested by the SIA was to be ‘competency based’ which meant that you have to undergo some form of training (sounds good so far). They stated that you have to be competent in the following five disciplines:-

1. Conduct investigations
2. Conduct interview
3. Search for information and preserve evidence
4. Conduct Surveillance
5. Understanding and working to relevant Laws and Standards

However, this sounded really good until the SIA went on to say that you would have to attend a 3 day training course in order to cover the above topics and pass an assessment test. And by the way it will cost £900.00!

I nearly fell off my fucking ivory tower! Three days and 900 quid! Our course is 5 days, a fraction of the price and you get a BTEC out of it!

What was pathetic about their suggestion (apart from the cost) was the fact that you had to cover the 5 subjects in 3 days. Realistically that’s 3.5 hours per subject when you take out the intro’s, breaks & lunches, and the SIA reckon that proves competency!

What I am getting at? If the SIA decides to go down the competency route, runs their nice little 3 day course and issues licences, I still will not employ anyone who is not sufficiently trained or experienced, be it in surveillance, conduct interviews or otherwise. Ask yourself, would you?

The SIA has just announced that the results from the RIA will be announced on 30th April 08.

If anyone wants a copy of the SIA Regulatory Impact Assessment’ just email me with ‘SIA Bullshit’ in the Subject line and I will email it to you, although it is too late for you to respond.

Cheers

Peter
ISS Training Ltd

[hippy]

Peter,

Very interesting.. I do agree that training shouldn't just be about 'getting the ticket'.. It does need to expand ones skill base.. I in fact often use the "Just cause he has a driving licence, would you employ him as a taxi driver" when HR are banging on at me for being "too chosey" over who I employ!!

But, I do feel that people need to get the basic ticket first.. Imagine spending several hundred of your hard earn't, on differing specialist courses and finally attend the one that gives you the tick in the box, only on applying for that wonderfull bit of plastic, just to discover you aren't able to get a licence due to something in for past.. I, for example had a hell of a struggle to get my cp licence....
"Why?" you cry!! "Are you some convicted fellon?" No! I just lived abroad a lot and the SIA were a complete pain, changing their mind about what they wanted from various countries!!!!

And now I await the new licence with baited breath... I still aint sure if I need one or not as the SIA seem unable to tell me. Littlewoman kindly passed a snippit of information to me that I followed up on and I am awaiting the response! I dont know if I will need to undertake some form of training or sit an exam or not... Some 22 years involved in investigations, in both public and private sectors.
HODT course passed many years ago, NVQ etc, etc and I have no idea what is needed...

[littlewoman]

isstraining,
The surveillance work done by CPO's I was referring to was not PI type work done when no CP work was available but CPO's doing surveillance on a threat in order to give the PES a heads up that they were up to something (for instance watching key activists at times when the Principal is vulnerable so that if they start to meet up in groups you can up the security or change plans).
You said I was partly right. Which bit wasn't right?

[isstraining]

Hi Littlewoman,

I said partly right because the PI licencing criteria (for want of a better word) was 'sent back' for a number of reasons not just your comment. You were correct in what you said.

The point you made is a very good argument and it will be interesting to see what the SIA say. Logic states that as part of the SIA/CP course you have to have an awareness of surveillance and so can possibly get away with it.

I don't know what the answer is. No doubt the SIA will conjure up some fancy terms like 'protective surveillance' is allowed, 'directed investigative' is not but hey, who's policing it!

If you don't mind, I will put your scenario to an investigator sector that I am involved in for their comment, interesting one.

Cheers

Peter
ISS Training Ltd